my diary, tbh

>Dear Diary,

>Someone was mean to me on 4chan so I shut off the computer and lay in bed all day.

>>9047995
dear my diary desu

NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS AND FAGS

sorry, unicode doesn't support dalecarlian runes

>>9047995
it's mostly just me quoting random 4chan posts and rambling about fetishes

To start, some very obvious things that you already know. Human beings are a pair bonding species. Some other mammals are too, but human beings especially, it is a deeply embedded instinct, so deeply embedded that when you see human beings reject that instinct you know something went wrong somewhere.

One of the reasons pair bonding is such a deeply embedded instinct is that our offspring require massive resources in order to survive and mature properly. Whether because it is intrinsically advantageous or is contingent upon certain conditions, our psychological development is most balanced with male and female parents, a concept we've formalized with marriage. It's true you can find various primitive societies that do not have formal marriage, but they are incredibly rare, lack robustness, and remain stuck at a primitive, almost animal level of social organization.

When you are a loose band of nomads, individual deviation from the healthiest norms has very localized effects, namely your offspring are more likely to die before reproducing, group cohesion is weaker, the ability to manage large threats is reduced. But as societies grow larger and larger, these effects do not stay so localized--deviations from pair bonding contribute to social disorder, and the larger the society the more disorder they create. Family chaos creates more illegitimacy, crime, substance abuse, domestic violence, promiscuity, on and on--and these risk devouring public resources, not just government resources. You have to pay more for your auto insurance, you have to buy a more expensive house to stay in a good school system (i.e. to avoid dysgenic filth), you are physically less secure, etc.

We've been watching it in real time for the past 50 years with illegitimacy rates. We've watched lower class blacks collapse into nearly feral behavior, and without draconian incarceration of black males the problem would be a hundred times worse. We see similar problems with Mexicans and to a lesser (but still measurable) degree with whites. It isn't someone else's problem, it is devouring resources and energy at a massive rate. So when you see pair bonding decrease or become less stable, if you are at all awake you see a huge problem. The effects won't be local, they will spread and will carry over into subsequent generations. And as it happens, homosexual couples all have higher rates of social dysfunction, remarkably like the products of illegitimacy. They have higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness (besides being sexually deviant), promiscuity, and I believe if statistics could be accurately collected they would have higher rates of criminal behavior when controlled for race. Anecdotally, homosexuals appear to be overrepresented in radical political groups of the right and left. Their hedonism is off the charts. With gay marriage it is safe to predict that homosexual "partnerships" will be shorter, non-monogamous, and more disordered.

>>9048968
As such homosexuals are a net cost to society, leaving out whether their sexual practices should be ignored by a "consenting adults" standard (the lowest standard of public morality you can have). Completely apart from that they are a net cost. A glance at gay subculture tells you this, and the statistics back it up. That said, politically I think arguing that homosexuality is harmful is a loser, because there are too few homosexuals and because other groups grossly overshadow them in proportional harm. Also because conservatives are inordinately bad at arguing harm.

More important than the social disorder they directly contribute to, homosexuality is a symptom of hyperliberalization. I repeat, the main problem is what homosexuality is a symptom of, not what harm it causes. To a liberal, at least one who doesn't read much, hyperliberalization might sound great--finally, real progressivism! Like they talk about on Current TV! But in reality hyperliberalization is a very bad thing. It's a sign of anomie, a state of normlessness and disillusionment which results in ramped up materialism and relaxed morality and cohesion. The main thing hyperliberalization is good for is creating lots of disorder. That's what it did back in the 1920s. This period saw a sharp increase in deviance from social norms in the Western world, which, depending on how you look at it, either fed an atmosophere of greed and materialism or was fed by it (probably both). Reactions such as Prohibition were either ineffective or stimulated even more disorder and crime.

The end result, according to social scientists like Robert Paxton, was turmoil and fascism. Generally these are not in progressive interests, even if you're an angry Journolist member and would like to kick some people through plate glass windows (metaphorically speaking of course). Usually turmoil is really bad for liberals and results in the opposite of the society they want to live in, even when the new government calls itself "the people's party".

Conservatives usually argue that homosexuality is "just wrong" (sometimes they can't even go that far). They can't say why or articulate the harmful effects or defend the benefit of shared morality (much less state why morality is more than harm and fairness). They're hopeless. That is why they have no rejoinder to the naive liberal assertion that gay marriage is about love and holding hands and being yourself. In defense of conservatives, liberals are profoundly obtuse on this subject--their thinking is inbred, they ignore their own data, and they hide behind mindless emotional catchphrases. As stupid as conservatives are, they're simply not smart enough to be as hysterically dumb as a liberal with a slogan.

>>9048974
I think you can point to additional factors that indict homosexuality as abnormal on the level of sociopathy or pedophilia. Physical development--gay face, finger length, brain morphology--is just clearly abnormal. For strictly eugenic reasons it is appropriate to study it as an abnormality and come up with forms of treatment, or if need be to change the environment that is producing it. Emotional development mirrors the physical--neoteny, hedonism, lack of self-control--homosexuals seem a lot like hypersexualized children. It's no wonder then that in an age that exposes children to sexuality far before their brains have matured in crucial ways, homosexuality has far greater acceptance, as does most other sexual deviance.

Liberals are free to continue being stupid--no one can stop them. Fortunately they are only 20% of the public, and they seem fine with shooting themselves in the foot. I think most everyone else (at least those who have reached full maturity) can be convinced that continuing to sanction homosexuality, much less gay marriage, is a terrible idea.

you asked for this.
>060117
>guy shooting chickens with a bow
>witch's party
>fanfiction thing

>God and satan sex in mercury

>Breeding prison farm gore

>Franny's brother