Are cis white people actually evil?

>>7394055
no
>>>/tumblr/

>>7394055

You posted a picture of a man hugging a cat when there are africans starving to death in Africa.

Of course white people are evil your pic is proof

>>7394075
Caraposter is also evil.

>>7394075
why don't you post a wall of text from that blog again, you know, as proof.

>>7394095
I'm a straight white male, fight me !

>>7394075
She is so god damned ugly and the clothes her handlers dress her in are absolutely basic and bland.

>>7394153
who tries to trick you ? which thread ?

Yes. White genocide cuándo?

>>7394055
Bubbles is cute! Cute!!!

>>7394060
fpbp
/thread

>>7394055
Are there any groups of people that aren't evil?

>>7394202
yes, if there was a group of me, we wouldn't be evil.

>>7394055
Some, I assume, are good people.

>>7399041
"Let us dissect the delusional phrase, "homosexuality is not a choice."
First, we must establish some axioms and definitions.
-One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.
-Biologically necessary activities of desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations: e.g., procurement and consumption of resources, expurgation of waste, survival to sexual maturity, sexual reproduction, and education of the young.
-Desires are either biological or psychological in character; they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.
-Desires are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires. Consider an example: A person who has never had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol's sake, but only for some other sake, e.g., acceptance in a peer group. Further, a person who has not acquired a refined taste for scotch through frequent consumption thereof cannot desire to drink Oban for Oban's sake, but only for the sake of scotch in general, for curiosity, or for something else.
Therefore, habitual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
-Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
-The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.
-One is a homosexual if and only if one either 1) engages in homosexual activity, 2) has homosexual desires, or 3) has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity."

>>7399045
"With all these laid down, what follows is all possible propositions.
If 1): One engages in homosexual activity either A) voluntarily or B) involuntarily,
(1.A): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(1.B): One is compelled to engage either i) psychologically or ii) physically, by another, and homosexuality is not a choice.
(1.B.i): One is mentally ill, by definition of mental illness.
If (2): One desires homosexuality either A) innately or B) habitually,
(2.B): One has acquired homosexual desires through homosexual activity. If one acquires these involuntarily through involuntary engagements in homosexual activity, one is either coerced by another or one is mentally ill. Otherwise homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A): One is either i) able to refrain from satisfying these innate homosexual desires or ii) unable to refrain.
(2.A.i): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A.ii): One is mentally ill, by definition of mental illness.
If (3): One either chooses to be homosexual or homosexuality is a mental illness.

Therefore, homosexuals are mentally ill if and only if they do not choose to be homosexual and are not physically compelled by another to engage in homosexual activities. However, that is not the end of the discussion. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviours, is inherently self-destructive and causes self-harm. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviours, is statistically one of the most self-harmful. Willful pursuit or practice of a behaviour-or group of behaviours-that is inherently self-harmful is a mental illness."

>>7399052
"Marriage as a government institution is designed to incentivize childbirth and attempt to ensure that children (future citizens) are raised in the most stable environment possible-that being a two parent, mother and father, household. This is because all studies of marriage and familial relationships through thousands of years of recorded human history prove said environment is the most nurturing and stable. As a government institution, gays have no claim to being recognized-nor is it unfairly discriminatory-since it seeks to create an outcome which gays simply cannot provide.
Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the parameters of that religion. Christian doctrine, for example, says gays cannot marry. They, they cannot, when considering marriage as a religious institution. This applies to any religion that does or does not allow gay marriage."

>>7399055
Marriage as a social institution merely proclaims mutual love between two people. This is unregulated and unaffected by legal institution. Anyone can say they're married to anyone as long as the other party is consenting. Essentially, gay marriage seeks to turn the institution into a purely social union, since government subsidized gay marriage is a tax drain. This will have cultural and societal implications once marriage is devalued. Regarding marriage itself, the institution is not a human right. No is it definitionally an all-inclusive bastion of equality. See above for its definitions. Equality of race, an equally incorrect concept, does not imply that a caucasoid could claim to be an Australian aborigine to reap the benefits of assistance programs for aboriginal groups. Nor is marriage discrimination. The creation of a definition for a word in no way intends persecution of things to which the word does not apply. The slippery slope fallacy is often brought up, by gays, as a means by which to discredit the belief that "normalizing" homosexual relationships will lead to the "normalization" of other universally incorrect behaviours. Those who oppose gay marriage are often called 'bigots' (without regard for the definition of the word), but those who oppose polygamy, incest, and pedophilia (even ephebophilia) are well within their rights to do so. Those who support these things are 'crazy' and even 'mentally ill', just as gays were until a vote in 1970 ignored the science of their affliction and removed them from the DSM. But if we are allowing gay marriage to be seen as 'normal', what right to gays have to restrict polygamists, incestuals, and pedophiles from receiving the same 'equality'?

>>7399064
"Homosexuals also use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal. The argument that gays cannot use their 'partners' in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of these examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word 'women' to mean 'men' so that they could enter. Nor is it the job of the government to change the hospital's policy. In a free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter. Homosexuals denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities of marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly deviating from its original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversion of that meaning?"

>>7399070
"'Marriage' has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage? Homosexuals claim that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays cannot reproduce. This, again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose-breeding rights. The right (decision_) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their indented purpose, and they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more that it proves they shouldn't. Homosexuals will argue that they 'deserve' the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or nonsexual relationships 'deserve' said advantages, as well. Why, then does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits? Finally, homosexuals will argue that their ability to marry will 'not affect' heterosexual marriage or family values. However, this, again, does not prove anything about a necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion-fallacious, in this case, or otherwise-that the majority won't be affected."

>>7399060
I don't want to execute homosexuals, I just think that it is learned through moral subjectivism/the subversion of the fabric of a traditionalist society's ethics. It does nothing to advance a civilization, it is self-destructive. Promoting them as "equals" is just incorrect.

>>7399041
>>7399045
>>7399052
>>7399055
>>7399064
>>7399070
>>7399082
Have none of you people ever heard of a tl:dr?

Whites are literally the least homophobic race on Earth. Being anti-White is being implicitly anti-gay.

File: 54783279.png (64KB, 756x342px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 756x342px

>>7399098
I have noticed an interesting trend: the subversive nature of the shill becomes exponentially overt as you engage in conversation and prod away. For one, simple, one-line, indolent responses paired with pictures of attractive people and some "wow, really makes u think" shit. You have a point and I agree with you, but I also suspect that you are leading me on.
>>7399111
Nice digits, I'm all the same person.

>>7399128
>>7399201
stop talking to yourself u idiot

File: 46782673.png (34KB, 734x182px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 734x182px

>>7399201
>It's no meme.
I still reserve my suspicions. Post a screenshot of how large your Cara folder is, if you wouldn't mind.
>Do you agree that transwomen work to subvert sacred femininity by remaking it visually through the male gaze and thus reducing the biological importance of the female form through solely highlighting it's "beautiful" elements and not it's sexual elements?
Physical attractiveness is sexual. Wide hips are attractive because of their biological implications (the concepts behind child-rearing, large breasts as a sign of fertility, etc.).
If by beautiful, you mean just makeup and shit, then yes. But they take hormones in order to get their body in the shape of a female, which is "beautiful", which is sexually charged. But it cannot be (it's an ambush, not a trap). They are degenerates through and through, cutting off your dick in order to change the makeup of trillions of your cells is a mental illness.

>>7399209
oops

>>7394075
reminder to report and hide avatar fags such as caraposter

>>7399201

That's so rude to say about her!

>>7394055
Only if they're men.

>>7399041
>No, homosexuality is a mental disease, and regular individuals are not within the confines of your sodomy.
Define mental illness,please.

>"So you're after a non-religious reason to hate faggots? Sure thing.


>If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
Homosexuals can use surrogacy and sperm donors just like straight couples.

>If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
Its more comparable to not being attracted to ugly people.
Why classify it as a fetish when you would not consider it a fetish to be attracted to those not ugly?


>If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, then why do they have sex?
How is it any different than hetero romance?

>If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others' sphincters?
Straight people have these problems too. The last time I looked lesbians have fewer stds.

>If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
Why does it matter? Why do humans where clothes and use computers. Either everything we do is natural or we are above nature.

>If homosexual "love" is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
Pure love is a case by case basis. I have met a lot of straight couples only together because of accidental pregnancy.

>If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
It would not. surrogacy exists. That society would probably be more stable as there would be no accidental pregnancies and it would most likely involve eugenics.

>>7399111
Straight people who run at the mouth on this subject have themselves patted him on the back for this sort of novel, irl. I know, I've witnessed cishet assholes worship other cishet assholes for that stuff.

>>7399045
1 You using this site shows you are mentally ill.
2 Homosexuals can use additional methods of procreation just as heterosexuals.
3 1.b.i Only your definition of mental illness.
4 this whole thing is circular "homos are ill because they are ill.
5 no need to refrain. not an illness.
6 nope. you are dead wrong. You being so caught up on it means you are mentally ill by your own standards.

On the topic of marriage, Disallow straights that are not having children or that the state deems unfit to have children for any reason and I will gladly give up my right to marry.

Your whole argument falls apart on the mental illness angle.

File: 1475806218039.gif (2MB, 320x362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x362px

Non-evil cis white male checking in
AMA

>>7394055
Compare nations lead by white people to nations lead by non white people. This will give you an idea of how they compare.

>>7399546
You mean like North Korea? I'm not saying whites are the best, but they are not the worst by far.

>>7399546
nope.

>>7399500
Nice double dubs. What made you come here anyways?

>>7399590
front page of 4chan, thought id would check in...

>>7399590
Not him but I am a cis white male. I am also a cock sucking faggot.

Straight male checkin in.

File: 56478356824.png (25KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x381px

>>7399366
>Define mental illness,please.
Read the entire argument.
>Homosexuals can use surrogacy and sperm donors just like straight couples.
Then they are no longer exclusively homosexual, they are heterosexual or bisexual, and only homosexual for convenience. The act of meiosis, whether it be done without penetration, is exclusive to heterosexuality. The point of the argument is to analyze the branches one could go down, when attempting to classify homosexuality.
>Its more comparable to not being attracted to ugly people.
Homosexuality is defined in the rest of the argument below.
>How is it any different than hetero romance?
The point of the argument is to analyze the possible branches one could go down when trying to rationalize gays.
>Straight people have these problems too. The last time I looked lesbians have fewer stds.
No, they do not. "Tear" is inferring penetration, which is related to males, and sphincters means anuses. Lesbians are outside of this, the point is about male gays. Straight people have the option to engage in anal sex, whereas it is the only option for male gays.
>Why does it matter?
Child-hood is the conclusion of human romantic bonding. How did you get here?
>Why do humans where clothes and use computers.
Clothes protect us from the elements outside, and establish boundaries of decency in modern society. Computers have many purposes, too many to be listed here. The mind-machines of the future. How can you compare these two, what fallacious logic.
>Either everything we do is natural or we are above nature.
Can you give me examples supporting this claim? It sounds like a false dichotomy, meiosis is pretty well defined, there aren't a whole lot of alternatives for humans to follow.
>Pure love is a case by case basis.
see pic related. Not an argument, just because you are incapable of observing general traits/behaviours of a society and making accurate conclusions about their group, does not mean that they don't exist. (1)

>>7399366
>I have met a lot of straight couples only together because of accidental pregnancy.
Anecdotal evidence, but as I said before, you are correct in assuming out-of-wedlock marriages have increased. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm
We can observe the evidence and make accurate conclusions. How come you are able to make these claims (i.e. you are able to, although incorrectly through anecdotal evidence, observe general traits/trends/behaviours and make statements regarding the conclusion) for this case, but not with the homosexual group?
>It would not. surrogacy exists
Meiosis is strictly defined by heterosexual intercourse in human beings. When a gay man's sperm is introduced to a female egg, this flies right in the face of the definition of homosexuality. Just because the proximity (i.e. no penetration) is far does not mean it is not his sperm. That child will be related to the female and one male, never both males. The relationship will be one biological couple, and one male compatriot. You rely on the state/private companies to use methods, such as IVF, to warp the definition of homosexuality for you. You can't have your cake and eat it to, the point was that, when left to their own devices as homosexuals, they would all die out in one generation.
>>7399448
>You using this site shows you are mentally ill.
Not an argument. Elaborate on your claims and use logical reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Notice how the argument I posted goes in-depth, as opposed to just making claims and leaving?
>Homosexuals can use additional methods of procreation just as heterosexuals.
In what way can they recreate the concept of meiosis?
>Only your definition of mental illness.
Provide a definition which is unique to this. Willingly rejecting the concept of reproduction is a mental illness, all complex organisms are driven by this urge, and those that are not, are not healthy/defective.
(1)

File: image.jpg (41KB, 500x243px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x243px

>>7394055
And it feels so good

>>7399448
>this whole thing is circular "homos are ill because they are ill.
The Oban point? The argument elaborates upon the definitions and makes a case, which you have not refuted. Quote directly, define/redefine terms, and make your rebuttal clear. This is just one line without any reasoning.
>no need to refrain. not an illness.
Not even remotely close to a refutation. You can't just say things and expect that they become true.
The 'argument' is in your court, if you choose to not make one, then you cannot make claims as you have done.
>nope. you are dead wrong. You being so caught up on it means you are mentally ill by your own standards.
Wow, I never knew saying things made them true! You are dead wrong. And you're telling me I don't even have to make an argument? Cool!
>On the topic of marriage, Disallow straights that are not having children or that the state deems unfit to have children for any reason and I will gladly give up my right to marry.
Circumstantial cases are not within the definition, in principle, of marriage. The goal of marriage is that it is the conclusion of human romantic bonding (peaking with childbirth, or, the fulfilment of the human sexual organs' purpose), just because couples exist that are sterile does not change anything with the facts behind meiosis existing as the only method for reproduction in human populations.
>Your whole argument falls apart on the mental illness angle.
Your whole post falls apart when you don't bother to make an argument.
You just said that me using this site is a case for mental illness. You have not defined your terms or provided any deductive reasoning as to why you arrived at this conclusion. Human social interaction is non-natural? We might as well be having this conversation in person, but the root of all internet interactions is some social exchange/debate between individuals. Human being form social circles/are socially charged animals. We require communication and congregate in groups.

>>7399448
My using social media sites does nothing to limit biologically necessary functions on the same level as, say, refusing sexual interaction with the opposite sex. By definition of homosexuality (sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex), there can be no act of childbirth in any way. Sperm will literally never be introduced to a egg, as this is dependent upon the person being heterosexual. Surrogacy involves a female egg, the act of meiosis is still preformed; simply because the gay male does not penetrate the female does nothing to change how fertilization is, by the extension of the definition of homosexuality, mutually exclusive with heterosexuality. The gay male cannot be strictly homosexual if he engages in heterosexual activities (proximity does not change the core foundation of meiosis), he can only be bisexual or heterosexual.

>>7400669
According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.

Were does your definition come from?

>The act of meiosis, whether it be done without penetration, is exclusive to heterosexuality

With that I hope you are a dedicated troll because if not then you are seriously mentally impaired.

I can't even take this seriously anymore.

Go read up on the subject instead of typing with your ass cheeks.

>>7400830
>According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.
The definition I provided above meets all the requirements, all the cases you provided contribute to biologically non-necessary actions that impede healthy operations. PHAC defines it (succinctly) as: Mental illnesses are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behaviour associated with significant distress and impaired functioning.
Key words are impaired functioning. I think you would agree that all the cases you mentioned can be categorized as an impairment; this entails that healthy operations cannot be executed because the individual is not normal. This is a disability. Homosexuality is also a sexual disability, in that they are incapable of reproduction (surrogacy is dependent upon meiosis, which is not possible by the extension of the definition of homosexuality).
>With that I hope you are a dedicated troll because if not then you are seriously mentally impaired.
Not an argument. I think you are illiterate on this topic, too, but I don't stage a convenient hissy fit and leave because I cannot have my beliefs scrutinized. Here, you need this: http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/meiosis-88
>I can't even take this seriously anymore.
Convenient outrage is not an argument. Define meiosis and elaborate how homosexuals can engage in this behaviour while remaining homosexual.

>>7400669
Well, the problem is that your entire argument is based on the idea of a mental illness as anything that can interfere with reproduction, when this is not the case.

The definition of mental illness is:
any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.

So, unless someone is such a massive faggot they can't even operate in society, your argument falls apart.

Also, in an earlier post, you implied Nature "disallowed" homosexual reproduction.

Thing is, Nature is not an entity, it does not possess agency, the capability for thought, or the ability to make decisions.

The method of reproduction through sexual intercourse came into existence by simple chance, and became the most prevalent because it led to greater mutation, and consequently, greater adaptation.

If by simple chance there came a method of reproduction that was better suited for adaptability, that would have replaced reproduction through sexual intercourse.

And yes, a homosexual only society will not live past it's first generation, because homosexuality cannot lead to reproduction.

On a biological level, that makes heterosexual relationships better than homosexual ones, yes, but I hardly see that as a reason to make it illegal.

>>7400957
>Well, the problem is that your entire argument is based on the idea of a mental illness as anything that can interfere with reproduction, when this is not the case.
The definition begins deliberately vague, and hones in to include homosexuality as part of the definition. They are mentally ill just as transexuals are: deviation from fundamental imperatives for all healthy human beings.
This was the argument, notice how it does not overtly state what you think it does right off the bat.

-One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.
-Biologically necessary activities of desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations: e.g., procurement and consumption of resources, expurgation of waste, survival to sexual maturity, sexual reproduction, and education of the young.
-Desires are either biological or psychological in character; they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.
-Desires are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires. Consider an example: A person who has never had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol's sake, but only for some other sake, e.g., acceptance in a peer group. Further, a person who has not acquired a refined taste for scotch through frequent consumption thereof cannot desire to drink Oban for Oban's sake, but only for the sake of scotch in general, for curiosity, or for something else.
Therefore, habitual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
-Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
-The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.
-One is a homosexual if and only if one either 1) engages in homosexual activity, 2) has homosexual desires, or 3) has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity.

>>7400957
>marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.
This still includes homosexuality within its definitions. Abnormality, especially removing yourself from the gene pool (by your own choice, not by 'birth'. I have heard the argument that it is caused by pre-natal hormone imbalances, but the rate at which children with these disabilities are born does not come close to how many homosexuals exist. Not a good argument to claim that millions of healthy women in the first world, with access to the best medical attention, give birth to defective children that will never breed). That is, by your own definition, a disability.
>So, unless someone is such a massive faggot they can't even operate in society, your argument falls apart.
Define 'massive faggot'. In what way do homosexuals and faggots differ? Both are homosexual.
>Thing is, Nature is not an entity, it does not possess agency, the capability for thought, or the ability to make decisions.
What the flying fuck are you talking about? Quote me directly when I stated/alluded this. "Disallowed" does not infer consciousness of a 'thing', one says that gravity disallows flight, this does not mean that gravity is a being.

>>7400729
Problem is, you have an incorrect (or, and pardon me for my accusation, deliberately untrue) definition of mental illness (see:>>7400957).

To put in context, it is as if you had to argue why NASA would never put a man on Saturn, and your argument started off saying Saturn is a star.
By that point, you could make the best argument that will ever be made, but it will continue to be wrong, because you said Saturn was a star.

>>7400957
>The method of reproduction through sexual intercourse came into existence by simple chance, and became the most prevalent because it led to greater mutation, and consequently, greater adaptation.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis#Origin_and_function)
>The origin and function of meiosis are fundamental to understanding the evolution of sexual reproduction in Eukaryotes. There is no current consensus among biologists on the questions of how sex in Eukaryotes arose in evolution, what basic function sexual reproduction serves, and why it is maintained, given the basic two-fold cost of sex. It is clear that it evolved over 1.2 billion years ago, and that almost all species which are descendents of the original sexually reproducing species are still sexual reproducers, including plants, fungi, and animals.
>Meiosis is a key event of the sexual cycle in Eukaryotes. It is the stage of the life cycle when a cell gives rise to two haploid cells (gametes) each having half as many chromosomes. Two such haploid gametes, arising from different individual organisms, fuse by the process of fertilization, thus completing the sexual cycle.
>Meiosis is ubiquitous among eukaryotes. It occurs in single-celled organisms such as yeast, as well as in multicellular organisms, such as humans. Eukaryotes arose from prokaryotes more than 2.2 billion years ago and the earliest eukaryotes were likely single-celled organisms. To understand sex in eukaryotes, it is necessary to understand (1) how meiosis arose in single celled eukaryotes, and (2) the function of meiosis.
Save for the argument over the functionality of sexual reproduction (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2701646/), it is clear how it plays a role in our human society (the next generation must be born for humans to exist).
In what way does 'chance' invalidate the case-in-point? All existence was a 'chance', some odds of not occurring over some odds of occurring. What does this mean?

>>7400957
>On a biological level, that makes heterosexual relationships better than homosexual ones, yes, but I hardly see that as a reason to make it illegal.
When did I say I wanted to make it illegal? I said that we must ostracize detrimental behaviours. The sexual health of a nation is incredibly important, you even cede that "And yes, a homosexual only society will not live past it's first generation, because homosexuality cannot lead to reproduction."
That is a very big point, the promotion of baseless lifestyles is not healthy to a society.
>>7400976
>To put in context, it is as if you had to argue why NASA would never put a man on Saturn, and your argument started off saying Saturn is a star.
>By that point, you could make the best argument that will ever be made, but it will continue to be wrong, because you said Saturn was a star.
This is a completely baseless analogy. The definition I provided (One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.) is corroborated by the definitions you and the other guy provide. The definition goes to define each term and lay down axioms, which you have not refuted. Are you the same guy who just used one-line points as arguments? I responded the the guy's definition already, btw.

>>7400972
By flight, I mean free flight without an upwards force. Just willing flight and taking off, as this is disallowed by gravitational forces.

>>7399041
>If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If heterosexuality between infertile people is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?

>If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a male, why would an entirely male society cease to exist beyond a single generation?

>>7399045
>One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.
Most people, gay, straight, or whatever, masturbate, and report that ceasing masturbation entirely for even just a year or two would be nearly impossible. By your definitions, masturbation would not seem to be a biological necessity - so by your definitions, wouldn't the vast majority of people be mentally ill?

>Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
In the reasoning preceding this, I think you're kind of conflating two definitions of "biological desire" - one being that the desire has biological CAUSES, which is what people usually mean when they say things like "homosexuality is biological." Your definition instead defines "biological desire" as one that leads to a "biologically neccessary" activity. It is possible for a desire to be biological in origin, yet not lead to a biologically neccessary activity.

>>7399055
If we decide to emphasize marriage as an incentive for childbirth, the laws regarding marriage should be changed so that only those willing and able to bear and raise children will receive the benefits of marriage. Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of continuing to pay an employee who, despite being fully qualified for their position, chooses to never do any actual work.

>>7400729
>Circumstantial cases are not within the definition, in principle, of marriage. The goal of marriage is that it is the conclusion of human romantic bonding (peaking with childbirth, or, the fulfilment of the human sexual organs' purpose), just because couples exist that are sterile does not change anything with the facts behind meiosis existing as the only method for reproduction in human populations.
This isn't about anything circumstancial, it's the fact that the state is rewarding people with marriage without demanding those people hold up their end of the deal. There's really only two consistent positions on this: marriage is an INHERENT right between any two (or more) people, regardless of sex, or marriage is a special privilege granted to certain hetero couples in exchange for reproducing. If you're taking the latter position, to be consistent you must agree that the state should revoke the marriages of couples that do not reproduce - otherwise they do not have any real incentive to reproduce - reproducing does not grant them any benefits that they do not already have from being a married hetero couple. The whole institution of marriage as it exists today (even in jurisdictions where gay marriage is totally banned) is utterly misguided if its purpose is to incentivize births. An incentive only functions if it rewards the action it is intended to incentivize. The action rewarded by marriage as it exists today is NOT the same action that, according to you, it is intended to incentivize, so you must either admit that marriage as it exists today is a failure, or revise your position.

>>7400769
>My using social media sites does nothing to limit biologically necessary functions on the same level as, say, refusing sexual interaction with the opposite sex.
Are people who take vows of celibacy, or choose to devote their lives to their works at the expense of sex, also mentally ill?

>>7401061
>If heterosexuality between infertile people is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
I have already addressed this non-argument
"Circumstantial cases are not within the definition, in principle, of marriage. The goal of marriage is that it is the conclusion of human romantic bonding (peaking with childbirth, or, the fulfilment of the human sexual organs' purpose), just because couples exist that are sterile does not change anything with the facts behind meiosis existing as the only method for reproduction in human populations."
"If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a male, why would an entirely male society cease to exist beyond a single generation?"
Because there are no females. It is effectively the same thing, gay men cannot breed with women by definition of homosexuality. This is not an argument refuting the point. To compare the individual sex to a sexual orientation is a false equivalence. When the sexes are introduced to one another, that is when a healthy society can form.
>so by your definitions, wouldn't the vast majority of people [who masterbate] be mentally ill?
Sexual urges are a biologically necessary/foundational imperative. It would be more unhealthy is one was asexual and had no sexual urges to ever act on, than the other case, as there would be no natural inclination for the former to ever breed (if there was no sexual attraction). By consequence of being sexually charged organisms, masterbation is a pitfall.
>report that ceasing masturbation entirely for even just a year or two would be nearly impossible.
Not true, it is entirely possible to not masterbate. This is a false equivalence, as gays cannot "stop" being gay, by their own admission. The point of contention is going cold turkey, as opposed to claiming you were "born that way", which is why it is classified as a mental illness.

>>7401061
>In the reasoning preceding this, I think you're kind of conflating two definitions of "biological desire" - one being that the desire has biological CAUSES, which is what people usually mean when they say things like "homosexuality is biological." Your definition instead defines "biological desire" as one that leads to a "biologically neccessary" activity. It is possible for a desire to be biological in origin, yet not lead to a biologically neccessary activity.
The reason it is a biological desire is because it has a warranted basis to exist in biotic organisms. Homosexuality is biological, by definition of biological (of or relating to biology or living organisms.) They are living, so it is correct. Biological desires are as such because they are necessary actions for the organism. The organism does not engage in needless/detrimental activities because there is no desire to do so, because the outcome is a net negative.
>If we decide to emphasize marriage as an incentive for childbirth, the laws regarding marriage should be changed so that only those willing and able to bear and raise children will receive the benefits of marriage. Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of continuing to pay an employee who, despite being fully qualified for their position, chooses to never do any actual work.
I am not opposed to this. I am a believer of eugenics, but that is a conversation for another time.

>>7401069
>This isn't about anything circumstancial
Yes, it is. You are looking at circumstances that fit your narrative instead of the big picture. Between male and female, procreation is always possible. Between two males, it is never possible. Just because infertile males/females exist and wed does not change the fundamental assertions carried by the concept of meiosis.
>it's the fact that the state is rewarding people with marriage without demanding those people hold up their end of the deal.
I make my stance clear on this in another response.
>There's really only two consistent positions on this: marriage is an INHERENT right between any two (or more) people, regardless of sex, or marriage is a special privilege granted to certain hetero couples in exchange for reproducing.
I reject both positions. Marriage is not a right, there is only one right (all other rights are derived from this one), and that is the right to defend your life and property, or the right of violence. Education, marriage, etc. are not rights. Just saying they are rights is not an argument. It is not a "special privilege", it is based off of fundamental biology, or the concepts behind meiosis. It is not some 'exchange', marriage is the culmination of human romantic bonding (ending in childbirth).
>If you're taking the latter position, to be consistent you must agree that the state should revoke the marriages of couples that do not reproduce
I am not opposed to this. You claim that I already WAS opposed to this before hearing my stance. How convenient of you to make my judgements for me! I already said, I believe in eugenics. Healthy individuals should only be wed.
>The whole institution of marriage as it exists today (even in jurisdictions where gay marriage is totally banned) is utterly misguided if its purpose is to incentivize births.
Just by the numbers, chances are your parents married and had you. Heterosexual monogamy is the foundation of Western civilization.

>>7394055
Every assertive out-group registers as evil to every other group.

>>7401069
>An incentive only functions if it rewards the action it is intended to incentivize
I agree. Which is why marriage gives tax breaks and other leniencies for couples who have children. For example, in the Third Reich, loan payments were deducted by a quarter for every child that was borne.
>The action rewarded by marriage as it exists today is NOT the same action that, according to you, it is intended to incentivize
Again, you make my own judgements for me. I do not think the sterile or mentally ill should be allowed to reap the benefits without bearing any fruit to show for their efforts.
>Are people who take vows of celibacy, or choose to devote their lives to their works at the expense of sex, also mentally ill?
False equivalence. The celibate nun is chaste by her own admission, she does not absolve agency and claim she was "born celibate", because that is not true (although there are sterile nuns, that does not mean that this is the reasoning behind joining the church, although with your affinity to circumstantial evidence, I doubt you would let this side).
Those who are workaholics do so by their own admission. You even prove this when you say "choose to devote their lives". Key word is choice. Gays claim that they were born as they are, which is why the are classified as mentally ill, just as transexuals who sever their genitals and attempt to reform the makeup of trillions of cells. They absolve all agency for their actions/choices: that is the point of contention.

>>7401073
>This is not an argument refuting the point.
Yes it is. Your argument is that homosexuality is inherently wrong because society would fail if everyone was homosexual. But by that logic, being a child, a man, or a lawyer is inherently wrong as well. It's a bad argument, because it assumes a society must be homogenous in terms of every person's individual traits.

>>7401073
>Not true, it is entirely possible to not masterbate.
Most people, by their own admission, cannot stop masturbating.

>The organism does not engage in needless/detrimental activities because there is no desire to do so, because the outcome is a net negative.
But virtually every human DOES engage in needless activities.

> Between male and female, procreation is always possible.
Not true. If someone chops his dick off with a chainsaw, do they stop being male? Because they sure won't be able to procreate anymore.

>because infertile males/females exist and wed does not change the fundamental assertions carried by the concept of meiosis.
The "fundamental assertion" is not that a male and a female, magically by virtue of being male and female, can reproduce. There's additional stuff required for that to happen. The male + female combination is a neccessary, but not by itself a sufficient condition for reproduction to happen. So it is silly to reward those who are unable to reproduce.

>it is based off of fundamental biology, or the concepts behind meiosis.
The institution of marriage is 100%, hands down, a social construct. It's inspired by fundamental biology, but marriage quite simply would not exist without human biology.

>>7401103
>Just by the numbers, chances are your parents married and had you. Heterosexual monogamy is the foundation of Western civilization.
It's actually the opposite for me - my parents got married BECAUSE I was born. And in any case, that's an argument against the need for marriage - as mentioned before, marriage quite simply does not incentivize childbirth, meaning that we could abolish marriage and people would still keep having kids. If we wanted to INCREASE birth rates above their present level, we could make reproduction a requirement for marriage, and then it actually WOULD be a functioning incentive.

>The celibate nun is chaste by her own admission, she does not absolve agency and claim she was "born celibate", because that is not true
It's not all about "agency", as if we're all born a blank slate. We're all influenced by biology and environment, and those who choose to take vows of chastity are generally those for whom sex and reproduction are not a high priority to begin with. Likewise, a gay man choosing not to reproduce is still expressing some sort of agency - most gay men are biologically capable of reproducing with a woman, they just don't find it worthwhile. So no, they don't absolve "all agency" - they're still making a choice, but like everyone else they have biological predispositions towards certain activities more than others.

>>7401127
>Your argument is that homosexuality is inherently wrong because society would fail if everyone was homosexual.
Because homosexuality does not lead to another generation, by definition of homosexuality.
>But by that logic, being a child, a man, or a lawyer is inherently wrong as well.
Of course, if only men existed, or only sexually immature children (of the same sex, presumably), then there can also be no other generations. That is not what I am arguing for, I am arguing for heterosexuality. Again, the original points were refuting common rationalizations of homosexuality. If it is to be "normal", then it should succeed by its own, but it does not hold a candle to heterosexuality. Also, comparing professions, ages, and the individual sexes to sexual orientation is a false equivalence, there is a difference between where you work or your age and your sexual attractiveness. You can change/grow out of those things.
>Most people, by their own admission, cannot stop masturbating.
Cool. Source?
>But virtually every human DOES engage in needless activities.
"Whatabout" is not an argument, it is a tuquoque fallacy. Address the central point of the negative repercussions of homosexuality. But I will entertain you, give me examples of needless activities. We go to work in order to provide for ourselves/our families, we sleep because it is dictated by our brain (hormones involved, like melatonin), we eat because it is required, we socialize because we evolved as socially-charged animals.
>Not true. If someone chops his dick off with a chainsaw, do they stop being male? Because they sure won't be able to procreate anymore.
Circumstantial claims are not evidence. In principle, between a male and a female, childbirth is always possible. They person is still a male if they don't have a penis, but before the incident, they could have children. Not sure why you and others are dependent on resorting to non-sequiturs and passing them off as arguments. Meiosis still exists.

>>7401127
>The "fundamental assertion" is not that a male and a female, magically by virtue of being male and female, can reproduce.
That is literally the requirements. By virtue of being female, the person possesses the necessary organs for childbirth, just as the male does.
>There's additional stuff required for that to happen.
Beyond being a male and a female, and all that is implied by that (hormones, organs, etc.).
>but not by itself a sufficient condition for reproduction to happen.
Elaborate.
>The institution of marriage is 100%, hands down, a social construct.
By definition, almost everything is a social construct. Race, gender, marriage, attractiveness. By they are all rooted in deeper claims, which is why they are described in social contexts as they are. That is not an argument.
>It's inspired by fundamental biology
This is why it is described as it is in a social setting.
>marriage quite simply would not exist without human biology.
I do not disagree.

>>7401134
>It's actually the opposite for me - my parents got married BECAUSE I was born
You'd like my CDC citation, it relates to you: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm
Sex outside of marriage leads to these cases, like yours.
>And in any case, that's an argument against the need for marriage - as mentioned before, marriage quite simply does not incentivize childbirth
Simply because of what currently "is" does not mean it "ought" to be. I agree with you that the unhealthy should not wed.
>If we wanted to INCREASE birth rates above their present level, we could make reproduction a requirement for marriage, and then it actually WOULD be a functioning incentive.
I agree.

>We're all influenced by biology and environment, and those who choose to take vows of chastity are generally those for whom sex and reproduction are not a high priority to begin with
They choose to be celibate, you said it yourself. Key word is CHOICE.

>>7401143
>Because homosexuality does not lead to another generation, by definition of homosexuality.
And so would many other things. But for those other things, you're willing to acknowledge that the existence of those traits does not mean 100% of people will have that traits.

>That is not what I am arguing for
I KNOW that's not what you're arguing for. I'm saying "being [x] is bad because if everyone was [x] the species would die out" is a shitty argument, which implies that being homosexual, or a child, or a lawyer, or a man are ALL bad.

>"Whatabout" is not an argument, it is a tuquoque fallacy.
Tu quoque isn't fallacious here. You've put forth a definition of mental illness, which as I've pointed out would classify MOST PEOPLE as mentally ill. Which really makes the whole term/concept meaningless; mental illness is a label for an abnormal state, if most people are mentally ill then it ceases to be abnormal.

> In principle, between a male and a female, childbirth is always possible.
In principle = making massive assumptions. That's like saying "In principle, if you put an engine and wings on something, it can fly". It's a purely conceptual statement, ignoring the actual complexities that exist in reality.

>They person is still a male if they don't have a penis, but before the incident, they could have children.
The point is that a couple being formed of a male and a female is not by itself a guarantee that they'll be able to reproduce as your generalization seemed to implied.

>Meiosis still exists.
And so do infertile people.

>>7401134
>Likewise, a gay man choosing not to reproduce is still expressing some sort of agency
Not by definition of agency (Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices, and have the condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.). Are they born gay, or do they choose to be gay?
>most gay men are biologically capable of reproducing with a woman, they just don't find it worthwhile.
Not by definition of homosexuality. It is not just a "meh, I don't feel like breeding with women", it is that they are incapable of being sexually aroused by the opposite sex.

>>7401168
>And so would many other things.
Like what? You just listed a bunch of false equivalences.
>But for those other things, you're willing to acknowledge that the existence of those traits does not mean 100% of people will have that traits.
In the point, it states a strictly homosexual society, not a mixed society.
>I'm saying "being [x] is bad because if everyone was [x] the species would die out" is a shitty argument, which implies that being homosexual, or a child, or a lawyer, or a man are ALL bad.
There is one orientation that is superior to all others, and that is heterosexuality, one where, if all people WERE heterosexual, society would advance. False equivalences don't negate the argument if you can find cases where it is valid.
>mental illness is a label for an abnormal state, if most people are mentally ill then it ceases to be abnormal.
The way to prove it isn't fallacious is to provide examples, like I asked. You have not done so, so the statement still stands.
>In principle = making massive assumptions.
Not really, majority of people are heterosexual and have the capability to reproduce.
>That's like saying "In principle, if you put an engine and wings on something, it can fly"
An airplane has an engine and it can fly, therefore engines make you fly because of this circumstance. These are the arguments you are using. That is a false equivalence, I am not stating that.
>ignoring the actual complexities that exist in reality.
If people are as incapable of reproducing as you claim, then the population of Africa should not be set to increase as much as it is projected to: http://www.businessinsider.com/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8
In principle, and in reality, majority of people can successfully reproduce with one another.

>>7401164
>That is literally the requirements. By virtue of being female, the person possesses the necessary organs for childbirth, just as the male does.
You can be male or female without possessing all of the neccessary organs. As mentioned above, the lack of a fully functional penis (whether due to an accident or birth defect) will make one incapable of reproducing, but will not stop them from being male.

>Elaborate.
Sufficient Condition: A is a sufficient condition for B if and only if A implies B, or A provides all that is necessary for B to be true. B may however be true without A: for example "being employed by McDonalds" is a sufficient condition for "being employed", but so is "being employed by Microsoft", so "being employed" does not imply "being employed by McDonalds".
Necessary Condition: A is a neccessary condition for B if and only if B CANNOT be true without A.

A couple being composed of a man and a woman is a NECCESSARY, but not a SUFFICIENT condition for reproduction. Reproduction quite simply CANNOT occur without a couple composed of a man and a woman - but a couple composed of a man and a woman does NOT guarantee that reproduction is possible.

>They choose to be celibate, you said it yourself. Key word is CHOICE.
And likewise, gay people CHOOSE to not have straight sex. Being gay doesn't mean you CANNOT have straight sex, all it does is make straight sex less appealing to you. When they say "being gay is a choice", they're talking about sexual ATTRACTION, not sexual BEHAVIOR.

>>7401168
>The point is that a couple being formed of a male and a female is not by itself a guarantee that they'll be able to reproduce
It literally is. Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
>And so do infertile people.
How is this an argument? Meiosis still exists, this is the definition of a tu quoque. You have not refuted the original point. Of course infertility exists: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/
But the overwhelming majority CAN breed normally. In principle, between a male and a female, childbirth is always possible. Circumstantial claims, like the elderly, disabled, or infertile, does not change the basis of meiosis or the ability to reproduce.

>>7401172
>Not by definition of agency (Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices, and have the condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.). Are they born gay, or do they choose to be gay?
They're born with the trait of being sexually attracted exclusively to the opposite sex. They CHOOSE to participate in sexual activities exclusively with the opposite sex.

>Like what? You just listed a bunch of false equivalences.
I mentioned them right there in the post, and in previous posts. I am NOT accusing you of saying that an all male society would be a good thing, I'm saying that it's condemned by the same logic that an all-gay society would be, but when you use that to argue that being gay is a negative trait, then to be consistent you should also accept that being male is a negative trait too - or, neither homosexuality nor maleness are inherently negative.

>In the point, it states a strictly homosexual society, not a mixed society.
And a strictly homosexual society is irrelevant - no one around here is saying we SHOULD have a strictly homosexual society.

>one where, if all people WERE heterosexual, society would advance
So by that logic, farmers are superior to lawyers, since a society composed entirely of farmers can succeed, while a society composed entirely of lawyers cannot.

>An airplane has an engine and it can fly, therefore engines make you fly because of this circumstance.
Uh, where did I say anything even remotely like that?

>If people are as incapable of reproducing as you claim
I didn't say people (as a group) are "incapable of reproducing", I saw SOME SPECIFIC PEOPLE ARE. If you're going by the majority and ignoring the minority who can't reproduce, why do you even acknowledge the existence of homosexuals? They're a minority, so by your logic they "don't count". Just like "people can reproduce", "people are straight", so why even bother talking about homosexuals?

>>7401187
>You can be male or female without possessing all of the neccessary organs. As mentioned above, the lack of a fully functional penis (whether due to an accident or birth defect) will make one incapable of reproducing, but will not stop them from being male.
There is circumstance for everything, but this does not change the definition. Google the definition of being a male/female and tell me what you see. It doesn't state that your uncle Joe who had a chainsaw accident can't have kids, so that means it isn't a requirement anymore. This still isn't a coherent/logical argument.
>Reproduction quite simply CANNOT occur without a couple composed of a man and a woman - but a couple composed of a man and a woman does NOT guarantee that reproduction is possible.
Of course, if they do not wish to have children, then that is not going to occur. Likewise, if the male/female is sexually deformed, outside of their child-bearing years, or some other unfortunate circumstance. But this does nothing to alter the principle of child-birth. The potential for child-birth will always exist in principle, just because there are outliers does nothing to change this fact. I am not claiming that simply because they are male/female, that they will just create life, there are other requirements that must be met, the most important/necessary (which you, yourself, cede) is that they must be male/female. In principle, by definition of being male/female, they can create life. CAN, not automatically will.
>gay people CHOOSE to not have straight sex.
The definition of homosexuality doesn't include "just opting out of heterosexual activity because you don't like it", it is the incapability of engaging in these such activities. You also just stated that homosexuality is a choice.
>Being gay doesn't mean you CANNOT have straight sex
Of course.
>all it does is make straight sex less appealing to you.
They are not aroused by, or remotely interested in any heterosexual behaviours.

>>7401192
>It literally is. Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
>Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
They're OF THE SEX THAT CAN DO THAT. That doesn't mean every individual of that sex has that ability.

>Circumstantial claims, like the elderly, disabled, or infertile, does not change the basis of meiosis or the ability to reproduce.
It does mean that those "circumstantials" should be excluded from the institution of marriage, which is the point I was making all along.

>>7401204
>The definition of homosexuality...is the incapability of engaging in these such activities
According to whom? By what mechanism, specifically, are homosexual individuals rendered incapable of engaging in heterosexual intercourse?

>>7401187
>When they say "being gay is a choice", they're talking about sexual ATTRACTION, not sexual BEHAVIOR.
Sexual attraction leads to sexual behaviour.
>>7401201
>They're born with the trait of being sexually attracted exclusively to the opposite sex
>They CHOOSE to participate in sexual activities exclusively with the opposite sex.
This is doublethink. This argument is already debunked above, and by common sense. Any gay genes would have died out a long time ago. If they choose, it cannot be a trait (i.e. heritable). You refute yourself in the next sentence.
> I'm saying that it's condemned by the same logic that an all-gay society would be, but when you use that to argue that being gay is a negative trait, then to be consistent you should also accept that being male is a negative trait too - or, neither homosexuality nor maleness are inherently negative.
Homosexuality as a replacement for heterosexuality is what the original point was arguing for, and what many implicitly claim by promoting it as "normal". Sexual orientation is not equivalent to the sexes. An all-male society is the same as a homosexual society.
>And a strictly homosexual society is irrelevant - no one around here is saying we SHOULD have a strictly homosexual society.
Yes, they are. It is being promoted in the mainstream media as natural behaviour, it is being justified in courts as being equivalent to heterosexuality (in terms of marriage). There is an overt effort to shill sexual perversions as "normalcy", when they are not.
>So by that logic, farmers are superior to lawyers, since a society composed entirely of farmers can succeed, while a society composed entirely of lawyers cannot.
Professions can be altered, there can be farmers who are also lawyers. Without fail, a strictly heterosexual society will advance. There is no alternate sexual orientation that can hold a candle to it.
>Uh, where did I say anything even remotely like that?
It is related to your use of circumstance.

>>7401201
>Uh, where did I say anything even remotely like that?
I am not claiming you did, I am extending your analogy to the circumstance of the situation to show you how incorrect it is.
>I saw SOME SPECIFIC PEOPLE ARE.
They are the minority.
>If you're going by the majority and ignoring the minority who can't reproduce, why do you even acknowledge the existence of homosexuals? They're a minority, so by your logic they "don't count". Just like "people can reproduce", "people are straight", so why even bother talking about homosexuals?
This is not an argument, you are just whining about why I am paying attention to something. It is because of the reasons I listed: It is being promoted in the mainstream media as natural behaviour, it is being justified in courts as being equivalent to heterosexuality (in terms of marriage). There is an overt effort to shill sexual perversions as "normalcy", when they are not.
>>7401206
>That doesn't mean every individual of that sex has that ability.
It literally does, by the definition of being male/female. In order to fulfil the definition, you must fulfil the definition, which means that you must possess the traits which fulfil the definition, which means you have the potential, in principle/by definition, to have children.
>It does mean that those "circumstantials" should be excluded from the institution of marriage
I agree that the unhealthy should be excluded, because they are not healthy.
>>7401208
I have already defined homosexuality at least three times. They are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Just as a man with no penis cannot have sex (because there can be no penetration/ejaculation after the damages), the incapability of arousal does not allow homosexuals to copulate with the opposite sex.

>>7401216
>Sexual attraction leads to sexual behaviour.
It's not the ONLY factor though. People do still have agency.

>Any gay genes would have died out a long time ago.
How do you explain the continued existence of genetic disorders that carry a near-guaranteed risk of dying before puberty? If genetics was as straightforward as you seem to think it is, those genes would have vanished in a matter of generations. That clearly simple isn't the case.

>Homosexuality as a replacement for heterosexuality is what the original point was arguing for,
What original point?

>It is being promoted in the mainstream media as natural behaviour, it is being justified in courts as being equivalent to heterosexuality (in terms of marriage). There is an overt effort to shill sexual perversions as "normalcy", when they are not.
None of that is equivalent to calling for an all-homosexual society. That's like saying, since being a football fan is normalized, we're trying to create a society where everyone is a football fan and no one is a baseball fan.

>Without fail, a strictly heterosexual society will advance.
That isn't strictly true. A strictly heterosexual society is still at risk of failing due to economic, military, or environmental reasons.

>It is related to your use of circumstance.
I'm still not seeing how it's at all comparable. My "circumstance" argument is that "just because you put wings and an engine on something, doesn't mean it's airworthy". Somehow you interpret that as meaning "anything with an engine is airworthy".

>>7401230
>This is not an argument, you are just whining about why I am paying attention to something
Why are you acknowledging one minority (homosexuals) while making generalizations that completely ignore another minority (infertile people).

>It literally does, by the definition of being male/female. In order to fulfil the definition, you must fulfil the definition, which means that you must possess the traits which fulfil the definition, which means you have the potential, in principle/by definition, to have children.
Again though, saying things this way means "in principle/by definition" does not correlate with objective fact. There are males who lack the potential to reproduce.

I'm surprised I haven't been banned. It seems the sexually subverted are more tolerant than I though. I can see the "Cara poster" has already been banned.
>>7401238
>It's not the ONLY factor though. People do still have agency.
I never stated that it was. They do not have agency if they claim that their actions/lifestyles are beyond their control, they are absolving it in order to appeal to some higher power shaping their being (namely, their genetics), when that point is refuted by common sense deductive reasoning.
>How do you explain the continued existence of genetic disorders that carry a near-guaranteed risk of dying before puberty?
So there are genetic disorders that have "a near-guaranteed risk of dying before puberty"? If those existed, then the people who carry it would die before they reach sexual maturity. Can you name me this mysterious genetic disease? Most of them arise during old age, like Alzheimers.
>What original point?
Read my original posts.
>None of that is equivalent to calling for an all-homosexual society.
It absolutely is, are you familiar with NAMBLA? There is a massive effort to turn sexuality into "another flavour of ice-cream" so that people may be converted over. It assumes some moral subjectivity right off the bat.
>since being a football fan is normalized, we're trying to create a society where everyone is a football fan and no one is a baseball fan.
Look at the original post: Are cis white people actually evil?
The Overton window is employing an anti-straight narrative and promoting this sexual subversion.
>That isn't strictly true. A strictly heterosexual society is still at risk of failing due to economic, military, or environmental reasons.
I told you that you loved circumstantial cases. When we are talking about human sexual orientations, we are not discussing economic policy, or military actions. Of course, those factors exist, but they are not related in the context of the discussion.

>>7401238
>I'm still not seeing how it's at all comparable. My "circumstance" argument is that "just because you put wings and an engine on something, doesn't mean it's airworthy". Somehow you interpret that as meaning "anything with an engine is airworthy".
You claim that the elderly exist, and the infertile exist, and all other unfortunate people who cannot breed is a problem, because "If heterosexuality between infertile people is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?"
You are relying on circumstance to make your point, which is not an argument (or a weak one). You claim, in your engine analogy, that "In principle, if you put an engine and wings on something, it can fly". That is a false equivalence, as it is deliberately conflating the capability of the engine with the concepts behind meiosis. Meiosis will, in principle, always yield children. Outliers exist, but the majority of the time, it works as per the definition. I extend your own logic and state that airplanes have engines and can fly (a circumstance, as cars also have engines and cannot fly), so therefore engines mean that people can fly (while your circumstantial claim was a "rebuttal", mine is used to "prove" that engines=flight).
>>7401243
>Why are you acknowledging one minority (homosexuals) while making generalizations that completely ignore another minority (infertile people).
This is still not an argument, you are just whining. I believe the infertile are not healthy. Just as obesity risks the capability to conceive, I do not promote such behaviours, and denounce media companies that promote those lifestyles.
>saying things this way means "in principle/by definition" does not correlate with objective fact.
>claims objectivity
>follows up with totally objective "There are males who lack the potential to reproduce."
Can you not see the errors of your own reasoning? What are you talking about? The principle is the objective truth behind the concepts of...

>>7401243
the concepts of meiosis, it is an objective, not a subjective, case! It is a biological 'truth'. You cannot claim that it doesn't correlate with real life fact, when it clearly does. The cite your "objective fact" as circumstantial evidence. That is a very weak argument. Just because there are males that cannot reproduce does nothing, in any way, shape, or form, of altering the 'objective fact'/biological foundation being meiosis. In principle, males/females can always have children. Just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGOXJI-fZmQ

>>7394055
lgbt people on 4chan tend to not think like that but outside, it' another story.

>>7401248
>They do not have agency if they claim that their actions/lifestyles are beyond their control,
They don't claim that though. They claim that their SEXUAL ATTRACTION is beyond their control, just like everyone (i.e. straights) do as well. So if you're going to say that homosexual attraction being innate means homosexuals have agency, then NO ONE has agency.

>So there are genetic disorders that have "a near-guaranteed risk of dying before puberty"? If those existed, then the people who carry it would die before they reach sexual maturity. Can you name me this mysterious genetic disease? Most of them arise during old age, like Alzheimers.
Progeria is one example, people with it rarely survive past the age of 13. Spinal muscular atrophy is another example, in the most severe form (type 0/1), most do not reach the age of 4, and only 10% of people with type 1 survive into adulthood. These are both genetic conditions, and have existed for at least a century.

>It absolutely is, are you familiar with NAMBLA? There is a massive effort to turn sexuality into "another flavour of ice-cream" so that people may be converted over. It assumes some moral subjectivity right off the bat.
NAMBLA is a gay pedophile advocacy group lol, I don't know if they're actually saying society should be 100% (if so, then they're doubly retarded) but most gay people think they're idiots anyway so I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. They're certainly not a prominent voice in the homosexual community these days.

>Look at the original post: Are cis white people actually evil?
>The Overton window is employing an anti-straight narrative and promoting this sexual subversion.
L E L you're actually getting this worked up over a troll thread?

>>7401261
> In principle, males/females can always have children.
Yeah, here we go with "in principle" again. "In principle", Communism works. I wouldn't disagree with you if you said "Generally speaking, hetero couples can reproduce" but when you bring this "always" into it, you're saying something that is blatantly, objectively, false, unless you're redefining "always" to mean "unless something weird is going on." Which kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a word such as "always". Always is supposed to be used to describe an absolute, whereas you're using it to describe a general pattern.

>>7403896
>They don't claim that though. They claim that their SEXUAL ATTRACTION is beyond their control, just like everyone (i.e. straights) do as well.
False equivalence, heterosexual attractiveness has a basis in biology, homosexuality is literally hedonism.
>So if you're going to say that homosexual attraction being innate means homosexuals have agency, then NO ONE has agency.
Strawman, the point of contention is that they claim they are effectively infertile (not by definition, but because they are "born with it") not by choice, which requires agency, but by natural force, which is a mental illness.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria
It is extremely rare, it's just Adalia Rose syndrome. The concept of carriers vs. expressers also clouds things up. I may carry hemophilia, but not exhibit it. Adalia rose will not reproduce, as she will die before she reaches sexual maturity. The bloodline is doomed for failure.
>NAMBLA is a gay pedophile advocacy group lol
The denial of same-sex child abuse is deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
>but most gay people think they're idiots anyway so
Yes, the anally-fixated individuals are capable of casting moral judgement upon others.
>L E L you're actually getting this worked up over a troll thread?
Why bother debating if you are incapable of holding a rational discussion?
>>7403905
> "In principle", Communism works
No, it doesn't. Not even in principle. Have you read Marx at all? The Labour Theory of Value flies straight in the face of a basic axiom of economic theories, which is supply and demand.
>but when you bring this "always" into it
In principle/by definition, males and females always possess the capability to reproduce by virtue of being male/female. You are fixated upon the circumstantial and use this as an argument. "Oh, well the sterile exist, so that means they can't ALWAYS procreate". It is clear you did not watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGOXJI-fZmQ
Refute the argument Keyes makes.

>>7394055
White people were the only ones interested in ending slavery. White people were the only ones interested in ending homophobia. White people were the only ones interested in woman rights.

The only definition of "evil" white people fit with is the one /pol/ uses to call jews evil. White people are the least-evil people on Earth.

>>7404640
>heterosexual attractiveness has a basis in biology, homosexuality is literally hedonism.
Both have a basis in biology, Heterosexuality "makes sense", but both (the ATTRACTION, that is) are caused by biology.

> the point of contention is that they claim they are effectively infertile (not by definition, but because they are "born with it") not by choice, which requires agency, but by natural force, which is a mental illness.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Finding women sexually unattractive = claiming to being infertile and saying you have no agency? They're CHOOSING to not have sex, because it doesn't appeal to them - thus they're expressing agency. If someone CHOOSES not to eat chocolate because they don't like the taste, are they denying their own agency?

> The concept of carriers vs. expressers also clouds things up
And the same is true of homosexuality.

>The denial of same-sex child abuse is deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
What the actual fuck? I LITERALLY! SAID! NAMBLA! ARE! GAY! PEDOPHILES! In what universe is that "denying child abuse"?

>Yes, the anally-fixated individuals are capable of casting moral judgement upon others.
Oh yes, of course, I forgot that only the truly enlightened euphorialords who have spend years studying the ancient secrets until they can tip their fedoras into the twelfth dimension can decide if an action is moral or not.

> males and females always possess the capability to reproduce by virtue of being male/female
Except that definition doesn't align with reality. I know what you're trying to say ,"we define male/female based on the assumption that everyone is reproductively functional", but if you're trying to talk about the real world, those definitions just don't work.

>>7404640
> You are fixated upon the circumstantial and use this as an argument. "Oh, well the sterile exist, so that means they can't ALWAYS procreate"
But that's OBJECTIVELY TRUE. You're arguing that "well yeah, infertile people exist, but that doesn't mean that infertile people exist".

>>7404678
>White people were the only ones interested in ending slavery.
Oh yeah, surely all those non-white slaves had not the slightest bit of interest in ending slavery. And inb4 you say "well you know what I mean, I meant that white people AS A GROUP had an interest in ending slavery", well that's not true either. At the time slavery ended in the west, many white people still thought slavery was acceptable.

>>7404992
>Both have a basis in biology
Describe the biological function behind homosexual sex.
>Finding women sexually unattractive = claiming to being infertile and saying you have no agency?
Yes, when you claim it is outside of your own control. By extent, they are infertile, as they will never breed with a female by definition of homosexuality.
>They're CHOOSING to not have sex
So homosexuality is a choice, as you just claim. If it is a choice, then we arrive back at square one (
Therefore, homosexuals are mentally ill if and only if they do not choose to be homosexual and are not physically compelled by another to engage in homosexual activities.).
>If someone CHOOSES not to eat chocolate because they don't like the taste, are they denying their own agency?
That is not what they claim, they say that some are born liking chocolate, others vanilla. But one has reasoning behind its existence (i.e. procreation), whereas the other does not (i.e. no biological basis. You just said it existed, that is not an argument).
>And the same is true of homosexuality.
There is no such thing as the homosexual gene.
If it existed, we would have mapped it out. There are about 100 cases of progeria worldwide, btw. Gays never have children by virtue of being homosexual, as in never, not during old age or during sexual maturity.
>What the actual fuck?
Denying the incredible rates of same-sex child abuse stats is deliberate intellectual dishonesty. I will share the stats for you in another post. Caps-lock is not an argument.
>I forgot that only the truly enlightened euphorialords
This does not address the immorality of homosexuality. You did not refute a single one of the arguments in the original post. Circumstantial evidence is fallacious logic, but you do not want to realize this. I will post stats/sources below.
>Except that definition doesn't align with reality...those definitions just don't work.
Notice the calibre of arguments. I go at-length to define my terms and...

>>7404992
...employ deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion, whereas you can simply say definitions "don't work" without putting forth alternatives, defining them, elaborating with specific examples, etc. If you wish to be intellectually dishonest, then don't try and act as if you refuted anything and move on from previous claims.
>>7405004
>But that's OBJECTIVELY TRUE. You're arguing that "well yeah, infertile people exist, but that doesn't mean that infertile people exist".
Why don't you analyze the claim with respect to the context of the argument? I am saying that, even though the impotent, sterile, elderly, etc., exist, this does nothing to change the principles behind child-rearing. Your fallacious reasoning is debunked in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGOXJI-fZmQ
Also, quote me directly where I claim that infertile people don't exist. Otherwise, you don't get to just make up quotes to advance your own arbitrary strawman, that is not how debate works.
On the slavery point, I feel as if you extend your fallacious reasoning, too. You are pleading for a special case (of guilt, that is) to whites, when every other group of people has enslaved one another at some point in time. Many millions of Europeans were enslaved by Arabs during the Arab slave trade, but that is what occurs to a conquered people, they are forced to submit because they could not overpower the opposition's rule of might. Whites conquered the continent of Africa and exploited its resources/people. They were the only people who ended the slave trade, whereas other groups still practice it today. That was the original claim. To quote my man Schneider: "I haven't seen the Democrats this mad since we freed the slaves!"(https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/799625987210166272)

>>7404678
The statistics/sources I was talking about:

One study reports that 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).
One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
Many homosexuals sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).
Many homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70's by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theatre tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress") (27).
Homosexuals account for 3-4& of all gonorrhoea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up less than 1% of the population.
Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhoea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).
73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

>>7404678
25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film 'The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favourite past-time of many homosexuals to go to 'cruisey areas' and have anonymous sex.
78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).
Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities." (10).
Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals." (10).
50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).
Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medicinal insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us (10).

>>7404678
Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for less than 1% of the population.
Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).
37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).
41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say that they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).
Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

File: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.jpg (22KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 680x680px

>>7394113
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

OUT OF OUR BOARD OUT OUT OUT

>>7404678
The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past the age 65). This drops to 39% if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).
The media age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The media age of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).
Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).
21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things (8).
On April 25, 2001, the CDC reported that: "We are seeing substantial increases in sexually transmitted disease among men who have sex with men in multiple locations across this country." (31, 32)
Homosexuals are responsible for the "first sexually transmitted outbreak of typhoid fever" in the history of the United States. This disease is caused by ingesting human feces. (32)
More than 10% of homosexuals in major U.S. urban areas are infected with HIV. To this day, they still make up more than 50% of reported AIDS causes in the United States. (30,31)

>>7404678
Homosexuals fellate almost 100% of their sexual contacts and ingest semen from about half of those. Semen contains virtually every germ carried in the blood stream, so this is about equivalent to ingesting raw human blood. (6)
Sperm readily penetrates the anal wall (which is only one cell thick) and gains direct access to the bloodstream. This causes massive immunological damage to the body's T- and B-cell defensive system. (14) 50% of male syphilis is carried by homosexuals as a rectal infection and can enter through the urethra of another homosexual during anal sex. (7) Around 67-80% of homosexuals lick and/or insert their tongues into the anuses of their partners (called "rimming", anilingus, fecal sex, etc.) and ingest biologically significant amounts of feces (7), which is the chief cause of hepatitis and parasitic infections among homosexuals (8). This practice is called the "prime taste treat in sex" in the bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex.
33% of homosexuals admit to fisting (inserting the hand ,sometimes part of the arm, into the rectum of his partner). (7)
Urinating on each other ("golden showers") and torture has doubled among homosexuals since the 1940's, and fisting has increased astronomically (7).

>>7404678
17% of homosexuals eat and/or rub the feces of their partners on themselves. (4) 12% of homosexuals give/receive enemas as part of sexual pleasure. (4) In one study, the average homosexual fellated somewhere between 20 and 106 men, swallowed 50 seminal discharges, had 72 penile penetrations of the anus, and ingested feces of 23 different men EVERY YEAR. (6)
Of homosexuals questioned in one study, 43% admitted to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admitted to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% said that half of those partners were total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts were one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands). (3) Also, it is a favourite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisey areas" and have anonymous sex. See www.cruisingforsex.com (NOTE: this site may contain pornographic images- please don't go to it if you are under age or don't want to see this type of material. This site is referenced only for illustrative purposes.)
One study reports that 90% of homosexuals have engaged in anal sex, and 66% engage in anal sex regularly. (6)
10% of homosexuals admit to eating feces and/or drinking contaminated enema water. (8) 29% of homosexuals engage in urine sex ("golden showers"). (8) In large cities, hospitals are often called on to remove objects from the rectums of homosexuals. Sometimes, the homosexuals do so much damage that they have to wear colostomy bags for the rest of their lives. (8)

>>7404678

50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).
About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.
33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).
There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.
Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 1% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester (19).
73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).
Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22).
Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren't as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

>>7404678
References
(1) Advocate, 1985
(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299
(5) "Changes in Sexual Behaviour and Incidence of Gonorrhoea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.
(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexuality Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
(10) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
(11) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994.
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medicinal Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American lied. Assn., 1984, 251 (2), pp. 237-438
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(16) MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behaviour Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
(17) Newsweek, February 1993.
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
(20) Rueda, E. The Homosexual Network. Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p.53.
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk."
(22) San Francisco Sentinel 27 March 1992
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p .322
(24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
(25) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
(26) United States Census Bureau
(27) United States Congressional Record, June 29 1989.

>>7404678
(28) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.
(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
(30) Reuters, Feb. 5, 2001.
(31) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AID, HIV by Group
(32) Associated Press, April 25, 2001.

>>7405341
100% of everything a straight has ever said in history, or will ever say in the future, is a lie. ;)

>>7404678
And all of this roots back to the original axioms I set forth to begin with, which still remain. The largest refutation was, itself, rebutted in a video which puts its argument into open daylight about as clearly as possible, but you have not acknowledged its existence. I've shared it three times now, and I think it is fair to say you do not wish to see it.
>>7405358
Not an argument as it does not contribute a logical/coherent framework in order to deliver a substantive assertion. If you don't wish to engage in an argument, why bother posting? I am busy with the other poster, please wait your turn. It will give you some time to think of an actual claim.

>>7405373
I don't argue with straight filth. XD

>>7405374
If you refuse to engage, then you refuse to continue the conversation. It's fine with me, I can just meme around, too. I'm honestly surprised I haven't been banned or something, the Caraposter was banned, but I was not. It would seem that the homosexual mods on this board are sympathetic with the fact that they are sexually subverted/mentally disabled.

>>7405386
I'm not having a conservation. Since when does me calling you worthless filth constitute a conversation. XD

>>7405391
>Since when does me calling you worthless filth constitute a conversation.
You can tell when I started posting (here: >>7399041)
Follow my stream of posts and arrive at the conclusion you wish. I never called you "filth", although gays are 'filthy', as in much more likely to be diseased. Disease is revolting. Their worth is determined by their value to a society, and the hedonist who has no time preferences is not worth a whole lot.

>>7405404
I don't care when you started posting.

Fit the important part of your shit straightpost in the first five words of your post, or I'll just point out that your mother should be force fed wooden crucifixes until she dies of internal bleeding.

>>7405417
>Fit the important part of your shit straightpost in the first five words of your post
I cannot convince you to improve your reading comprehension so that you can read more than one paragraph, that is outside of my control.
>or I'll just point out that your mother should be force fed wooden crucifixes until she dies of internal bleeding.
So, non-sequiturs? I've come to expect that.

>>7405427
There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I choose not to read straight shit because it's bad for you. And I'll keep talking no matter how much you whine because that's good for me.

>>7394055
define evil pls

>>7405433
Straight.

>>7405432
>There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I choose not to read straight shit because it's bad for you.
I could just as easily say I don't read gay shit, but that does nothing. I will let the lurkers decide for themselves who is being more logical.

>>7405437
guess queer poc is Jesus Christ then... Thats nice praise my tranny liking nuts

>>7405449
I don't care what you say you worthless straight. You could just as easily lick my asshole clean.

>>7405468
>I don't care what you say you worthless straight.
Not an argument.
>You could just as easily lick my asshole clean.
Not an argument. If you wish to remove yourself from the conversation, then...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RBTnqfyg7U

>>7405483
I don't argue with straight filth. ;)

>>7405276
>Describe the biological function behind homosexual sex.
I don't know what function biology "thinks" homosexuality serves, however if it has a genetic basis, by definition it "has a basis in biology".

>Yes, when you claim it is outside of your own control.
So then you think straight guys have no agency? They can't "CHOOSE" to stop being attracted to women and be attracted to men instead.

>So homosexuality is a choice, as you just claim. If it is a choice, then we arrive back at square one
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. Homosexual ATTRACTION is not.

> Gays never have children by virtue of being homosexual, as in never, not during old age or during sexual maturity.
Some gays have engaged in heterosexual sex acts and had children, mainly in order to hide being homosexual. So you're wrong.

>Denying the incredible rates of same-sex child abuse stats is deliberate intellectual dishonesty.
I never said anything one way or the other about "incredible rates of same-sex child abuse stats". All I said was that nambla is a gay pedo advocacy group, and you got triggered and sperged out claiming that I'm "denying the existence of gay pedophilia" or something.

>This does not address the immorality of homosexuality.
Your argument was that liking anal sex means you're incapable of moral judgement. Such an inane argument is not deserving of a refutation, rather the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why liking anal sex means one cannot make moral judgements.

>Also, quote me directly where I claim that infertile people don't exist.
You said that the existence of infertile people doesn't mean a male and female couple can always procreate, which, I'm sorry, is just plain retarded, unless you start making up non-standard definitions for some of those words. If EVEN ONE infertile person exists, it means that the statement "males and females always possess the capability to reproduce" is false.

>>7405492
cool.
>we are the tolerant and diverse group of people on the right side of history!
>fucking bigoted asshole what are you some kind of homophobe sexist anti-Semitic Islamophobic...... yes I am holier-than-thou why do you ask
pottery.

>>7405305
>You are pleading for a special case (of guilt, that is) to whites, when every other group of people has enslaved one another at some point in time
No, I'm not. Quite the opposite. At no point did I say non-whites were never responsible for slavery, I simply said it was false that white people were the ONLY group interested in ending slavery. And sure, other groups do practice slavery even today, but not all non-white groups practice slavery, and some white groups do still practice forms of slavery, so to act like whites are qualitatively different in that regard is silly.

>>7405510
Yes, because you can't call yourself "tolerant and diverse" unless you're okay with people spraying sewage in your face.

>>7405510
The only proper response to pure evil is pure unadulterated aggression. Logic, tolerance, patience, understanding, mercy, pity and compassion are all impurities that weaken unadulterated aggression.

If I ever reason with you, it's because I found you face-to-face irl and I'm trying to get you to relax so I can sneak up behind you.

>>7405507
>I don't know what function biology "thinks" homosexuality serves, however if it has a genetic basis, by definition it "has a basis in biology".
That's not an argument, you haven't provided your reasoning. You admit you don't know. "However" and similar speculation isn't an argument, either. Prove it or don't, make a logical case. The onus is on you now, refute my claims above (on the nature of homosexuality).
>So then you think straight guys have no agency? They can't "CHOOSE" to stop being attracted to women and be attracted to men instead.
You are conflating homosexuality with heterosexuality. In the last sentence, you make this clear that you are ill-informed on the topic. Heterosexuality has an evolutionary basis for existence, whereas homosexuality is hedonism incarnate. Morally relativist arguments don't make your point any more coherent, it is a false equivalence to compare the two. Heterosexuals have a logical claim for their orientation, you have not provided one for gays, yet you continue and make absolute statements right after. That is fallacious reasoning.
>Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. >Homosexual ATTRACTION is not.
Behaviours are dependent upon the attraction. They act like flaming gays because of their attraction to the males they are attempting to woo. It's just semantics, at this point.
>Some gays have engaged in heterosexual sex acts and had children, mainly in order to hide being homosexual.
This does not fit the criteria of being homosexual. Those people are bisexual. They are not homosexuals, by definition.
>So you're wrong.
Circumstantial arguments have already been addressed, you just refuse to watch the arguments.
>All I said was that nambla is a gay pedo advocacy group
They are homosexuals who are pedophiles. Gays are a minority, yet make up a large chunk of the pedophiles. Proportional stats matter, it is not by mere coincidence that they make up such a massive chunk, relative to their population, of pedophiles.

>>7405507
>Your argument was that liking anal sex means you're incapable of moral judgement.
Yes, because it is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. I would trust the judgement of the virtuous person over the hedonist.
>Such an inane argument is not deserving of a refutation
>I am offended, ugh, I am literally so offended and special that I don't need to respond to you.
Not an argument.
>rather the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why liking anal sex means one cannot make moral judgements.
Re-read my posts, the immorality of the gay man becomes clear as day. The stats prove this, too.
>You said that the existence of infertile people doesn't mean a male and female couple can always procreate
That is the truth, in principle (when the definitions of male/female are fulfilled), procreation is always possible. The definition doesn't include "but my uncle is impotent, soooo". It's just incorrect reasoning.
>which, I'm sorry, is just plain retarded
Not an argument.
>If EVEN ONE infertile person exists, it means that the statement "males and females always possess the capability to reproduce" is false.
We are able to analyze the general traits/behaviours of a group of people and make accurate judgements from the evidence. Your logic is that even if one outlier exists, we cannot operate based off of the principles behind the definition. So, I can also claim that, because there exist albino people, then Africans are not always black, even though the definition of the Negroid does not include circumstantial cases. The infertile are by no means a majority. I never claim that it is always possible and no such outliers exist. You are stating that I did, and I asked that you quote me directly where I said this. No need to warp my point, just quote me and be done with it.

>>7405566
Shut up worthless straight filth.

>>7405521
>At no point did I say non-whites were never responsible for slavery
Fair point.
>I simply said it was false that white people were the ONLY group interested in ending slavery.
They are the ones who pushed to abolish slavery in the US. If you are American (likely scenario), then that is your own history. They were, in extent of the influence and sway, the ones whose interest mattered, and made the biggest impact.
>but not all non-white groups practice slavery
Direct quote of me claiming this. Also, #NotAll____ is not an argument, we can observe the trends and gather evidence to arrive at warranted conclusions about different groups of people. For example: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
>and some white groups do still practice forms of slavery
Examples? I don't know a whole lot of slaves in Europe or NA.
>>7405527
So logical arguments and statistics have turned into sewage? cool
>>7405531
Pure evil? Homophobia is common sense. Why promote a disease?
>it's because I found you face-to-face irl and I'm trying to get you to relax so I can sneak up behind you.
Internet tough guy memes aren't arguments.
>>7405571
at least you make it clear you have no substantive claims right off the bat.

>>7405547
>That's not an argument, you haven't provided your reasoning. You admit you don't know. "However" and similar speculation isn't an argument, either. Prove it or don't, make a logical case. The onus is on you now, refute my claims above (on the nature of homosexuality).
I DON'T know, and neither do you. The point is that if sexual attraction is biological and innate in origin (which it certainly seems to be), then, well, it has some sort of biological reason behind it.

>You are conflating homosexuality with heterosexuality.
The only difference is in their ultimate effects. Both are a form of sexual attraction, something that clearly isn't in a person's control. You are mistakenly conflating biology with logic.

>Behaviours are dependent upon the attraction. They act like flaming gays because of their attraction to the males they are attempting to woo. It's just semantics, at this point.
No, now YOU'RE the one denying their agency. Some gays are flamboyant, sure, but others, despite being just as much attracted to the same sex, act like normal people. Their attraction is the same, their behaviors differ.

>Circumstantial arguments have already been addressed, you just refuse to watch the arguments.
If you make a blatantly false statement, and then whine about "muh circumstantials" when someone calls you out on it, you're not arguing in good faith.

>They are homosexuals who are pedophiles. Gays are a minority, yet make up a large chunk of the pedophiles.
What relevance does that have to the current conversation? All that I initially said was that NAMBLA, even if they do call for an all-homosexual society (which you have yet to prove), aren't accepted by the general homosexual community, so that's a non-starter for your argument that gays are trying to create an all-gay society.

>>7405566
>Yes, because it is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. I would trust the judgement of the virtuous person over the hedonist.
So you think liking anal sex means you're incapable of finding pedophilia immoral? Because if that's what you're saying, I think that makes YOU seem rather morally deficient. If gays were DEFENDING pedophilia using the "love is love" rhetoric ,then I'd agree with you. But you're doing the opposite.

>Not an argument.
Neither is your "muh offended" strawman. It's not about being offended at all, it's that the burden of proof is on you. You can't demand others prove you wrong and then whine about them being offended when they call you out on it.

>That is the truth, in principle (when the definitions of male/female are fulfilled), procreation is always possible. The definition doesn't include "but my uncle is impotent, soooo". It's just incorrect reasoning.
And for the umpteenth time, your "in principle" fantasy world is a ridiculous abstraction that doesn't apply to the real world. It's equivalent to saying "Murder is illegal, therefore it never happens".

>Your logic is that even if one outlier exists, we cannot operate based off of the principles behind the definition
That's not my logic. I agree that generalizations can be useful, but when you throw "always" in there, you're no longer making a useful generalization, but rather making a false absolute statement.

>They are the ones who pushed to abolish slavery in the US. If you are American (likely scenario), then that is your own history. They were, in extent of the influence and sway, the ones whose interest mattered, and made the biggest impact.

File: 13340530_10153646304113317_972479362_o.jpg (67KB, 1136x852px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1136x852px

Woo ee, there are some bitch hurt people in this thread. Obviously everything has a basis in biology or at least what it seeks to understand. Nothing defies the laws of nature, only the ways in which we understand it. Gays, plastic, nuclear weapons, Kpop are all natural aspects of the world we live in. Suck it up. You are just insects with big brains. It is all very stupid but it is the world we live in. You have no control over this

>>7405683
>and neither do you
Wow, I never knew I said that! Can you find a direct quote of me stating this? Otherwise, I speak on my own behalf. There is not evolutionary basis for homosexuality, it is hedonism, as I have, myself, stated before.
>The point is that if sexual attraction is biological and innate in origin (which it certainly seems to be), then, well, it has some sort of biological reason behind it.
Well, biological is pretty vague (of or relating to biology or living organisms), so yes. But if we were to rank sexual orientations, anything except for heterosexuality is inferior.
>The only difference is in their ultimate effects.
I agree, one leads to all human life we see around us, the other is an anal fixation for the mentally ill.
>Both are a form of sexual attraction
Correct.
>something that clearly isn't in a person's control.
cool, that isn't a rebuttal of the argument I posted originally. It's been a day or so, you just glossed over the parts of the original post you replied to. Here: >>7399041
>>7399045
>>7399052
>>7399055
>>7399064
>>7399070
>>7399082

>>7405585
>So logical arguments and statistics have turned into sewage? cool
I'm just educating you on the paradox of tolerance.

>Pure evil? Homophobia is common sense. Why promote a disease?
Hating people on the basis of their sexual orientation is inherently evil.

>>7405700
Oh, btw for the last one I meant to say that it's kind of silly to look at just the US. The US is a white country, so whites are the only ones there that were even in a position to control slavery, so the fact that whites ended slavery there doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

>>7405708
>There is not evolutionary basis for homosexuality, it is hedonism, as I have, myself, stated before.
Hedonism is clearly biological in origin, unless you believe in some sort of malevolent entity which can control us somehow. Hedonism is basically about seeking pleasure at the expense of well being - it is not logical, so those desires must be innate.

>>7405683
>If you make a blatantly false statement
substantiate your counter-claims with respect to the original assertion.
>What relevance does that have to the current conversation?
Discussing the nature of the homosexual includes facts that you find upsetting, too.
>which you have yet to prove
refusal of evidence is not absence of evidence.
>aren't accepted by the general homosexual community
The wholesome and virtuous homosexual community actually has standards? From the people who fetishize HIV, wow what an accurate judgement, certainly these people practice as they preach.
>gays are trying to create an all-gay society.
No, I made it clear it was MSM shifting the Overton window, but in this post here (>>7403896), you just said "L E L you're actually getting this worked up over a troll thread?". I think it was you, at least. If not, then you didn't even respond to me.
>>7405700
>So you think liking anal sex means you're incapable of finding pedophilia immoral?
Strawman, gays are not the only ones who engage in anal sex. I say it is the pot calling the kettle black because, from the axioms laid out and the stats, it is clear as day that gays are not equivalent to normal human beings. Low time preferences, increased rate of disease, increased drug usage, to name a few. I find it interesting that you (presumably deliberately) avoid the stats that I posted. I wish I could ignore parts of your post that I don't want to respond to, but that means I would be a sophist.
>Because if that's what you're saying, I think that makes YOU seem rather morally deficient.
cool, but that's what you claimed I said. You seem to have a knack for strawmen. Try quoting me directly instead.
>If gays were DEFENDING pedophilia using the "love is love" rhetoric ,then I'd agree with you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

>>7405700
>Neither is your "muh offended" strawman.
In what way is it a misrepresentation of your argument? You literally said that "Such an inane argument is not deserving of a refutation". That is literally not an argument. I postulated that it was because you are offended at the implications of what the potential response would be. Gays are known for being emotional, after all. Saying something is "inane" or anything else isn't an argument for not responding to it.
>It's not about being offended at all, it's that the burden of proof is on you
I have provided statistics with sources, defined my terms, made my claims direct and overt, and established axioms. The onus is now on you. I am not asking you to provide evidence for a negative, I know better than that. It seems you wish to believe I am doing that. It seems that that would be the logical stance an individual would take if they did not attempt to retort with the same level of argumentative calibre as my original argument demonstrates. You establish no axioms, cite nothing, and operate off of weak arguments, like circumstantial claims and #NotAll____.
>your "in principle" fantasy world is a ridiculous abstraction that doesn't apply to the real world.
www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/
It is the minority, the definitions do not focus on circumstance. Otherwise, the dictionary would be much longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGOXJI-fZmQ
For the fourth time, watch this video and refute the central arguments directly.
>It's equivalent to saying "Murder is illegal, therefore it never happens".
Quote me directly where I make a statement that warrants such an analogy.
>I agree that generalizations can be useful, but when you throw "always" in there, you're no longer making a useful generalization, but rather making a false absolute statement.
Quote me directly where I state that men and women can always have children. Every time, I made sure to begin with "in principle".

>>7405709
>I'm just educating you on the paradox of tolerance.
Wow, thank you for educating me. Lord knows what I would do without the guidance of the sexually perverse.
>Hating people on the basis of their sexual orientation is inherently evil.

>>7399045
>>7399052
>>7399055
>>7399064
>>7399070
>>7399082
>>7405315
>>7405319
>>7405324
>>7405330
>>7405333
>>7405335
>>7405341
>>7405349
>>7405353
Strawman, nobody is "racist" because of skin colour, but because of common sense and evolution: https://archive.is/pxlcm
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion/
pastebin.com/tGMEhbhf
>>7405716
>The US is a white country
For now. Jokes aside, that is a good point (influence-wise), but it does not change the fact that the key abolitionists were all white people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#United_States
>the fact that whites ended slavery there doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.
You admit it is factual. It does mean something if it is a historical fact. How can whites be "insert 'ic' here" if they founded and pushed for the abolition of slavery? It illustrates the doublethink.
>>7405725
>Hedonism is clearly biological in origin
Perhaps for the early man, but not in a civilized society.

>>7394055
they have the same skin color as some of the people who had slaves once, so yeah they're all evil

oh and judging them by their skin color is not racist because their skin color is white, doesn't count

>>7401172
You seem to forget, if for example, a lesbian is raped by a straight man, she can bear children for example.

Does her rape make her heterosexual? No, yet she still has the capacity to produce offspring.

She was born a lesbian, but not infertile. She chose having relationships with women over men, because she is sexually attracted to women, and not men, but since she can't reproduce without meiosis, she most likely wouldn't bear children.

So, unless you also support forcing people to reproduce, most likely with people who they aren't attracted to, then she is justified.

>>7401216
>Gay Gene
Except that the leading theory is currently pre natal hormones, not genes.

>>7406011
>a lesbian is raped by a straight man, she can bear children for example.
Where do I refute that rape occurs? A gay man can be forced to penetrate a female, as well. I do not disagree with this, the point of contention is that they are no longer homosexual. The argument of force is already discussed in my original post
>>7399041
>>7399045
>>7399052
>>7399055
>>7399064
>>7399070
>>7399082
>She was born a lesbian
so homosexuality is not a choice, that is your claim?
>She chose having relationships with women over men
and now it is a choice. Doublethink isn't an argument, how can you be born homosexual but choose your sexual orientation in regards to sexual partners?
>she most likely wouldn't bear children
Barring circumstantial claims, she will, in principle, never have children (two females having sex for a certain period of time will never have children).
>then she is justified
In her sexually subversive lifestyle? No, and I already make my stance clear on eugenics above. I do not believe the defective should be allowed to prosper in civilized society, just as those with Downs syndrome should not be allowed to reproduce.
>>7406022
I understand, but it's not a legitimate claim. For example, from the following: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5701a2.htm
>Major structural or genetic birth defects affect approximately 3% of births in the United States
Assuming that every single one of those defects were related to the defectiveness of pre-natal hormones, then, and only then, will we start to see accurate demographics being portrayed in the homosexual communities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States). This also includes all the LGBT people, too.
It does not make logical sense, we should see more homosexuals in third-world nations, where the mothers do not have access to sufficient medical attention/nutrition, which would lead to such defects in their offspring. But in reality, this is not true. It's a hypothesis.

>>7406124
Well, then I suppose we disagree on much more than just homosexuality, as I personally find eugenics morally appalling, and this boards parameters are not fit for that topic.

If you would like to repost this thread on a board where we can, then I'll be glad to continue, otherwise, we'll just be running in circles.

>>7406421
>Well, then I suppose we disagree on much more than just homosexuality, as I personally find eugenics morally appalling, and this boards parameters are not fit for that topic.
It the context, there can be discussion. I will keep it related to LGBT, as per the name of the board.
Defects, like homosexuality (let us posit that it is genetic, or some other factor outside of control), is a defect. It is not a desirable trait to see expressed in your offspring. The promotion of such behaviours is detrimental to the overall health of a society, as it is a net negative. Heterosexual monogamy is the lifeblood of Western civilization, and any deviation/subversion from that is undesirable. I believe that the defective should be taken out of the equation by some form of eugenic practices. That's it. Why keep a bad apple in the bunch? I do not think it it wise to keep the undesirables around; homosexuals have low time preferences, for example. They are hedonists, without true goals in life (with respect to continuing their bloodline).
>If you would like to repost this thread on a board where we can
The gulag board, I presume.

>>7406487
fuck off nazi cunt :)

>>7406629
Are you the same poster? If so, how can you, on one hand, argue about board-specific "speech", but then espouse politically charged ad-homs at people?

>>7405585
What are you talking about, you are literally just worthless straight filth. That is absolutely 100% correct.

>>7406639
Not only are you a nazi cunt, you're an autistic mong also, you can ad that hom to your collection.

>>7406639
No, he isn't. Anyway, that comment was most likely an angry reaction, you tend to get those when you imply someone is a lying hedonist and/or insane.

Not telling you to be nicer, just pointing out the obvious.

>>7405792
>Strawman, nobody is "racist" because of skin colour, but because of common sense and evolution
Sorry, that's nonsensical. That's like saying, because ONE person watched their family shot to death when they were 5 years old, that everyone who's afraid of guns has a rational reason for it.

>but it does not change the fact that the key abolitionists were all white people
Because white people were the only ones who had the social/political power to actually advocate for abolitionism in any meaningful sense.

>
You admit it is factual. It does mean something if it is a historical fact. How can whites be "insert 'ic' here" if they founded and pushed for the abolition of slavery? It illustrates the doublethink.
There's no "doublethink" about it. White people also brought slavery in America in the first place, saying that makes them non-racist is like saying all is good if someone murders you and then says sorry.

>Perhaps for the early man, but not in a civilized society.
Biology doesn't "go away" just because we become civilized. Civilized society may discourage hedonism, but that biological desire is still there.

>>7406124
>the point of contention is that they are no longer homosexual
Lolwut? So if a straight guy gets raped by a gay guy, that straight guy is no longer straight?

>and now it is a choice. Doublethink isn't an argument, how can you be born homosexual but choose your sexual orientation in regards to sexual partners?
It's obvious by this point that you're being purposely obtuse. Sexual ORIENTATION isn't a choice, sexual BEHAVIOR is. The sooner you CHOOSE to understand this, the sooner we can stop going around in circles.