Can homossexualism be philosophically proven wrong? And no "b-but

>>8440183
>Can homossexualism be philosophically proven wrong?

No.

>When I say wrong I mean detrimental to both man and society.

No

>>8440183
>society

It would be easier to argue homosexuality is beneficial to society currently, and heterosexuality for purposes of procreation is detrimental.

>>8440191
>>8440197
learn to sage fuckheads

>>8440203
>It would be easier to argue homosexuality is beneficial to society currently

Tell me more.

I know Sparta encouraged its soldiers to become butt buddies because they fought harder because of love, or something. That might be fabricated gay propaganda though.

>>8440191
Can it be proven right?

In 'Sex and Culture' by J.D. Unwin he examines a number of civilisations and the impact that homosexuality and other such nonstandard sexual behaviours impacted them, coming to the conclusion that it is detrimental to society

>>>/his/
>>>/pol/
>>>/notliterature/

>>8440221
We have six billion people. Let's say America, in America it's average for every single person come adulthood to get a car, and there's no electric car, emission free car in sight readily available to the public. Not like a car with emissions. This isn't taking into account all the amount of emissions that run the powerhouse of civilization.

The problem with overpopulation isn't food, or housing. We can supply all that twice over. It's power, and how that demand worsens climate change. In just twenty years the Middle East and Upper Africa is going to become inhospitable, literally near impossible to live in. As if it was turned into the Sahara Desert.

Do you think that's going to make the situation there any better? If you think the bitching about refugees is at its worst wait until 2047.

Allowing people to have homosexual love encourages adults to not go the route of reproduction as the end goal of life, at least vaguely helps in one way or another. That and demanding people stop is pointless since it's going to happen anyway and the only way to stop people from doing their thing is draconian moral law that has no real basis in fact.

I can name about twenty reasons why letting the girls like the girls and the boys like the boys is a better idea than creating twenty more straight couples and twenty more children to become adults to hasten the problems the future faces.

There is actual material benefit currently to finally letting people do what they want.

Can masturbation be philosophically proven wrong?
Can casual sex be philosophically be proven wrong?

>philosophy was literally born from people who were attracted to other men

>>8440249
Did you copypaste that from reddit?

>>8440227
>being a dirty empiricist

Where in hell are the mods?

>>8440278
Nope. I made it myself. Is calling an argument reddit the best counter argument you can make?

>>8440183
>homosexualism

dumbass, homosexuality maybe?

also, you realize something can be morally "right" yet detrimental to society? and vice versa? you're essentially presupposing a consequentialist viewpoint, which is simply one of many ways of analyzing any certain ethical issue

>>8440318
this is a troll thread, OP

>>8440223
Hedonism

>>8440318
Are you illiterate

I didn't say morally wrong. I specified that wrong means detrimental to man and society.

>>8440183
Greeks founded the modern civilization while fucking each other in the ass. So I guess not.

>>8440233
This is the philosophy board

>>8440504
No, the Greek civilization fell because of homossexualism.

>>8440203
if that's the case then homosexuality it's a great thing because we are overpopulating the earth.

>>8440249
Overpopulation is a discredited myth. The world's population will plateau at 9 billion, then shrink. Stop spreading this nonsense.

>>8440580
Dude have you ever paid attention in history. This shit was happening in Orientalizing Period and the islands and everywhere. Especially early on.

>>8440602
That's not my point. Reread. I agree.

>>8440596
No we're not, you fucking idiot. The problems that will arise from Western demographic decline are much more serious than the very fixable concerns over energy and food.

>>8440610
My
point
was
not
overpopulation

It was consequence of the energy production we currently have supporting even more people. We can support many more people.

>>8440249
>Material benefit to letting people do what they want

Oh, hey, John Locke's still alive. Sometimes I miss you.

>>8440615
You fucking said "overpopulating" in your post. And the energy concerns are nothing compared to the concerns over stuff like urban decay, labor shortages, a complete collapse of the welfare apparatus that's predicated on more people paying in than receiving, and the dilution of Western culture that comes from economic migration. Western birth rates are below replacement everywhere except the US.

>>8440619
Reread my post. There was nothing Locke about what I said. Right now we cannot afford more people because of the net consequence of climate change.

>>8440624
Overpopulating not in the context of food or housing, or even energy. But overpopulation in the context of the consequences of it.

>And the energy concerns are nothing compared to the concerns over stuff like urban decay, labor shortages, a complete collapse of the welfare apparatus that's predicated on more people paying in than receiving, and the dilution of Western culture that comes from economic migration. Western birth rates are below replacement everywhere except the US.

It's actually the opposite. The consequences of an energy system that causes climactic change to the point of worsening those conditions you've just listed apart from "oh no muh western culture", should be curbed.

And less births are good. You should be celebrating, because it leads to less of a problem of what you just suggested, ironically.

>>8440602
I don't know why this meme is being thrown around 24/7, where it originated and the sources for the number, but you're retarded if you think even the 7 billion we have now is remotely sustainable.

As the guy you're replying to, it's not about space. It's about natural resources, reject disposal and the absolute disregard people seem to have to the biosphere.

>>8440280
Sides

>>8440602
Kek, yes, people will magically stop fucking.

File: peepee.png (11KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 420x420px

Homosexuality has the exact same psychopathological roots as fascism, the neurosis manifests itself in different degrees of socially destructive sadomasochistic manners but the roots are to be found in the barriers to orgiastic potency erected by bourgeois society. Social systems create character forms to promote their own preservation, homosexuality is just a petty-bourgeois orientation as seen in Blüher, Roehm, etc...

>>8440183
Nothing can be philosophically proven wrong. If it exists, then it is right.

>>8440653
>Homosexuality has the exact same psychopathological roots as fascism, the neurosis manifests itself in different degrees of socially destructive sadomasochistic manners but the roots are to be found in the barriers to orgiastic potency erected by bourgeois society. Social systems create character forms to promote their own preservation, homosexuality is just a petty-bourgeois orientation as seen in Blüher, Roehm, etc...

Cool. Got a source to cite for that?

>>8440637
This is insane. How the fuck does global warming affect our welfare apparatus? How the fuck does it lead to labor shortages and a declining GDP? You don't seem to know very much about the systems that prop up your very comfortable life. And yes, Western culture is important. It's not a racial thing by any means, but there's no denying that the speed in which Europe is importing economic migrants (out of necessity, since European women aren't having kids) doesn't allow for the assimilation of these peoples. If you care about literature, you should care about Western culture.

>>8440183
>homossexualism

wew lad

>because we all know that's a fallacy.

How so?

>When I say wrong I mean detrimental to both man and society.

Homosexuality shows no natural risks that aren't found in heterosexuality already. What hole you put your dick in doesn't exactly change the odds of your survival. Being homosexual in a homophobic society could be relatively detrimental, but it doesn't mean your sexuality is inherently wrong, it just means the current society disagrees with your views.

Socially speaking, no. Not in any way. Look at Ancient Greece.

listen to
>>8440318
>>8440504

>>8440610
What problems ? Humanity and the world as a whole would only benefit from having the population drastically reduced, let's say to 0.1% of its current number. Agriculture and infrastructure would no longer have to exist and humans would go back to being nomadic hunters like back in the good ol' days.

>>8440648
Do you realize how dumb this post is? Europeans fuck more than many third worlders, yet they have less children.

>>8440183
Homosexual are at a higher risk of suicide and other problems. Death and bedlam are bad for business, and for the individual.

You can't because nothing ever gets proven in philosophy. One philosopher can claim to prove something but invariable someone else shows up and goes "but akshually..." and so arguments and counterarguments just pile up ad infinitum. The only way to avoid this is to render your philosophy completely incomprehensible like Heidegger or Deleuze did.

>>8440659
http://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/HomosexualityAndTheNaziParty/HomosexualityAndTheNaziParty.htm

>>8440660
>This is insane
Nope

>This is insane. How the fuck does global warming affect our welfare apparatus?

Once again you didn't read. I never said that.

I'll repeat, less births mean less of a strain on the "wellfare apparatus".

>How the fuck does it lead to labor shortages and a declining GDP?

Degredation of soil, extinction of insects leads t problems with crops as well. More refugees from war torn nations gone worse because of heat, and these problems.

It's a mutltitude of problems facing society from climate change. And more people relying on more robust power grids we already have that are driving things to the brink by the end of the century will not solve this.

Please go to fucking community college at bare minimum. Christ.

>You don't seem to know very much about the systems that prop up your very comfortable life.

Oh, my life is comfortable?

>And yes, Western culture is important. It's not a racial thing by any means, but there's no denying that the speed in which Europe is importing economic migrants (out of necessity, since European women aren't having kids) doesn't allow for the assimilation of these peoples. If you care about literature, you should care about Western culture.

If you love your precious western culture so much, from those dirty filthy refugees, you would realize having that area inhospitable and the average temperature of the middle of the Sahara isn't going to stop refugees.

You argue all these problems of isolation and restriction, protecting what we have, and yet you're arguing that the consequences of energy we have don't exist and we should fuck like rabbits and it won't effect it at all.

You're a fucking moron ahahahaha

File: 1466522629007.png (13KB, 192x165px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 192x165px

>>8440677
>lustforlife.org

>>8440673
How is that a problem

Isn't it interesting /pol/ came all at once, not on and off through the thread. I find this interesting.

>>8440677
Wow how convincing

>>8440674
I hate people like you who turn everything into metaphysics. That's just a fucking fallacy.

You could say that nothing at all exists because we can't prove our own existence. But that's the kind of bullshit fallacy teenagers like to speak these days.

If you can't understand that "proven" means that there is enough proof for someone to believe in an argument, then you are either autistic or using fallacies.

>>8440183
anything can be proven wrong if you're good enough.

>>8440183
Homossexualism is narcissism.
Heterosexual love is built upon two alterities that complete each other because they are radically different - from a psychological, genetic and physiological point of view. This alterity cannot be found in the same sex. A homosexual is someone who merely "loves" an extension (sometimes idealized) of his person. Is it really detrimental? Not if it's an isolated phenomenon that is kept private and almost taboo.

>>8440754
You're evidence heterosexuals can be narcissistic and shallow

>>8440691
> less births mean less of a strain on the "wellfare apparatus".
Good job revealing how much of an uneducated philistine you are. Welfare is predicated on more people paying than consuming. This is a central component of most European economies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_ratio


>It's a mutltitude of problems facing society from climate change.
These concerns aren't just exaggerated, but their principle cure (nuclear energy) is opposed by every greennik around. Science will deal with these problems, just like the advent of genetically modified organisms dealt with the greatest problem to every face humanity: the availability of food.

And even if one were to agree with your thesis, the notion that extreme antinatalism (i.e. tribal suicide) is the cure is absurd. One doesn't commit suicide in order that a tree could take your place. One fixes the problem of energy by a combination of making our material goods more efficient, and by exercising good, protestant restraint. An Indian family with 5 kids uses less energy than an English family with none. Would you tell the Indian family that their children, whom they love, are ruining our planet?

Heterosexual sex is dignified insofar as its purpose is to produce children and "be fruitful" in keeping with the Divine Will.

Sterile sexual relations, such as homosexuality, are inherently degenerate because they degrade both participants, reducing them to mere masturbation tools.

>>8440758
Wow. You totally destroyed me, dude.
I'm not saying heterosexuals can't be narcissistic and shallow. I'm saying true love - which is inherently heterosexual - is anything but narcissistic and shallow.

>>8440183
>b-but right and wrong don't exist" bullshit because we all know that's a fallacy
Yeah, no.

>>8440781
You can't love anyone

>>8440781
>I'm saying true love - which is inherently heterosexual
Prove it.

>>8440776
>Devine will

Ahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaa

>>8440183
>homossexualism
What

>>8440183
What I can say for certain is that it is impossible to be a Christian and to not consider homosexuality wrong.

Fuck this board.

>>8440677
>http://lust-for-life.org/
what is this even

>>8440784
Edgy.
>>8440785
Do you speak French? Because unfortunately, I don't think I can "prove" it in English.

>>8440821
>Do you speak French? Because unfortunately, I don't think I can "prove" it in English.

I speak French, I'm interested, hit me.

>>8440829
Formidable.
Différencions d'abord l'amour véritable de l'illusion amoureuse.

L'illusion amoureuse est un désir, c'est un processus d’idéalisation. Vous projetez toute une série de qualité sur un individu qui vous aura plu ou séduit. Le soucis, c'est qu'en côtoyant cette personne, notamment dans la sphère du couple, vos chimères se confrontent progressivement à la réalité de l'autre.
J'entends par "réalité de l'autre" ce que la personne est réellement, c’est-à-dire forcement imparfaite... Mauvaise ou médiocre sur de nombreux points, bonne ou remarquable sur certains.

Une relation qui s’achève marque l’anéantissement de toutes les illusions amoureuses pour au moins un des deux individus impliqués.

Une histoire d'amour qui s’achève n'a donc jamais été une véritable histoire d'amour, seulement la rencontre de deux solitudes et de leurs idées de la perfection respectives.

"Parmi les êtres humains, on ne reconnaît pleinement l’existence que de ceux qu’on aime.”
-Simone Weil

"True love isn't "either eternal beauty or vulgar everyday person". True love is "you see the eternal beauty in the everyday person".
-Slavoj Zizek

L'amour véritable est la conscience de la réalité de l'autre, de sa réelle existence. Il voit les défauts, les médiocrités mais les accepte pleinement. Mieux encore, il parvient à trouver une beauté derrière ces imperfections. C'est de là que vient la transcendance de l'amour. Cette reconnaissance d'une altérité, si absolue qu'elle en devient esthétique. On s'oublie dans la beauté de cette autre imparfait et vulgaire.

Cette même altérité n'est présente que chez l'autre sexe.

En effet, on trouve des différences physiques, intellectuelles et psychologiques radicales chez une femme lorsque l'on est un homme et vice versa. Conséquemment, l’homosexualité s'apparente plus à une forme de narcissisme puisque cette altérité radicale est inexistante. Ce n'est pas un jugement de valeur, simplement un constat. N'y voyez aucune homophobie.

La relation sexuelle entre deux altérités qui s'aiment est l'accomplissement de l'amour. Il devient une énième exploration de l'autre, sensuelle, affective et aimante. La véritable jouissance est ainsi pleinement atteinte. A contrario, le sexe dénué d'amour est un rapport purement hédoniste, qui fétichise l'autre et donc, le déshumanise.

L'acte de reproduction est la cristallisation ultime de l'amour. Dans une conscience du collectif et de l'historique, les deux altérités perpétuent l’espèce et concrétisent du même coup leur amour en mettant au monde un enfant, autrement dit un prolongement de l'union de leur deux êtres.

I'm not willing to translate this but if you feel like it, go on.

>>8440821
I don't speak French, but whatever you'll come up with, you can't philosophically prove homosexuals can't really love, and setting up boundaries (like you more or less did here >>8440754) so that your definition of love suits your arguments doesn't really prove anything.
For example:
>Heterosexual love is built upon two alterities that complete each other because they are radically different
to me sounds like a forced, artificial and idealistic definition of love.
I'm quite sure homosexuals are perfectly able to experience the feeling of love like heterosexuals do, and by this I mean they have a brain capable of it (at the end of the day feelings are nothing but the result of the brain chemistry)

But even if they weren't capable of feeling real love, I can't see how homosexuality would be so wrong that you'd need to "keep it private and almost taboo". I think this attitude is what's really detrimental to society, because it does nothing but discriminate against some of its members.

>>8440885
>Reply
oh ptn, les threads /lit/ en français devraient apparaître plus souvent.
Bien joué anon, bien écrit

>>8440911
You're basically reducing a transcendental experience to an immanent one when you reduce love to "brain chemistry". Of course, you can observe how the brain reacts when an individual interacts with someone he loves but you'd be neglecting the profundity of the experience on a personal and metaphysical level. We're much more than the sum of our parts.
On an empirical level, it may appear that homosexuals react similarly. But on a metaphysical level, it's totally different because the nature of the relationship isn't based on the otherness I was talking about.

>I think this attitude is what's really detrimental to society, because it does nothing but discriminate against some of its members.
In the 20th centuries, some writers and intellectuals like Gide or Proust didn't hide their homosexuality but they didn't boast about it like a lot of homosexual public figures do nowadays. They were criticized by some (like Céline, for example) but were generally accepted by their peers.

I'm sorry if it seems confused. Reminding it seems useless but English isn't my native language.

File: 260px-26_C343_shinji-grin.jpg (21KB, 260x195px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 260x195px

>>8440945
Merci.

>>8440962
But that's what it is you dualistic religious retard

>>8440962
>you'd be neglecting the profundity of the experience on a personal and metaphysical level
I don't think the experience is less profund than that of heterosexuals. As for the metaphysical level, I don't mean to sound offensive but I prefer a more direct and practical approach. If two people of the same sex are able to feel love for each other, to me their relationship is based on true love. Adding to this the necessity of otherness, as you wrote, to me just seems like adding an unnecessary element.

>>8440981
>dualistic religious retard
>Metaphysics can only be religious and dualistic
Why should I bother arguing with a Fedora neckbeard?

File: john-c-wright.jpg (214KB, 704x549px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 704x549px

>>8441033
>religious
>not fedora

Are you new

>>8440981
not >>8440962

Affirmating that love is nothing more than "brain chemistry" is one of the most childish things I can think of.

You can reduce literally everything in our universe to molecules interacting with each other. Your whole life has been nothing but a meaningless struggle to live and reproduce. You do not feel pain, but your body tells you that you should move away from something that harms your body, which could possibly kill your cells. There is no beauty in anything, and aesthetics is but a side effect of your capability to love, which will secure your reproduction. However, love is also cells interacting. Everything every cell in your body does is to maintain you alive. There is no reason, no destiny, no logic, no love. There only is chemistry.

But why must you think that? What purpose is there for you to think that?

Why do you refuse to feel love, just because it's an illusion? It is an illusion, but a formidable illusion. Love doesn't NEED to be your brain trying to secure your life and reproduction.

But if there is no meaning to it, does it mean I can give any meaning I want to it, therefore refusing that love is a transcedental experience? Not at all. It is agreed by most people that love IS a transcedental experience, and if you stop thinking it is meaningless, maybe you will too be able to experience the flower blooming in the desert of meaninglessness that love is.

this board is full of teenagers. thread hidden.

>>8441041
>Affirmating that love is nothing more than "brain chemistry" is one of the most childish things I can think of.

You're giving it loose metaphysical definitions and yet criticize homosexuality for the same thing.

Graduate community college and finish those philosophy courses champ.

>>8440602
it's 11 billion, but you're right

>>8441022
What you percieve as an "unnecessary element" is the very basis of human interaction. We inherently interact with an otherness. But this alterity is much more radical and thus transcendantal with the other sex because it is complementary. It fills the void, in a way.

A narcissistic love can be intense but it'll always be based on superficial grounds. Heterosexuals can experience something similiar with what I call "illusory love", which is basically idealization mistaken for love. This idealization is narcissistic - you think the perfect person just happened to choose you - but also fetichizing because you don't percieve the person you think you love for what she is really.

>>8441041
Not him
>But why must you think that? What purpose is there for you to think that?
Because I don't get to choose the things I believe are true, no matter how much I don't want them to be.
To me, wishful thinking is what's really childish
>Why do you refuse to feel love
I don't, not that I ever felt it.
>It is agreed by most people that love IS a transcedental experience
Doesn't really prove anything
>if you stop thinking it is meaningless, maybe you will too be able to experience the flower blooming in the desert of meaninglessness that love is.
I'm sure most nihilistic people are able to feel love and other emotions as well as anyone else, while at the same time not ascribing any metaphysical meaning to them.

>>8441045
> You're giving it loose metaphysical definitions and yet criticize homosexuality for the same thing.
What the fuck are you talking about.

I didn't even talk about homossexuality in my post

>>8440250
yes they can go ask kant

>>8440602
The peak will be 8.6 billion get your facts straight, unlike OP lol

>homossexualism

>>8441064
>A narcissistic love
Why does homosexual love have to be narcissistic? In >>8440754 you wrote
>A homosexual is someone who merely "loves" an extension (sometimes idealized) of his person
But that just sounds plainly wrong to me. Homosexuals are simply sexually attracted to people of the same sex, I doubt they are, on average, more narcissistic than heterosexuals

All in all, I can't see how heterosexual and homosexual love are fundamentally different. Again, to me adding concepts like the need for diversity and "complementarity" for love to be real, does not change its fundamental nature, and it sounds artificial and, well, less natural than what it actually is.

>>8441041
>Affirmating that love is nothing more than "brain chemistry" is one of the most childish things I can think of.

Making assertions that you can't support is more childish desu senpai

Your argument was "we should act like love is a transcendental experience because that makes me feel good"

>>8441112
>Homosexuals are simply sexually attracted to people of the same sex, I doubt they are, on average, more narcissistic than heterosexuals

Yet the "homosexual culture" reflects hedonism, consumerism and superficiality. Signs of pure narcissistic behaviors. But that's not the point. Maybe you got me wrong but I said that "homosexuality" was narcissistic, not people who happen to be homosexuals. This is an aspect of their identity that is narcissistic but they cannot be reduced to their sexuality even though the LGBT propaganda try to convince us otherwise. I'm pretty sure most homosexuals will agree that their sexual preferences is just an aspect of their individuality.

I need to translate the little text I've written in French. I think you'll understand me better.

>>8440227
Do you know of any other works supporting a similar conclusion?

>>8441135
Your argument reflects the same kind of hedonism and your inability to see it is ironic

Read the catechism bro. (Mishima is still my favorite writer)

>>8441154
Yeah sure, if you say so.
But hedonism isn't necessarily bad. I condemn hedonism based on consumerism and fetichization, a kind of hedonism promoted by neo-liberalism.

>>8441113
Yes

Our life purpose is to be happy. You cannot deny that, both biologically and philosophically.