Reminder that only religious crazies hate homosexuals...

Reminder that only religious crazies hate homosexuals, and that there is literally no nationalist/racial/traditionalist case against homosexual acts per se

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nīþ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

good flag

Based Israeli?

HOMOSEXUALITY WUZ ROMAN N SHIEET

Homosexuality is an illness that weakens the nation.

That why the Nazis banned them.

We only hate gay men. We love and support lesbians, the purest love.

Gays should be forced to give their semen to a surrogate so their genes are not lost.

How come they lost than?

Welp, even the Spartan were ass lovers. Even if Sup Forumsacks don´t want it to be true but homosexuality is a big cultaral part of Europe. We just have to understand that we can´t allow to propagated it widely, I mean every civilization need offspring.

lol i hope that's legit.

Oi vey guess what

No, it's the opposite. Gay men can be based nationalists who compensate for their degeneracy by being brave warriors.

Lesbians are truly the lowest filth--solipsistic witches who want to destroy order and civilization and spread egotistic mass masturbation and the destruction of masculinity.

Because the whole world teamed up against them

So they were geopolitcly autistic and overconcentrated on vogue psheudoscientific body/society metaphors?

Literally all Sup Forums's arguments against the sexual revolution is not religious argumentation

lol is that a shoop?

>Lesbians are not purest love
>Not wanting cute lesbians everywhere
>Not liking lesbians
Fag

>posting Röhm alongside post

I see what you did there.

>uneducated wanna be nazis don't get it

Yeah, but Sup Forumstards never care about that sort of thing. They just want to stew over a narrative of their choosing.

Then they're just shitty and inconsistent.

Not to mention Sup Forums is full of queers and queer-lovers.

Based Ernst Rohm was the Milo of his time.

>illness that weakens the nation

well, that's not really the reason the Nazi's banned them.
It was more that Hitler was afraid of the Nepotism that Röhm practiced, replacing high ranking members of the S.A with other gays.

With this big rate of gays, who were more loyal to another gay man (Röhm) than the Führer himself, he had to remove the threat of a gay coup with killing Röhm and declaring homosexuality an abnormality

Milo is more like the Rosa Luxenburg/Karl Liebknecht.

inb4 MUH REVISIONIST HISTORY, FUCKING KIKE.

Confirmed real. This is the bare naked truth about Jewish homosexualism.

>implying Rosa Luxenburg would have ever gone on a triggering spree against SJWs or been carried to a speech by supporters wearing MAGA caps.

This. Homosexuality is degenerate. This is why they wore the pink triangle and were shipped to get oy veyed in Auschwitz by the jews before both of them took a long, hot shower together.

I doubt that there will be so many homosexuals that reproduction will fall below replacement rates.

>he even looks like Jack Donovan
v spooky desu

Because the white Anglo-Saxons and white Russians teamed up against them.

>implying Milo doesn't do it only for the publicity and money

sorry, but Milo is the same Con-Artist as Jewkeesian and the other SJW nonsense creators. But at least he has the decency to be entertaining

Was talking more about the liberal family values that often comes with liberal approachment to homosexuals.

>Milo is more like the Rosa Luxenburg/Karl Liebknecht.

lol, no. Both mentioned were communist and anti-german. Milo is pro liberal market regulations and pro western identity

jew merchant pic needed.

Anyone who doesn't love lesbians is a fag. The Bible only hates gay men. God approves of purest love.

Caring about who people choose to fuck is extremely counter-productive. Sodomy laws have the same qualities of laws against infidelity.

The Sup Forums of yesteryear that was mostly libertarian and right-wing would have understood it immediately. But Trump kiddies are cancer.

Romans and Germanics saw a man who wanted to be anally penetrated as shameful, even as sub-human and evil in the case of the Germanics.


>Examples from Old Scandinavian Laws: The Gulathing law[4] referred to "being a male bottom," "being a slave," "being a seiðmaðr," the Bergen/Island[5] law referred to "being a seiðmaðr," "being a sorcerer and/or desiring same-sex activities as a [passive] male (kallar ragann)," the Frostothing law[6] to "desiring male same-sex activities as a bottom." Thus, it is apparent that ergi of a níðingr was strongly connoted not only with sorcery, unmanliness, weakness, and effeminacy but also especially with lecherousness or sexual perversion in the view of Old Scandinavian people during the Early and High Middle Ages. Ergi of females was considered as excessive lecherousness bordering raging madness, ergi of males as perversity, effeminacy and the passive role within same-sex intercourse between men, while an active role of a man, who had been included into same-sex intercourse, was not to be tanged by ergi, ragr, argr or níð.[7]
>the Gulathing law[4] referred to eacans swearwords further describing earg as "being a mare," "being a pregnant animal," "being a bitch," "having indecent intercourse with animals," the Bergen/Island law[12] referred to "biting another man," "being a pregnant animal," the Frostothing law[6] to "being a female animal," the Uplandslag law to "having sexual intercourse with an animal."[13]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nīþ

Fuck off kike. We were never libertarian.

Another example of lesbian superiority

Sup Forums was founded by Ron Paul fans you inconsequential underage moron.

and the Roman equivalent:

>Pathicus was a "blunt" word for a male who was penetrated sexually. It derived from the unattested Greek adjective pathikos, from the verb paskhein, equivalent to the Latin deponent patior, pati, passus, "undergo, submit to, endure, suffer."[72] The English word "passive" derives from the Latin passus.[73]

Pathicus and cinaedus are often not distinguished in usage by Latin writers, but cinaedus may be a more general term for a male not in conformity with the role of vir, a "real man", while pathicus specifically denotes an adult male who takes the sexually receptive role.[74] A pathicus was not a "homosexual" as such. His sexuality was not defined by the gender of the person using him as a receptacle for sex, but rather his desire to be so used. Because in Roman culture a man who penetrates another adult male almost always expresses contempt or revenge, the pathicus might be seen as more akin to the sexual masochist in his experience of pleasure. He might be penetrated orally or anally by a man or by a woman with a dildo, but showed no desire for penetrating nor having his own penis stimulated. He might also be dominated by a woman who compels him to perform cunnilingus.[75]

Germanic and Roman cultures were martial as well which might affect it.

*spits out foreskin blood*

>ass lovers
Unless you have some reason to think that you shouldn't assume it: the Athenians didn't have anal sex at all - they used intercrural sex (rubbing between thighs). Treating homosexuality like it always involves anal isn't the right thing to do.

also I wonder whether Spartans accepted homosex between mature adult males of the upper classes - in Rome at some points it was only ok to have male-on-male sex if the receiver was young or a slave, anything else was a serious offence.

I think it was the usual tradition to have sexually explicit little sculptures on churches - the same principle as gargoyles, something to shock you.

pretty sure himmler and the ss were the main anti homo force in nazi germany and it was ideologically based.

Touché but I wanted it to sound catchy - you get my point. Nevertheless, sexual freedom is one core value of Europe.

The 'values' of a country are decided by its current government.

No, values arise over hundreds of years in a group of people that is self aware that they are a group.

>sexual freedom is one core value of Europe.
I'm not so sure - read and If I understand it right Rome entered into sexual license when they started to rot (multi-culturalism, loss of martial values etc.)

however there is this:
>... a very witty remark is reported to have been made by the wife of Argentocoxus, a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta. When the empress was jesting with her, after the treaty, about the free intercourse of her sex with men in Britain, she replied: "We fulfill the demands of nature in a much better way than do you Roman women; for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest." Such was the retort of the British woman.[102] - Roman History Volume IX Books 71–80, Dio Cassiuss and Earnest Carry translator (1927), Loeb Classical Library
which suggests that there was open hypergamy among the Celts, which to me is a healthier approach than forced monogamy - however I wouldn't say that is all-out "sexual license" since there's still a lot which might have been outlawed or seen as shameful or repellent such as anal, male-on-male etc.