What philosophical works argue against homosexuality?

It gives AIDS

>t. roastie

Ignore sodomite orders.

The Germanic tribes used to drown homos in bogs, as described in Germania by Tacitus
>"Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers, and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog."
you cannot defend homosexuality

I wonder for what reason a person would have that picture saved on their computer

>ill never procreate with muh aryan goddess if des libruls keep corrupting em

It makes me laugh every time I see it

Homosexuality goes against the Categorical Imperative

You cannot defend slave morality

In what way? It only seems to violate the categorical imperative if there's no such thing as being a homosexual; ie, if sexuality is fluid or a choice.

I've often wondered if the Arthurian legend about the wounding of the grail king could be interpreted as an admonishment of homosexuality.
Metaphorical dick (the lance of Longinus) on actual dick "action" leaves the land barren.
Not exactly philosophy, but something to think about.

Elaborate on this please

Hope you never go sterile for any reason or that your partner never develops uterine cancer and has to have a hysterectomy. Also I hope you are highly aware of your moral obligation to never have sex with somebody without being able to guarantee you will ejaculate. Have you had your sperm count tested recently? Do you ever masturbate ever?

t. triggered homo

I have not once heard an argument against homosexuality that wasnt rooted in fee fees.

neat

> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become an universal law

> Everyone should be allowed to have solely non-procreative sex

Effectively only good under Anti-natalism. Still a consistent position, but what you are arguing against.

> Homosexuals should be allowed to have solely non-procreative sex

Doesn't result in a position only good under anti-natalism; breeding still occurs.

Wtf I love being Germanic now

Is it not exactly the same stance the people who support same sex marriage use? "love will prevail" "we will have our day" etc.

It stems from the same feels before reals attitude

This but unironically.

looks like the barbarians were based

fuck Socrates and his boyfucking bunch

>A Critique of Pure Trapness
>Queer Ultraviolence

This is just an argument for bears to fuck twinks and butches to fuck femmes.

Nonsense, here's a good one:
>By limiting what I can do with my body you limit what you can do with your own
>By demanding that somebody pretends to be something they're not you introduce mental stress that will contribute to slumps in their labor
>By denying the ability of homosexuals to form partnerships you deny orphans homes creating a net increase in crime when they age
>By demanding daddy government put the homosexuals in time out you only drive them underground, increasing the spread of disease as the culture becomes criminalized and safe sex info suppressed
>Suppressing homosexuality will require spending tax payer money on imprisoning and rooting out homosexuals who can always pull a Hoover and take over one of these costly institutions for their own protection

What was your argument again btw? Something about gays hurting your feelings and offending you? Remind me why we should waste money to protect your feelings.

this is copypasta, right?

It's enjoyable and therefor evil.

>LARPing

>Women are naturally more attracted to other women.
Untrue. The only reason lesbianism and homosexuality are prevalent in """modern""" society is the feminization of men in mass media, and the usage of female sexuality to sell product.

At least you admit homosexuality "turns" people, as opposed to it being biologically innate. Though, I disagree with the word choice.

I don't know why I replied to this semi-seriously.

Stupid ones.

Aristotle was none too fond of it either.

>IF YOU DON'T LET ME FUCK MEN IN THEIR POO POO HOLES I WILL BECOME A RABID MENTALLY ILL CHILD ABUSING CRIMINAL
what an argument

as above, so below

>What was your argument again btw? Something about gays hurting your feelings and offending you? Remind me why we should waste money to protect your feelings.

Not the guy who posted the first post, but arent you the one who mentioned feelings in the first place?

And besides noone is (or will be) suppressing anything, if anything it's being more welcomed now more than ever if you live in a civilized part of the world that is, Also what do the orphans have to with the equation, adaptations are strict already as it is

If homesexuality was a maxim everyone adopted, humanity would die out

A person can choose to only engage in homosexual sex acts, and you would label them a homosexual, so yes it is a choice.

>under anti-natalism
Nope. If your parents had solely non-procriative sex you wouldn't be here to have non-procriative sex.
Kant is weird, but consistent. Look up the lying argument.

What does this have to do with the categorical imperative?
Homosexuality is an act, not a maxim. I still don't know what the maxim would be which is permissible under the categorical imperative. The one that gave still has the problem of referring to some particular entity as part of the maxim, which I do not think Kant permits.

Feelings are a valid reason to get married, they are not a valid reason to restrict the rights of others.

Is that what I said? Well ya better lube that feelhole my dude cause im gonna fact inside you. I will infect you with HIV positivism. You will beg to cum but I will hang a sign that says "heteros need not apply". Then I will find your son and teach him how to apply mascara.

You're right, I did because I've never heard a non emotional argument from homophobes, I was kinda hoping to flush one out.

And yeah, things are getting better I'm not denying that just outlining why continuing in that direction makes practical sense and why getting your feelings in a twist over another man's pee pee is ridiculous and expensive.

A person can't however choose what they're attracted to. A man attracted to men is homosexual, a woman attracted to women similarly. Lying about this fact changes nothing.

Tommy likes spicy foods
Tommy hates the taste of bland foods
Tommy only eats chili in private
Tommy only eats turkey and mayo sandwiches in public

Does Tommy like spicy or bland foods?

bump

You realize that all of this is already accounted for in Roman Catholic moral teaching, right? Why are you brining up points that have already been refuted?

How about medical reasons? Nothing like getting a perforated colon and having fecal matter travel through your bloodstream settle in your brain tissue. Ask a proctologist what he thinks of sodomy.

Show us these refutations and lets check how hard or flaccid they are.

Superior to an emotional argument, absolutely. But what you think youre saying and what youve actually said are different. Lemme explain:

>Not all homosexual men participate in anal sex
>Not all anal sex results in a perforated colon
>Suppressing information on safe homosex will not reduce the number of perforated colons
>By this logic lesbian women are a-ok
>By this logic heterosexual anal sex must also be restricted
>By this logic we must restrict all other potentially sex acts such as bdsm, oral sex and of course putting a penis in a vagina which can result in
>By this logic we should restrict all potentially harmful acts including the consumption of poisons like alcohol or spicy foods which can also cause colon damage

This also doesn't affect my previous economic arguments where you're asking taxpayers to give their money to the government to stop two adults from having consensual sex because it might harm them and not you.

Get the picture? I'm too fiscally conservative to approve of homophobia

>homosexuals
>listening to reason

Nice attempt

>By this logic we must restrict all other potentially sex acts such as bdsm, oral sex and of course putting a penis in a vagina which can result in
Oooph I erased a portion of this while editing, my b

Cuts, bleeding, infection and disease transmission and of course: carpet burn

>Carpet burn
Hahahaha holy fuck that's the gayest thing I ever read.

well they are the masters of sexual deviancy

The other side of the coin is that some homosexuals have just decided that they want to be happy with their mate and that they'll never do right by society/authorities/the more bitter elements of Veeky Forums.

tolerance of homosexuality is part of the reason western birth rates are falling

Well depends at the states you look at, I think Russia has a ban on these sort of advertisements because you the reason you specified, since it can only cripple the birthrate but then again they're not exactly paragons of human rights

t. incel
You can burn your back pretty badly on some carpet sex my dude. For this reason sex on carpets MUST be restricted to limit the spread of carpet burn which can lead to bleeding and further infection.

All sex must be held under careful supervision and take place on linoleum mats that are lubricated with cosmetic grade south korean snail slime so as to prevent friction.

It's either that or an urban, increasingly automated society with a large information based economy has less use for a large population than a rural agricultural society or even a burgeoning industrial society.

one or the other, who can even tell lmao

Falling birthrates has everything to do with the increased cost of having children, and nothing to do with The Gays. When you live a rural life children can even be a net positive because after a few seasons they start to be able to provide labour.

ilu gayfag

Read the Symposion. Western civilization was built on a foundation of gay assfucking.

>gay sex is narcissistic rather than ecstatic

Nice assertion bro.

You can't attack it :^)

Same thing would happen if everyone spent their youth fapping to BLACKED and browsing the 4chinz, but it doesn't seem to have stopped any of you lot.

>barbarians were based

>Destroys roman civilization, sending Europe into the dark ages
>LOL BUT AT AT LEAST THEY KILLED GAYS XDDDDDD

This is your brain on /pol/.

>Redpillers love the Freudians like Jung
>Redpillers also violently reject homosexuality
>Redpillers don't even realize their rejection of homosexuality stems from a latent and repressed desire to satisfy the penis they wished they had.

Sad!

Not like us REAL REDPILLED MEN who use LOGIC and REASON instead of arguing with our FEELINGS and POSTMODERNISM. Those GAYS and LIBERALS will never now the power of RATIONALITY. If they did, they wouldn't be GAY LIBERALS.

Any that argue heavily for something homosexuality "can't" achieve.

you obviously didn't read the Symposium.

Good use of caps, you sure showed him who's the boss

Yet Roger Scruton is the biggest fag in the entire world. Strange.

>the fulfillment of a function is good

My prostate has the potential to induce spiritual orgasms therefore I'm obligated to slam that shit with a big fat cock.

jk fags are degenerate and a sign of our decadence, a risk factor for civilizational collapse, catastrophe which I'm obligated to oppose for the sake of security, the highest value, among my progeny and self.

When I was younger I remember trying to construct secular arguments against homosexuality because I had abandoned Catholicism but still retained a conservative worldview. My arguments were embarrassingly weak and so I became more liberal/libertarian.

>bunch of fags talking about the nature of love
>the doctrine that love of beautiful (male) bodies is a stage on the way to love of beauty in other manifestations is explicitly argued for
>the text explicitly endorses gay assfucking for the purpose of education of both fucker and fuckee

Yeah that's how it usually goes. When you ditch the moral/religious/emotional arguments against homosexuality you start to realize how impractical and expensive homophobia is.

>A person can't however choose what they're attracted to.
Fetishes aren't fully predetermined genetically, you can actually condition your brain to acquire new fetishes or to loosen current ones. Homosexuality is no different

the increase in homos correlates with decoupling socio-economic fate from reproductive success and ability to maintain heterosexual extended kin-network relationships over decades. one can go to harvard from single parent home, get degree in finance, become millionaire, bang whores whole life and then produce one homo kid who legacies into harvard and, gets cushy finance job from daddy’s firm and produces no heirs to daddy’s bloodline. the startup wealth culture in america has now backfired, there is a vacuum which wealth grows in, without social mediation of ascent or contextual constraints on its spread or descent through generations which means you have legions of affluent homo faggots who can’t continue their families prestige project. homosex also growing from chemical shit storm that atomize half-breed single mom autistic FIFA youth are exposed to+hentai defilement vectors for xenosexuality

>MUH BIRTHRATES
lmao

>so's im movin the fammly out to da'cuntry cuz y'caint trusst d govvermnt no more. gots my munny alls in buckshot and gold. caint bleeve these libburuls want they chiddren in thaim same bathrooms as queers! gettn of the grid!

You're actually not allowed to post on the board if you didn't start with the Greeks, just thought I'd let you know.

>expensive homophobia

Can you elaborate on that please? I know you previously mentioned how much people would spend to combat something such as homosexuality but is that close to what you had in mind with those words?

>produces no heirs to daddy’s bloodline
and having a female child is just as worthless as having no children at all amirite

This would require homosexuality to be a fetish. Good luck proving that senpai

Furthermore even if we blindly accepted homosexuality not as a sexuality but as a fetish, then we still find ourselves faced with an argument demanding that we spend millions of dollars to cause harm to economy because some people don't like the fetishes the others.

Yeah it's pretty much that but also the fallout of it as well. Suppressing homosexuality doesn't get rid of homosexuals it just ruins their lives and makes them unhappy.

Which is a recipe for criminal elements, the spread of disease, sluggish laborers, the loss of skilled laborers via emigration (their gay asses won't stay in a homophobic country) and unadopted orphans who have a higher chance of becoming criminals as they age.

It's big waste of money not just in the short term but long term. Total cuckoldry.

this reminds me of Patrice's joke

"why is being gay a preference, but tieing and peeing on a bitch a fetish"

If suppressing sexuality makes people miserable, then are all priests "unhappy"?

Are all Tibetan monks "unhappy"?

Homosexuality = sodomy.

Hunh. I wonder where that guy I know who
is only attracted to men but only frots and jerks
off with other men fits in, then.

The same place that virtually every homosexual woman fits in. But women don't count because reasons.

Unhappy isn't the right word. Agitated is closer. There is unresolved tension that works its way into a persons mind.

Giving into sexual pleasure has caused more harm than good.

>Read the Symposion.
You missed the point of that guys post entirely.

>the text explicitly endorses gay assfucking for the purpose of education of both fucker and fuckee
why is this horrendous misreading of symposium so common?

But they meditate on the nature and value of that agitation and most are able to successfully rid themselves of it.

>You missed the point of that guys post entirely.

I sure did.

>why is this horrendous misreading of symposium so common?

Because it's funny.

This would be the difference between a voluntary virginity and an involuntary virginity. If you chose to not have sex you'd probably be okayish with the blueballing. If I came and beat you with a police club every time you wanted to get your dick wet you'd become a pretty dysfunctional person.

This was an attempt by some user. What are the thoughts on this work?

Is that why pedophilia is so rampant in Catholicism?

I will rape this silly in a little bit, keep it lubed ok? I just gotta wrap somethings up first and that is a whole wall of text to fondle. It'll take a moment.

>and having a female child is just as worthless as having no children at all amirite
idk, ask the chinese. Betas have daughters, Alphas have sons.

>So rampant
It's a small percentage
>Pedophilia=homo
Lol because heteros never fuck children.

>It's a small percentage
It's a consistent and dangerous trend among abstinent priests across the globe and religion fampai. A suppressed sexuality is rarely healthy. But I'm also , so I understand that some of these volcels are fairly well adjusted because it was a voluntary decision that they are dedicated to handling.

Other people who were maybe lukewarm in their commitment or of greater sexual appetites than they imagined don't handle abstinence so well. Just add an innocent image and a position of power and bam! Instant rapist, easy as making kool aid.

>Lol because heteros never fuck children.
Yeah you only misunderstood me here, I'm not making any kind of defense for homophobia. And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the majority of pedophiles "hetero"?

That's rich coming from a man who's so in love with himself he won't even try to pretend he knows shit about art or aesthetics anymore because he can't conceive himself being wrong.

>Betas have daughters, Alphas have sons
>Living in a fragile, terrified fantasy universe where big penises are the only virtue.

Interesting post user

What are the reason non gays are obsessed with gays?

Because they are afraid their son, nephew, cousins, if homosexuality is accepted, will have greater chance of considering being gay (not a choice whatever), will think its more acceptable to be gay, if they are on the border.

Dont like seeing men kiss or hold hands or walk down the street together. Dont like the gay voice. Dont want the town to become full of rainbows. Dont want family members seeing 'weirdos'.

Feel that gays are fundamentally nihllistic, as if they have escaped all rules, and so their intellect and reason cannot be trusted: if they are willing to so go against nature (i know i know) and so give up tradition and the standard and love pleasure more than anything else, and at any moment give in to primal temptation, to give up their body to harm so flamboyantly and on display to all: for the gays that you can tell they are gay walking down the street, it is a walking advertisement billboard yelling: I am so irrational I dont care about the saftey of my anus! So how can they feel comfortable driving around in the street in cars, a gay person could fender bender them at any time, not even for creation, but just for fun.

These are the only reasons I can think of

>Oprah running for president is currently a real possibility

Do you not see our trajectory since the 2011 lgbt cultural insurgency? Cultural warfare is real and the dynamism of social media has been invigorative in our progression toward increasing jeopardization of stability.

I skipped the greeks because it's boring and worthless and started with Descartes.

My interests only go as far as that which is experienced [entails all real things] (i.e. what actually matters). Your fantasy world of ideas and philosophical tradition is a story you're telling yourself and as long as that old crusty story isn't bearing practical fruit it's a waste of your limited time.

Fuck the Greeks, their approach (the most important part for new students) has no connection to us and their ideas aren't interesting enough to obsess over for more than a day. Their only relevance is revealing the order of questions and observations on the tree of philosophy. All the relevant parts are gleaned in the broad strokes, the rest is useless information particular to the works themselves. 10 hours on wikipedia plus the good parts of major texts is more than enough.

This meme is gatekeeping bullshit and you're a faggot for spreading it. Starting with Discourse on the Method is actually good advice for anyone who wants to get something useful from philosophy and enjoy themselves.

oh yeah bud how's he wrong then