Justify why homosexuality is bad without using religion or your subjective moral values

justify why homosexuality is bad without using religion or your subjective moral values

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/LRe05#selection-2973.0-3276.4
peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/transdad-0-800.jpg?w=800&h=600&crop=1
twitter.com/AnonBabble

anal incontinence

>gives stds
>is disgusting
>doesn't give offspring

I can do more but I will save you buttlovers the shit...

It erodes trust between men, which is the cornerstone of civilization.

>>without... subjective moral values
>is disgusting

>posting degenerate cartoons

sort yourself user. please.

being white carries with it responsibility. you are not aloud to just throw it away on degeneracy

>aloud

I don't think it is, I am just sick of having to walk on egg shells because of it. Thing is, I don't want to know who or what anyone is fucking unless it's me, just shut the fuck up about it. I've no issue with gay marriage, though I'm not interested in forcing institutions that do to participate. Live and let live, and that blade cuts both ways.

>ignores his other point(s) to focus on one specific facet of his post
Classic degenerate behavior.

Can you justify why it is needed in society without using the appeal to nature fallacy?

Higher chance of STD's. Tend to be kiddie fiddlers and promiscuous. They make it their identify and in turn make them mentally unstable. Force the majority of people to bend to their needs.
That being said if fags just kept to themselves and didn't bug others and others didn't bug them I wouldn't mind. Trannies on the other hand need to be fucking removed.

A lot of things aren't needed in society such as cigs and alcohol. Use a better argument lad because there are better ones.

I know one thing.

Its good at population control.

>gives stds
So does straight sex
>is disgusting
Subjective opinion
>does not produce offspring
Many people die without producing children
This doesn't make them bad

less white babies
also they have shit agendas like gay pride and gay marriage.

Gays are generally dont do monogamy and adoption is a shit idea because they're much more likely to be pedos and even if they dont the kid will still be fucked up by not growing up in a proper family.

And gay pride is something they push into places where it doesn't even belong because they're attention whores.

Lets not pretend this is anything but rampant lust, just accept that you're shallow deadends and stop demanding a higher representation than you make up of the population.

Have really no problem with Homos doing their things at home as long as they won't go full-SJW and ask for seperate toilets or such. Am still unsure about allowing gay-couples to adopt children though

...

>it's a mental illness
>most homosexuals were molested as children and molest children
>it erodes the nuclear family which is the cornerstone of European culture.
>STDs
>contributes to white genocide

...

fucks up the family structure.
kids need a mom and a dad.
other than that its not bad, but does affect the community.

It's an evolutionary dead end. To promote homosexuality is to promote defective human beings and serves no purpose other than to masturbate your own ego about how tolerant and accepting you are.

Anal prolapse, less white children,

I dont know dude if I was letting some guy ass ram me I'd want to trust him.

>Many people die without producing children
This doesn't make them bad

They are a dead end of millions of years of evolution. Sounds like a bad ending to me.

How is that a bad argument? You used a strawman to try and deflect the question. Cigs and alcohol had no place in the question, nor the thread. The question was also flawed from the get go, asking why they are "bad", which is a subjecting inquiry. Reproduction is absolutely needed in a society, which gays do not reproduce. I know you're not OP, but the question still remains. Why are homosexuals accepted (needed) in a society without falling on natural fallacies (homosexuals happen in nature, so it's only natural humans are too)?

Reminder that you will burn in the pits of hell for all eternity for your sin

>or your subjective moral values

all moral values are subjective you retard. the only time someone would argue that moral values are objective is if they were conceived by a superior being (comes from religion). so what you just said is "explain this to me while basing it on NOTHING AT ALL". are you retarded or just retarded?

>subjective moral values

Didn't op say without subjective moral values?

Homosexuality is nature's way of self-limiting the population. It's caused by high levels of stress hormones while the mother is pregnant and while the child is an infant. More stress = high chance the environment is overcrowded = higher chance the child will be gay. It's beautiful in its way. People who think homosexuality causes societal collapse have it backwards - societies on the brink of collapse cause lots of homosexuals, as nature attempts to curb the populations growth. If anything, homosexuals are a stabilizing influence

...

He also asked why it was "bad" which is asking for a subjective moral value.

Basically OP is a retarded faggot as usual

Because homosexual sex causes more STIs than heterosexual sex (assuming both are unprotected).

Because homosexuality would eventualy end humanity if practiced by everyone.

Because homosexuality is just a mental crutch for many mental issues that said homosexual has.

Because homosexuality has now caused an epedimic, within societies that allow it, that causes an indentity crisis for many mentaly weak beings. (Bi, Trans, Non-genderconforming, pansexual, etc...).

Because homosexuality is the starting to completely giving up on all forms of logical thinking.

Fuck homosexuality, Fuck this thread, Fuck libralfagots, and most of all sir, FUCK YOU

OP, serious question, if you are gay, was your mom kind of a bitch?

Read this and fuck off archive.is/LRe05#selection-2973.0-3276.4

poop dick

Extremely high STD rates and domestic violence stats

Here's a quick tl;dr of all anti-homosexuality responses to this thread.

>muh feelings

So the only real argument against homosexuality is a subjective moral value?

It is an evolutionary dead end.

Why the fuck do we get 20 of these posts a day? Now I'm starting to hate faggots

It doesn't contribute to the national effort by providing children for the meat grinder.

Risk for community.
More costly to the country.
No reproduction capabilities.

>poop dick
That's why you buttpirates are circumcised.

Justify why homosexuality is good.

He means trust between fags and non-fags you fucking idiot.

Venereal diseases and drug abuse are statistically more prevalent in homosexuals, nitwit

homosexuality by itself isn't bad per-se

it becomes bad when faggots try to sell it like being a firefighter or astronaut to little kids.

>gay men cant have kids
>need kids to continue society
>gays are the death of civilization

If stress relates to the higher chance of homosexual children, then why aren't all 3rd world mothers popping out gene simions on the daily? They have to have a very stressful life, being in a shitworld, yet their offspring breed like rabbits. If anything, I would say a comfier life has a higher chance of breeding offspring that do not need to reproduce. There is no danger, therefore no need to continue gene pooling to out birth the danger. Of course, not all children are 100% gay or not based on the mother's stress levels, but I don't think it works quite that way.

Surprised no one posted the smuggie yet.

Homosexuality goes against the purpose of sex which is ultimately for reproduction. Plus it's disgusting considering two guys or two girls having "sex" with each other it's as bad as pedophilia or bestiality.

...

kek
No one, not even the l, g, and b in /lgbt/ goes to /lgbt/.
It's just a BlAAAAAAAWg for tranny mutants.

>justify why raping babies is bad without using religion or your subjective moral values

They're all pedophiles and rapists

OH SHIT
HE MADE A TYPO
DISREGARD EVERYTHING ELSE

The closest thing I can think of to an objective moral framework is to imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted in a certain way and see if myself and others would like to live in that world.

Homosexuality doesn't produce children so if everyone was homosexual humanity would end and the last generation would have a pretty bad life for obvious reasons, therefore on a societal level homosexuality is bad.

Like I don't care that much and people don't seem to have a choice on some level that's not clear but it's not defendable OP.

Moral values aren't subjective.

Cultural values are, but morals are an evolved survival trait.

Everyone who isn't a psychopath thinks it's noble for a father to sacrifice for their children, for instance. It's instinctual in the same way that birds build nests.

It's not subjective.

If you would rather live than die right now, you're benefiting from people around you continuing their lineage. If you don't, you're just a parasite the children of others have to bear as their burden when you grow old.

Parasitical organisms are most often harmful, and this is not subjective.

I didn't strawman shit lad nor deflected anything. You said why there are needed which implies the things we have in society are needed which is clearly false. Applying that to homosexuals and not to the rest of things in society is disingenuous. I mean if you hold the few that we should only have needed things in society then that's fine but that's not how things are. How would you even define "needed" anyways? Food, water, and shelter are needed yet is junk food needed? Are pets needed? Movies? What makes fags have to be needed to be in society? Your argument is just shit. The reason I used cigs and alcohol are because they're not needed and objectively aren't healthy yet part of society.

You say we need reproduction, sure, but what of sterile or people who don't want to reproduce? Are they unneeded and shouldn't be on society? Also homos are accepted because it's illegal to murder or exile others without due process and being a faggot isn't cause for either of those. On a societal level the left embraces homos and the right generally tolerates them.

Like I said before, your argument is complete shit because society is absolutely filled with unneeded shit and you don't live in your fantasy fascist nation where you weed out the undesirables.

Also "bad" isn't always subjective. Fags have a higher rate of contacting STD's, are usually promiscuous, and have a high amount of kiddie fiddlers. Those are objectively bad things. It's only a flawed question if you can only think of subjectively bad things that fags bring to the table.

Shit on dick. Faggots have no loyalty and are superficial. They use drugs and spread disease. They fuck children. Interior design lol

There is no scientific evidence that hormones cause homosex, since it has always been present in human civilization(mostly in pagan cultures) it is not a self limiting factor of the population but rather sick desires of messed up individuals.

Do you think if humans weren't designed to produce dopamine lead up to or after orgasm, there would be a complete halt to homosexual or deviant tendencies?

High rate of pedophilia
Disgusting
Counter productive to civilization due to no offspring.

this shit is outdated as fuck , stop posting it.

Aren't homos like 5000% more likely to have mental disorders or try suicide?

It's a package deal, you can't just cherrypick "I like cute dicks" out of it.

>no more wanking
>only sex for the purpose of reproduction

If only we could replace the dopamine release with actually popping out a baby and give every guy a pregnancy fetish.

There's no good or bad but there is constructive and destructive. Homosexually prevents childbirth so depending on the state of our population it could be considered constructive or destructive at any given time.

Fire is not good or bad, it's a life saver and a life taker

Context

Straight sex doesn't give stds if you stick to one mate

what a sad world would that be.

>Gay parents giving birth to more gay kids
Is this supposed to be a surprise? Where else do you think gays come from?

first post best post

>asks for good arguments
>ignores the good arguments when given

Spreading disease is objectively bad.

It goes against social norms. But now is actually to ate as you stupid burgers change your own norms to accomodate an extreme minority.

Neither does homosexual sex

no its not

True, but homosexuals are more likely to be sluts

saying its disgusting is an opinion and also solely because one is heterosexual

>saying pedophilia while giving nothing to base the claim on

nice devil's proof knockoffs

>Moral values aren't subjective
explain why people have different morals then

no
never considered her one outside of the edgy teen years

>libral
>fagot
good thing im not a liberal then, or else i'd by called a 'fagot' by user
and homosexuality will never be practiced by everyone and thinking it will is a slippery slope

>'stupid burgers'
>posts from a "literally who" country

what makes you think i ignored it?

No, if you ask why something is "wrong" you are asking for a subjective moral value. He literally asked for it and then said he won't accept it in the same post. He's a fucking retard and so are you.

This graphic needs to divide "single parents" into single fathers and single mothers.

see infograph, faggot

justify why throwing fags off buildings is bad without using religion or your subjective moral values

Gay fanfic

this one

If you can't use religion, than you can't use objective values. This challenge is a no go.

>homosexuals sticking to one mate
>im an irish fucking unicorn
pick ONE

>>'stupid burgers'
>>posts from a "literally who" country

Here is you average Burger-
peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/transdad-0-800.jpg?w=800&h=600&crop=1

sexually perverted which even has the guts to potrait this perversion as "freedom"

1. it's gross
2. it's abnormal

>explain why something is bad without bringing up morals
That can't be done faggot. Trying to argue what is good or bad depends on morals

just suck dick user.

stop being a pussy

You ask why homosexuality is bad, we give you objective reasons why and all you do is complain about the subjective opinions. Clearly, you want to grandstand about "morality" than debate the question at hand.

>0.23 of kids with dyke mothers sexually abused.

Gay men are promiscuous beyond all reason, predatory, and naturally inclined towards subversion for psychological reasons.

Gay women dont exist, women become gay because society pressures them to.

The solution for both is to stop glamorizing homosexuality, stop giving homosexuals reason to feel oppressed (thus forming a destructive parallel society), glorify the family as the well-spring of civilization that it actually is.

Do this and gays will stop acting like faggots and Sup Forums will realize they dont really hate gays at all, just their faggy degeneracy.

All it achieves is masturbation.

Needed in the way of acceptance. Perhaps it wasn't spread out in a clear manner for you, or perhaps it was a specific question asked at a broad approach. There is no need for homosexuality in a society other than as you put it, tolerance. You can tolerate someone whom you disagree with, on the base fact they are only human. Yet I don't grasp why you would tolerate or allow the progression of an act or ideology that goes directly against the progress of humankind? Be it birthrate, diseases, criminal offenses, etc as many put it. Why promote or accept something that would lead to your demise. This is where the nature part comes in, where as they response is overwhelming "it's only natural". To me seems like a catch 22 in my argument since the only reply to that is that it's unnatural for human nature, since it is our nature to progress the gene pool, thereby ourselves. Given you bring up sterile people, those who cannot reproduce. I can say they are fine, since even if they tried to breed, they are unable, and not their fault, where as homosexuality are able to breed, but unwilling at a natural level (excluding surrogates or donations). Tolerance is the seemingly best counter to the question at hand, given a larger population has a very lower risk to die out, and vise versa. If you look at japan, and replaced the xbox heug population drop due to people unwilling to breed, you can take that akin to homosexuals pushing the idea that a gay life supersedes a straight life. Somewhat odd being that I am fine with homosexuals overall, but understand that they do not fit into the equation of life given the choices they make.

so it being more prevalent to have partners makes homosexuality as a concept bad?

The point is there is no argument against homosexuality other than "I don't like it", is that hard to get?

It fails the first categorical imperative
>"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
If everyone were gay, humanity would die out

>Because homosexual sex causes more STIs than heterosexual sex (assuming both are unprotected).
I wouldn't say "cause" but it's certainly more prevalent in those groups because there's less of a push to use protection among the older guys. Apparently this is changing as the youth are realizing the value of condoms to STI prevention, but we'll see what happens.

>Because homosexuality would eventualy end humanity if practiced by everyone.
The categorical imperative just doesn't cut it for ethics in a specialized society. Humanity would also end if everyone were a software developer. That doesn't mean no one should do it.

Also, I don't think everyone secretly wants to be a homosexual and only a few get to do it. If only a few people want to do it, there's not a genuine threat in that regard.

>Because homosexuality is just a mental crutch for many mental issues that said homosexual has.

I don't know anything about this, but I agree it's not uncommon for homosexuals to have other mental illness. As regards to why that is, I don't think anyone can say either way if that's due to tougher conditions growing up (e.g. getting made fun of for it, having less confidence for being different, etc.) or because of something deeper.

>Because homosexuality has now caused an epedimic, within societies that allow it, that causes an indentity crisis for many mentaly weak beings.

Tumblrisms are pure cancer.

>Because homosexuality is the starting to completely giving up on all forms of logical thinking.

No, humans are just inherently emotional/empirical thinkers before logical/rationalists. Try reading some David Hume.

Sex was designed to be between a man and a woman according to nature. For someone to want to have same-sex intercourse, they would have to be mentally disabled.

I didn't say remove dopamine, but halt the production via means of sexual acts. You would still get it outside of that, like from exercising.