Can someone explain how homosexuality is supposed to destroy civilization

Why don't you just summarize their arguments?

Who let you out of tumblr?

youtube.com/watch?v=ZkL3lT95vOU

>people who disagree with me are tumblr

Congratulations on being retarded.

Who let you out of catholic school?

NO
WHY WOULD I BE ?

YOU THINK I HATE GAYS BECAUSE I AM CHRISTIAN ?
ACTUALLY I HATE CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY
AND I HATE GAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE BASICALLY CHRISTIAN TOO

your closeted homosexuality

Consider a society of three people.

A woman and two men.

The goal of these people is to develop a new society.

In order to do that they need to breed.

However, one of the male is gay and refuses to breed with the woman.

The gay man ends up converting the other man into being a homosexual.

The gay men spend all day fucking each other. Neither fucks the woman because they're gay af.

The woman dies.

Society ends because gays.

If you didn't want your sodomite-worshiping homophile views challenged you should have stayed on tumblr
>if you don't like something that means secretly you like it
Child.

>tumblr
Child.

>The gay man ends up converting the other man into being a homosexual.

society ends because incest is frowned upon

i caught epilepsy now thanks user

Good thing there are more than three people in literally every society on the planet.

Usually challenging someone's views entails more than just 'haha well you're from tumblr yeah now what'

sorry if your safe space feels threatened faggot but libs have been on Veeky Forums since the beginning

But if you let gays marry they won't breed and you can breed them out.

spread of sexually transmitted diseases, mostly.

Fuck off, cancer

If you're not gay then why worry about it?

And almost no STD is able to bring down an entire civilization.

>MUH BREEDING

So we're an agreement that when artificial wombs are developed, homosex will be not only okay but actually desirable?

>BAAAAAAAH Veeky Forums IS MY SITE REEEEEEEEE

tell that to africa

Get AIDS faggot

You sound upset.

gays should have all the legal rights of straight couples. It should be called something else, though. separate but equal. It gives gays the rights they deserve while also gives religious people their holy union back.

What are you referring to? AIDS? Ebola? Africa has been hit with diseases like that since forever and they're currently multiplying like rabbits regardless.

you are the cancer newfag

Its essential for an intelligent person to have offspring so that they may pass down their knowledge and help society progress.

Sex should only happen between a married couple and for the purpose of breeding.

Since homos can't breed with each other, there is no reason for them to get married.

Homos marrying each other prevent potentially intelligent people from breeding and passing down their knowledge.

what are sperm banks?

But marriage isn't a uniquely Christian thing, so why do you get to impose your Christian values upon the institution of marriage?

Can't you be satisfied you can get a Catholic marriage consecrated by Christ and fags can't?

Fags can only get a secular marriage in the eyes of the state of consecrated by gay faggot proddy Jesus.

This is probably the only real reason, because you don't hate gays and you want to force them to breed even if it's at the expense of their personal happiness.

You don't pass down knowledge through breeding, asstard.

Something nobody seems to get is that homosexuality does not lead to societal collapse, it is a cause of societal collapse.
Weakening moral bounds affects everything. Boys kissing other boys isn't what causes politicians to become completely corrupt selling out millions of people in exchange for millions of dollars, for the state to overstep its bounds and go full totalitarian shithole. Homosexual acceptance is just a byproduct of a declining society.

>but the Greeks
pedastry != homosexuality. Men were expected and obligated to father children. They were also expected and obligated to teach young men the ways of the world. It was still not socially acceptable for two men to fuck each other and only each other.

>but Rome!
In the time of Julius Caesar, his entire political career was plagued by accusations of him fucking another dude of similar social status. In Rome, the fucker was simply displaying his position of power while the fuckee would have been a slave or common soldier submitting to the will of a superior, which would be looked down on as it was basically just accepting the fact you're gettin raped in the butt cause he's a more important man than you are and your manhood is worth less than his. Fucking slaves was acceptable, two senators diddling each other was not.

>but Rome fell when it became Christian
Rome's fall began well before it became Christian. Also, changing your state religion doesn't really mean everyone in the state just bends over and accepts it, there were still plenty of "pagan" Romans by the time Rome collapses, and the years of decline prior were what killed Rome in the long run. And again, Rome didn't fall cause it became gay, it fell because it became extremely corrupt, hedonistic, and inefficient leading to a stronger group of barbarians to gradually take advantage of Rome's declining power until they became strong enough in relation to destroy it outright.

>gay man refuses to breed with woman

as a gay man myself, there is no reason why I wouldn't impregnate a woman if there was a need to repopulate

>gay man ends up converting the other man

what

No, but a father will have a closer bond with a son who has the same genes as them / a son they've had since the son took his first breath. That early bond allows for easier development and father-son education.

This sounds great, women are cancer upon the earth.

Holy shit you're retarded, that was a very conservative (and imo accurate) interpretation of why most people are afraid of the societal effects of homosexual. Tumblr would have half assedly chalked it up to "homophobia" and religious bigotry.

>Since homos can't breed with each other

Yet

You can also make a point about how gays have a super high rate of domestic abuse, substance abuse, STD's, suicide, depression, assault, and all that unfavorable shit, and how these rates are similarly high across any country you look at, whether it's the US of A or Holland. It simply seems that people more likely to be homosexual are more likely to be mentally unhinged in some way. Gays are more likely to have an addictive personality, they're more likely to be sadistic, more likely to become sad, more likely to have split personality disorder. I think the simple fact is humans are biologically designed to be straight, and not 100% straight, but still there should be a base desire to fuck the opposite gender and produce offspring because....well the entire point of evolution was to create a species capable of sustaining itself. That's all evolution creates, species that can survive. Homosexuality is actively against the human species surviving, it seems to be some kind of error, a flaw in genetic programming, perhaps caused by other flaws or issues in how the brain develops.

I'm no expert on this subject but there are negative trends you can generally associate with homosexuals, and with everything the rule is the exception, so not all gays are like this, but certainly many of them are.

There is a strong correlation between intelligence of the parents and intelligence of their offspring. People being born smart despite their parents being dumbfucks is basically unheard of.

Kill yourself nation wrecking sodomite scum

I made these two posts:

I'm against gay marriage, but I'm not against brotherhood and masculinity, and as we have seen throughout ancient history, those two concepts often form from homosexual sex acts. If there was a way for just men to breed, I'd be all for it as that would mean no more womyn. I'm not a misogynist, but there's nothing more powerful than brotherhood. Its also very rare for womyn to be on the same level of men in a number of fields that simply getting rid of them would actually benefit humanity.

If your standard is education, than a homosexual teacher that decided to pull a Socrates would be morally superior to any parent.

>domestic abuse

Those are mostly dykes

Nothing responded to was remotely conservative you libshit retard

>There is a strong correlation between intelligence of the parents and intelligence of their offspring. People being born smart despite their parents being dumbfucks is basically unheard of.

Not that same as passing on knowledge. Also it fucks up the previous standard because then we could logically assume that stupid people shouldn't breed if we're to assume this is some sort of moral imperative.

>those two concepts often form from homosexual sex acts.
Please consider suicide

>I'm no expert on this subject but there are negative trends you can generally associate with homosexuals, and with everything the rule is the exception, so not all gays are like this, but certainly many of them are.

And? If we're to start basing how we conduct society on what your broad demographic is likely to do, should we start treating white men as potential serial killers? Since they're overwhelmingly white males?

Or here's an alternative, how about we treat everyone as an individual, and give them each a chance to prove themselves. You know, that basic shit that keeps us from descending into pogroms and other stupid shit.

Socrates didn't fuck all of his students.

There's still significantly more man on man domestic abuse than man on woman abuse.
Although it seems women are more likely to engage in domestic abuse as woman on man domestic abuse occurs more often than man on woman and woman on woman is more likely than man on man.
Kinda gets brushed under the rug because when a woman abuses a man she leaves a few red marks or cuts and even though she's pushing him to suicide and or murder suicide the physical signs are minor and if he complains his wife is hitting him he's a fuckin pussy. But then if a man abuses his wife she looks like an apple someone tried to play baseball with.

Looking at it from an objective point of view, yes, stupid people shouldn't breed because they weaken humanity as a whole. But we've long past the point of survival of the fittest, and our creation of morals would make the idea of limiting who could reproduce for the good of humanity as a whole some kind of super Hitler tier idea.

>Socrates didn't fuck all of his students.

Honest question. Are you retarded?

I didn't even imply that.

Achilles, Patroclus, Ancient Greek philosophers, their students, and The Sacred Band of Thebes would like to have a word with you.

Well no because white serial killers don't make up 50% of the white male population while extremely large swathes of the gay community have these issues. It's something like 10 times more likely for a gay man to be depressed than a white man. 50 times more likely for a gay man to have an STD than a straight man.

It's not. All the supposed moral arguments for it are just a smokescreen for what's basically just an aesthetic complaint. They think it's icky, and it makes them uncomfortable.

Don't argue with bigots and crazy people, it's never worth your time.

Read 1 Corinthians

Who cares what some cranky Jew wrote to his dumb congregation?

>gay people will lead to population decline!

Well considering the hordes of unruly, misbehaved children I've seen being herded around by a Cleetus or a LeShawnQua, this will hardly be a issue.

This.

Faggots can exist in a shit country like United States and even improve the country, but that's because the United States is nowhere near a utopia when you got rednecks and niggers everywhere.

HOWEVER, in an actual utopia, homosexuals would undermine the utopian qualities.

Abortion has absolutely murdered (lol) the growth of the black population in America. They're actually experiencing a population imbalance which will most likely lead to a population crash sometime soon.
75% of abortions are done on black women. Black men are very likely to get shot by another black dude, and much more likely to get shot by a cop than a white guy is when looked at as a % of the population. Their generally poor diet and generally poverty stricken life leads to a lot of them suffering premature medical problems as well.

There are a lot more black women in the US than there are black men since so many black men end up dead by the time they're 20.

If men were able to give birth, will women be obsolete?

so what you be sayin' iz there will be no more black people soon?

Unironically yes. They're weaker, slower to recover, less likely to excel, and require more care and nutrients to survive and be healthy when compared to a man.
>mammalian evolution, ain't it a bitch

Why can't whites fade away with dignity? I'm not saying that they should go quietly into the night, but reeeeeeing all the way there is just dumb.

yes, even agrees

>distant hand rubbing

We don't need men to be able to give birth, we only need artificial wombs.

No, but they're not going to outbreed whites in the long run. The white population could implode on itself for a lot of reasons still, so that's not saying eventually there won't be more blacks than white in the US, but if there is it's either because all the whites intermixed or stopped breeding entirely or black culture stopped being so self destructive and they manage to adapt a new culture that encourages the family, good education, and nutrition instead of gang banging and cool aid as the current black culture does. Mexican culture will eventually be the dominant American culture if trends do not reverse or change. It's not the best culture ever, but it's not nearly as self destructive as black culture is, and has a strong value placed on the family most importantly.

If the future of this world is black and yellow, wouldn't raging against it be as futile as Canute getting salty at the sea?

Well no, we need artificial wombs and artificial eggs. The latter being quite impossible, and if possible, terrifying.

I have news for you friend.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/25/biological-same-sex-parent-babies-could-be-a-reality-by-2017.html

That would ultimately make women useless.

What evil hath science wrought

ABSOLUTELY INEFFICIENT THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE

>HOW THEY WORK
"HI THIS IS JENNIFER THE 30YO FAT SINGLE MOTHER PLEASE GIVE ME A FAKE BABY WHOM I WILL COMPLELTELY FAIL TO RAISE"

>HOW THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY WORK
"HI THIS IS DONALD GIVE ME 10 MILLION BLONDE BLUE EYED 6'2 BABIES WITH 150 IQ FOR MY NAZI SUPER ARMY"

AND FUCK YOU TOO

That's the long term plan. And they even realize it, if you check some radical feminist blogs most of them are absolutely furious about the idea of artifical wombs, bitching how it will strip women of their "divine gift of motherhood" or some shit. They feel threatened and rightfully so, their days are numbered.

I also find it funny that the self-proclaimed progressives will try to hit the brake on scientific progress.

Most women are most useful than you or other /r9k/ manbabies.

Nice projection, m8. I happen to be quite successful and I owe a lot of my success to the fact I'm a man and value masculinity.

Nah, we're just gonna steal your women is all.

Most women aren't useful at anything other than being a group of walking incubators with tits.

Places that increase the likelyhood of two lesbian couples to have children from the same father, whom may date one another in the future.

They started to discuss this issue only very recently, which really shows how shortsighted can thinking with your genitalia be.

Robots will make men completely useless then.

Could this be Ideal Society?

And who's gonna invent and build the robots? Surely not women. A woman dreaming about taking over the world of men is like a child daydreaming about conquering a bunch of adults. It's not even remotely realistic.

Except marriage isn't a religious institution,no matter how loudly christians want to scream that it is.

Someone get the tendies STAT!

It all makes sense now

>Why can't savages fade away with dignity? I'm not saying that they should go quietly into the night, but reeeeeeing all the way there is just dumb.

>having girls kissing on tv is the same as the indian genocide

this is why nobody will ever take you seriously, you delusional autist

not white, but you've got to admit lots of manifest destiny era Americans thought this way, some still do.

yeah because what's happening in the west these days totally is "girls kissing on tv" (and absolutely not a major fucking global idelogical war of which sexuality is of course also an aspect)
haha first world problems am i rite ?

>haha first world problems am i rite ?
it is thought.

you wont see people in bumbfuck parts of mexico worry about white women and black men presenting something together at the Oscars

Right, because they'd lynch the niggers from the start

>if you're gay, you're biologically incapable of impregnating someone in a ridiculous post-apocalyptic scenario
>if you're gay, you must be a socialist sjw