What's wrong with homosexuality? Like, literally just fucking a dude as a dude or fucking a girl as a girl

What's wrong with homosexuality? Like, literally just fucking a dude as a dude or fucking a girl as a girl.

What's your honest reasoning against it?

Nobody actually cares, just an ez button to press

Homosexuality is.........like a cult.
A religion.

It's something that people believe in, but is not "actually" a thing.

There's no such thing as homosexuality.
Life wouldn't do that to itself.
Life CAN'T do that to itself.

And you can't apply this, mentally, to heterosexuality?

fag here. the problem is that people turn it into their fucking identity. as if they're so fucking boring and vapid that literally the most interesting thing about them is what they do with their genitals. they have no hobbies. they don't read. they have no career goals. Sad!

btw, "homosexuality" isn't real, being gay is just a fetish

Nothing really, it's modern homosexual culture that is degenerate and fucked up, also weirdly targeted towards little boys.

Being any form of sexual other than just sexual is a fetish. It's an identity circus when people call themselves both straight or gay, or even "bi." The identity is garbage.
Wrong argument when compared to "degeneracy" arguments of the past. It's not "modern" whatsoever to think of homosexuality and its 'identity' as toxic.

The problem is only the outspoken obnoxious flaming fags get noticed. Red pilled conservative gays fly under the radar.

Source: am gay, have had straight classmates make the odd slightly homophobic comment around me but also be nice to me.

People's attitudes to gays run on confirmation bias. And the problem is unless you're friends having a personal conversation where the subject would come up organically you can't make it known without also becoming one of those obnoxious fags who had to make sure everyone knows your business.

Bull shit. Milo's a "conservative gay," and he's more flaming than anything.
It isn't about political alignment.

It's fine as long as faggots marry women, make kids, and raise them in the atmosphere of a loving nuclear family. It doesn't really matter if the dad secretly fucks his neighbor's ass every night as long the population gets replenished and the kids are healthy.

If everyone became a fag, civilization would cease to exsist.

You know that the nuclear family was a creation of the US in a fearful response to the Soviet Union's criticism of 'family,' which has always been pretty fucking nebulous, right?
What kind of argument do you actually have that cuts down to the basis of humanity, instead of some fucking dream made by an old dude scared shitless of someone else?

Right, and if everyone breeds as much as possible, we run out of resources.

Should you be fucking a woman and impregnating her every time you jack off? Furthermore, w h y ?

Gay animals can't spread gay genes, so the gayness dies out when it pops up.

Gay humans are allowed to sperm up donor mothers and push their fagenetics further.

The US did alot of Cold War propaganda about it but they didn't fucking create it you strawmaning dumbass.

Gayness isn't a gene. Nor is "not-gayness." Bonobos have been having gay and not-gay sex for quite some time.
Patently incorrect. Societies have never really followed that idea of a 'nuclear family,' since societies never had a single class of people that made them up. Slaves don't have nuclear families.

keep it to yourself

i dont identify first as foremost as a pussy fucker

i dont want to think about dicks in asses because of how you act

just shut up about it. it's disgusting.

Awesome, then all the gays are just making a choice, and we can criticize them handily for making bad decisions. In fact we can ban them because they weren't born that way, they just chose it.

You can strike out the word nuclear from my post if it triggers you so much, and my argument, which cuts down to the basis of humanity, will still be there. Although if you think that healthy family is some unattainable dream, I don't think there's convincing you.

>Patently incorrect. Societies have never really followed that idea of a 'nuclear family,
I have literal direct evidence that my Scandinavian family had a nuclear family goign back hundreds of years. Of course, it wasn't called a nuclear family. That's Cold War propaganda.

You seriously think there were no nuclear families before the Cold War? You must live in some kinda fucked up turbo-marxist echo chamber.

That doesn't supply an argument for what makes it 'bad.' You're supposing that it is bad.
We can't say that heterosexuality is inherent, either. You don't wake up compelled to fuck pussy. You slowly, over time, express yourself emotionally in sexual manners. That doesn't nullify your agency.
Your argument does not, whatsoever, do anything if you strike the word 'nuclear.' Have you ever read anything about families throughout history? You know that humans didn't always live in urban societies, right? Perhaps you would be shocked to find that people don't actually all live in the suburb?

Why people are so gay ?

Yeah, hundreds of years, where your family was paid in wages (because wages have existed for these "hundreds" of years, amirite), and that was the dominant mode of labor in those societies.
Right. Me too.

At the dawn of industrial capitalism in England, children left their "FAMILIES" because they could pay rent elsewhere. Female children were some of first factory workers. Your values are so clearly a constant in human society, so steadfast and strong! What great urges these children possess to cling to their parents, leaving home before any sort of "rebellious teen" tropes set in!

HARD SCIENCE!
Because sexuality is a physical expression of your emotional bond to them, and that's super gay.

>paid in wages
Probably not. I think most of them were farmers or fishermen.

Actual rational response here:

Homosexuality is not inherently wrong, but it isn't perfect.

If two gay guys are doing it, that hurts no one.

If everyone is gay, the entire planet dies out in one generation.

Thus, homosexuality is not bad but not everyone can be homosexual. Thus, my stance is that homosexuality should be discouraged but tolerated.

Ah, and farmers totally never slept with other people in town, as is rampant in modern rural arrangements, or had extramarital arrangements, or did any of the things that wouldn't really be written down in church-maintained documentation regarding "FAMILIES."
I believe you, buddy. I believe you -so hard.-
You don't have to be gay forever. You can homosexually engage yourself with a man and also mate with women. Your argument sucks pretty hard.

Literally AIDS.

> You don't wake up compelled to fuck pussy.
It's called puberty, and yes you fucking do.

I've never had a problem with faggots. I have a few fag friends who are redpilled and voted for Trump. Many white fags are sick of the left catering to Islam, a religion that hates them, and niggers who lash out at them over oppression olympics. A black guy is more oppressed then a white lesbian, for example.

I feel a lot of the obnoxious liberal gays that make themselves known at every turn shouldn't be our actual perception. Many silent Trump supporters are gay, and redpilled white people need to be defended no matter the sexuality, I believe.

I mean conservative in a broader sense, including not engaging in PDAs or talking about sucking dick where strangers can hear you, and retaining more gender-conforming expressions.

In those ways I'm much more conservative than Milo. But I'm also more right leaning politically than Milo too.

Yeah they also lived in a fucking rural farmhouse hundreds of miles from the next rural farmhouse with nothing to do in the winter except have unprotected sex.

Families were had many kids and most (but yeah not all) of the kids were made by the father and mother of the house. Not sure how any of this disproves traditional families from existing for hundreds of years at least.

I will admit that families were probably alot less traditional in the cities than in the rural countryside. But mass urbanism is relatively new.

Also pre-Cold-War era movies and novels exist and clearly show a "nuclear family" dynamic.

I'll reiterate and expand as clearly you're not thinking straight. Try to collect yourself before you read this.

There are healthy families and there are sick families. A healthy family will fortify the kids' minds, a sick family will poison them. A family with two fathers or a family with one of the parents missing is not healthy. As long as faggots manage to form healthy families and reproduce, they are acceptable. This is the entirety of my argument.

Your argument doesn't really conflict with mine

In a marriage? Nothing. In fact it prevents cuckery and spiritual degeneration. Can a man marry Christ? Did Christ come how Eve fell or because she fell? Angels have no gender. Sodomy has nothing to do with blowjobs. Gays can make babby with surrogacy. There is zika now. Aids was made in lab. Whites dont get it. It is hard to get. Dont be a whore. Be safe. Once saved you cannot lose that and you wont be compelled to. Be fruitful and multiply means to be good. There were many "gay" characters and they were blessed. Very rare to be prosecuted and that was only for OT priests. Rainbows show up all the time now in relation to gay stories or events. Meaning a covenant. Straights catch hiv. Aaand im done. Just watch straight porn and gay porn and it's two different ball games

No, you do not. You can wake up sexually aroused, but sexual arousal and "fucking pussy" are not directly correlated. Sure, you can cognitively associate them and habituate them to be that indeed, but during puberty, women are not compelled to "fuck pussy."
The genetics argument falls apart at this level, where cognition and habituation are dominant.
Specifically, the concept of identity and libido attached to identity blurs the line. Pubescent teenagers do an enormity of sexual things to same-sex friends/foes (see locker room antics).
This is not about Trump. What the fuck is it with you (yes, you specifically) and making everything on this board about the presidential election? Did you even know what local changes were on the ballot?
Please talk less like FOX and more like a human being. Use words, not buzzwords.
Gender-conforming?
Hundreds of miles, eh? Totally. I entirely, totally believe you. Sounds like inbreeding was common enough that I'm talking to a pretty unreliable narrator.
>thinking straight
Oh the freudanity.
You're trying to drum up some sort of given argument you don't have to substantiate when my first post was all about the actual substance. What's your substance, kiddo? You're trying to project a Cold War propagandist reduction onto something with much different reasoning behind it. You know that humans existed for 190,000 years before agriculture, right?
Your argument is that everyone can't be homosexual. This is incorrect, as yes, everyone can be homosexual, and also be heterosexual, and can be the opposite. You're presenting a false dilemma.

Was conkers bad fur day a good game?

Christ doesn't have any historical proof. Your argument doesn't hold up to any form of historicity, but you're making the argument from a point of historicity.

>Hundreds of miles, eh? Totally. I entirely, totally believe you. Sounds like inbreeding was common enough that I'm talking to a pretty unreliable narrator.
Nitpicking like that means you've lost the argument and/or you're an idiot

poop dick

Ill be thinking of that the next time im blissful but somehow still pissing off clammies who cant even see me

Before we continue I need to know how old you are.

It goes against many people's religious beliefs. It's wrong because a religious text says so.

Not whatsoever. I'm not nitpicking--I'm telling you that your story doesn't add up because it's literally hearsay and the stories we have actually corroborated from those times paint a hilariously different picture.
You don't poop from your dick, user
Old enough.

>the stories we have actually corroborated from those times paint a hilariously different picture.

And this isn't hearsay?

You're bad at arguing but I will say you are good at being smug and confident about your bullshit.

Charlie sheen

Literally throat cancer from pussy juice

Okay, have fun with your (You)s then.

>AIDS.

Aren't gays primarily responsible for spreading HIV?

They also on average are very sexually promiscuous and advocate normalizing that kind of behavior as well as taking pride in it which can have negative consequences on a society if their influence is significant.

>t. troglodyte that doesn't clean his filthy asshole

The corroboration of multiple witnesses is the direct opposite of hearsay. I'm surprised that someone of legal age in your country would have such a pitiful understanding of legal proceedings, let alone basic reason.
I see that you have no substantive contribution; have fun with your greentext in some other thread.
I said "What's wrong with homosexuality," not "What's wrong with a set of homosexuals that you choose to focus on."

>the problem is that people turn it into their fucking identity

I think it's logical because homo people have to identify each other in some or another way. Imagine if a gay guy would ask every guy if he's a gay and would like to date him. Now it's better that they have some kind of subculture.

Just answering the question "what's wrong with homosexuality" senpai. Which is nothing, caring what other people fuck is ridiculous, and hating them for their image is retarded because many of them are normal and logical.

>Use words, not buzzwords
cringed because almost all of your posts is riddled with them

generalizations: the post

Because sucking dick is gay, faggot.

>The corroboration of multiple witnesses is the direct opposite of hearsay. I'm surprised that someone of legal age in your country would have such a pitiful understanding of legal proceedings, let alone basic reason.

Yeah but there has been a corroboration of multiple witnesses to confirm that while cheating happened and not all families were perfect, a nuclear family was the societal norm.

>riddled with buzzwords
Care to clarify?
Wow so clever

You are what you eat. Pussy.

I understand what you're saying now. I guess the next place for my argument to go would be to determine what costs and benefits being gay has versus being heterosexual. For example, hetero's can fuck their lives up with early pregnancy which doesn't exist for homos, but homos are at a higher risk of getting HIV. On average, I believe, homos do cost more (I'm pulling this out of my ass but I'm pretty sure it's true due to gays having higher mental illness, stds, etc.) so I don't think I need to change my conclusion that being gay should be discouraged but tolerated, as gays are more costly but not inherently bad.

>t. boyfriend's dick covered in shit

I am gay.

Shit doesnt store that low. Why is kardashian popular

um, it killed my uncle?

All sexual desire comes from the instinct to procreate.
To choose to have sex in a way that makes procreation impossible is illogical.
Yes this includes jerking it and birth control as well.

>has been a corroboration
Not according to all of the anthropological research we have had, especially including the 190,000 years leading up to the agricultural revolution, and the 8,000 years leading up to more concrete understandings of "PRIVATE PROPERTY" in terms of "FAMILY OWNERSHIP," so you will need to show me what you're meaning.
Condoms fix both of those things in modern industrially producing societies.
Again, I didn't say "What's wrong with gays," as in people you label as "a gay," but asked "What's wrong with homosexuality," as in "What's wrong with YOU doing sexual things with men?"

you're no one's boyfriend if you can't even take care of your own body

Really? Every thread? Youve been blessed and discussed many times. Dont come across as memeing now. Lots of things kill lots of people. EVE!

Surrogacy

Instincts are not that complex, and humans have the power of agency/cognition, which can override those things.
Sexual expression in primates is much more than procreation--just look at our phylogenetic relatives. Your argument is not substantive on any level.

sterile couples

Homosex is genetic. Imma go to other threads now. Fantasies might continue here

> Literally advocating douching your own asshole so you don't shit on another mans dick when he shoves it up your ass.

And none of this sounds like maybe this isn't the best idea?

Youre an obsessant who looks down a very narrow rabbit hole of lies. Logs and splinters basically

>needing to douche and not just eating right
>implying girls never clean their clam

Simply saying something that has already been challenged heavily by a slew of claims does not make it true.
Plug your ears and yell a little louder.

There is no sound reasoning against it. It's like people who are against weed. If you're a logically consistent libertarian then you don't give a fuck what other people get up to. Who the fuck is so petty they actually give a fuck what other people do when it doesn't effect them.

Xq28 gene. Hormones. Since dawn of man. After you had sex with devil and with the sex that brought it

Committing an act of homosexuality classifies you as a homosexual/bisexual, a group which has been shown to have higher rates of mental illness, stds, etc. There is nothing wrong with the act, but it is implied that you will be of higher cost to society.

I don't think my argument is that solid yet, I'm a bit confused. I will think on it.

Do you never wash your dick?

Most women don't douche you fucking retard.

((102425640))
Poor guy, I didn't know you were actually retarded.

The Torah condemns the act of it.
Reason enough for me.

It's just that I would prefer not to waste my pearls of substance on swine.

You're really arguing that the desire to have sex isn't rooted in the instinct to procreate?
That we didn't evloved these sex organs to pass on our genes?
I understand all your examples, but you are in denial of the source of sex as a whole.
i also find it humorous that so many had to jump on the idea with illogical examples to obfuscate the truth.
You faggots truly are mentally ill.

Nothing is "wrong" with it. It's caused by T. gondii, which makes it a sickness. It's not "wrong" to be sick, people get bacterial infections, parasitic infections, viral infections, etc. all the time.

Thing is though, most people strive to get better when it happens.

It boils down to "libruls love homos therefore we hate them."

Your religion doesn't even know who it is or what is going on. Where are the levitical priests? Are you one? Those proscriptions were not for lay people. Brush up on Biblical study even sodomy you haven't a clue. Even if you ignore the craziness in your other additions. I read concordance and understand Romance languages so who knows what you guys are doing. But you know what? I believe Christ saves and paid for those sins and heterosexuality was a big mess in Eden so I aint got a clue what you're doing. Enjoy

Is it even a sin in a marriage though?

Probably not

You're applying some sort of human-level logic to evolution. That's not how it works. Evolution didn't 'create' instincts. Evolution is not a deity. Evolution is the way we explain a series of phenomena that encourage things, not "choose" things. The phrasing is a teaching tool that personifies it for simpler discussion,but there isn't an actual "THING" that chooses or creates these things.
The "source" of sexual reproduction isn't inherent to sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism doesn't have to exist for sexual reproduction, so no, it's not relevant to this discussion.

Fox? Fox!? FOX!!!??!!!?!

Nothing. It's not my dick or asshole. Could not be anymore indifferent.

>Your religion doesn't even know who it is or what is going on.
[citation needed]

>I believe Christ saves
I'm a kike and have no use for a heretic and his religion created around him.

Male homosexuality is a far worse abomination than female homosexuality. Even the Vatican says this

>You're applying some sort of human-level logic to evolution.
Dipshit, human logic gave us the idea of evolution. Without it we have this understanding would we?
So, yes, it's more than relevant. It's the source of this conversation afterall.

You are really walking away from how that sentence was spoken.
It's not the source, here. We classify many different confluent factors as "evolution." It's not a single entity, and that's what I'm helping you understand: Stop personifying the object and your argument falls apart.

Lucifer has tits and a cock. When you say God has a female counterpart what are you doing there? Also if this were true why is the meek Christ no good? You think you can save yourself? Have at it. You want a warrior. From a half woman. Hahahaha. Also israel broke up and will reunite. You were told if you reject then even judah will diaspora after the three days you ignored. Now nobody knows who's a Hungarian and who's Judean. What their tribe is. Or what are Israeli Israelites

May I see some rare pepes?

Man created glory of God. Woman created glory of man. Smush em together and you got kabbalah

>Lucifer
You mean Ha-Satan, the accuser. You're putting your chritfaggotry into my religion. Topkek.

>You think you can save yourself?
Gd is the only savior.

>When you say God has a female counterpart what are you doing there?
Your knowldge of the Shekinah is hella lacking, kiddo.

> Now nobody knows who's a Hungarian and who's Judean. What their tribe is. Or what are Israeli Israelites

>Seeimage

No it doesn't it.
Regardless of the factors invovled, we evolved these sex organs for a purpose, to pass on our genes. It's doesn't require me to personify evolution in order to understand that fact. You are doing some hella mental backflips to try and rationalize your broken misunderstanding of sex.

>>>/facebook/

>gays bring Aids to America
>bi sexual degens spread it to none mentally ill people
DUDE HARMS NO ONE LOL