Is homosexuality morally wrong?

...

Because it's not inheritable.

>Homosexuality adversely affects an organism's ability to do the latter (and in some cases, the former).
And?
You do realize sex between humans isn't always about making babies, right?

If we're going under the assumption that homosexuality as a mental disorder is caused by genetics, then I would say it's because certain strains can re-occur in a population even if they've been previously 'bred out'. Mistakes of nature can happen more than once, and while natural selection is quite efficient, it is by no means perfect in weeding out an adverse mutation and preventing it from ever resurfacing again.
However, if we're assuming that homosexuality is a learned trait or the result of some psychological trauma, your argument loses its weight entirely, because learned traits cannot be bred out as if they were the result of genetic mutation.
Not all mental disorders are genetic in nature. As I said previously, homosexuality may also be the result of a learned trait or psychological trauma. I haven't sufficient knowledge to determine whether it is genetic or not, however.
No, but it's a very important part of humanity. Humans are biological organisms like any other, and thus their purpose and sexual instinct is the same. If we stopped breeding, we would go extinct, and only misanthropes desire that.

>If we stopped breeding, we would go extinct, and only misanthropes desire that

Except Homosexuals and lesbians can and do breed, numbnuts. Considering also they're a pretty small portion of population, why do you present it as if it would be some massive epidemic of buggery and pussy licking?

On top of all that, the earth's resources are finite and we're only growing in number. We should be careful in reproducing responsibly, something that isn't an immediate concern amongst the LBQT populace.

>Except Homosexuals and lesbians can and do breed, numbnuts.
>muh artificial insemination/surrogacy
Just because we can treat a mental disorder and even minimize its effects does not mean it is no longer classified as a mental disorder.
>Considering also they're a pretty small portion of population,
>muh minority status
Downs Syndrome sufferers, autists, schizos, and so on also are a tiny minority, and yet we recognize them as having legitimate mental disorders in need of treatment.
>the earth's resources are finite and we're only growing in number.
>muh overpopulation
Malthus was a hack and we have plenty of room to continue growing, especially when the entire human population today could live comfortably in a New York-style metropolis the size of Texas.

Bonus round:
>Homosexuals and lesbians
>differentiating lesbians from the homosexual label, which includes both gay men and lesbian women
?

There's nothing wrong with being gay. It becomes a problem when one is a faggot.

This, you can also be a faggot and straight.

I think that is commonly referred to as a numale.

This

You don't treat mental disorder until the infected becomes dysfunctional or wants to. Unless gay people cant live through their lives properly coz of their gayness, you can't force treatment on them

t.Someone with actual mental illness

>muh mental disorder
The only people I've ever heard still claim it to be a mental disorder are profoundly close minded political busy bodies who can't concieve people might like things that they don't.
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/more-evidence-sexuality-is-innate-gay-men-respond-to-male-sex-pheromones

>Downs Syndrome sufferers, autists, schizos, and so on
Who are suffering from a legitimate condition that affect their daily life. The only symptom homosexuals and lesbians face is dating their own gender.

Have you ever encountered one before? There's a fair chance you have, and would be none the wiser on who they like to fuck.

>entire human population today could live comfortably in a New York-style metropolis the size of Texas.
Fucking source on that. Sounds like nothing but a massive polluted chicken cage.

>>differentiating lesbians from the homosexual label, which includes both gay men and lesbian women
Splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. Fuck off

Who said anything about forcing treatment on them? I'm willing to let them live their lives as they see fit as long as they admit they have a mental disorder. Not all mental disorders need immediate treatment.
However, they should be discouraged from A: breeding, and B: adopting, at least until scientific evidence is able to help us determine whether homosexuality is a learned or genetic trait.
>Vice
Might as well be citing Wikipedia there, friend.
>The only symptom homosexuals and lesbians face is dating their own gender.
Actually, homosexuality correlates to many other dysfunctionalities and disorders across multiple studies.
>Have you ever encountered one before?
I am friends with some.
>Fucking source on that.
overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth
Also, I stand corrected. It wouldn't be a New York metropolis, more like a giant suburban complex.

>You don't treat mental disorder until the infected becomes dysfunctional or wants to. Unless gay people cant live through their lives properly coz of their gayness, you can't force treatment on them
Agreed, I think it only can be classified an illness if it does become the case where it is interfering with living life.

Why would it be?

>the meaning of life is Y therefore this is degenerate and must be stopped

>muh wikipedia maymay
You mean a site that dedicated a shitload of effort towards accuracy?
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060508_lesbian.html

>correlates to many other dysfunctionalities and disorders across multiple studies
Co-relation is causation, eh?

>I am friends with some.
Whom you look down on as a potential threat to our species. Pretentious prick.

>overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth
oh, that's TOTALLY an unbiased, peer reviewed source if I ever did see one.

It's weird but not morally wrong.

Homosexual exclusivity, in herd mammals at least, is epigenetic. If a female animal has more than one subsequent male offspring, each subsequent male offspring has less access to certain hormone combinations (such as testosterone) making each one more likely to exhibit more exclusive homosexal behavior than the last.

Presumably this is a defense against overpopulation in times of excess, as males, in such herds, can mate with any number of females.

While this has been known for so long that herders have mythologies built around it, and, before artificial insemination was the norm, rotated breeding stock as required, it is less certain if this is a trait in primates. However, many studies, among humans, suggest it may very well be the case.

So it is in fact a mechanism designed to ensure the survival of the species, rather than work against it.

Any attempts at a universal moral code is forcing your views on someone.
If your morals are dictated by religious scriptures, depend on the scriptures.
If your morals are dictated by religious dogma, depends on the dogma (probably not).
If your morals are derived from evolutionary psychology yes, also you believe your consciousness is a slave to your genes.
If you derive your morals from your experiences and reflections, it's up to you.

Look. Either you can pretend you believe in evolutionary psuchology or you can not.
But most people do not consider passing on their genes the meaning of their life.
So you can accept people will pursue what they want disregarding reproduction while not affecting you or you can go ahead and call anyone that plays videogames, indulges in futile hobbies or generally waste their time doing useless stuff mentally ill.

>Any attempts at a universal moral code is forcing your views on someone.
Any attempts at society is forcing your views on someone, grow up from your retarded libertarian phase.

Homosexual behavior is morally inferior to heterosexual behavior, simply for the fact that it necessarily can't satisfy every teleonomical characteristic of sex (you can't reproduce through gay sex).
However, that's not sufficient to say that it's immoral.

As to the question of how moral or healthy homosexuals are, well, very little. Hedonism and mental illness go hand in hand with homosexuality, although not necessarily which is why you can't say it's wholly immoral. You can say that the average homosexual is a very disturbed individual, morally and from a health perspective.

Society deals with laws. In civilised countries laws have for goal the stability of society, not the upholding of morals.
People saying otherwise are entitled cunts.

>Society deals with laws
Laws are the imposition of the views of a certain amount of people on everyone else that belongs in that society.

And the premise of democracy is that every citizen (ie person on wich the law applies) belongs to the certain amount of people you speak about.
Hence why the cause invoked is supposed to be: it's for the greater good and not, it's because it appeals to my personal morals.

>And the premise of democracy is that every citizen (ie person on wich the law applies) belongs to the certain amount of people you speak about.
user, I don't believe for one second you seriously accept what you just wrote. Has there seriously never been a single time in the history of your democracy where people (the majority, presumably) passed a law that other people (a minority, presumably) didn't want at all?
Because that's precisely a certain set of people, less than the totally of the population, imposing their views on the totatly of the population, which includes those who wanted the law and those who didn't want it.

Okay let's back up. I'm in total agreement with what you're saying in the context of applied politics.
When I said universal morals were forcing shit on people I was talking in the context of the thread where nothing was clearly defined and I assumed we were talking in a philosophical sense.
Just got a bit of a knee-jerk reaction when I got called a liberal, that's all.

>When I said universal morals were forcing shit on people I was talking in the context of the thread where nothing was clearly defined
Well, sure, saying "these are THE moral rules, they just ARE" is clearly an unjust imposition of one's will on others, but it basically never happens on part of moral realists, in fact, most people that behave like that are moral anti-realists, usually they believe in moral relativism and might-makes-right type of thinking.
Moral realists, at least philosophers, always try to justify the universal morality they're proposing.

Does it ruin my day? No.
Then the answer is no.

>Does it ruin my day? No.
Come on, does a secret genocide that doesn't include you or anyone who you know ruin your day? Does that really mean it's not immoral?

It ruins my day so the answer is yes

>People who don't reproduce don't have a purpose in life
t.Mohammed Jamal Egyptius with 7 kids

That's not what he said though, he said it's the core purpose of life, which makes sense since if it were to not happen, life would go extinct.

its not gene like fairy tail fags wish it was, its impressed upon the mind by enviroment. nice halfassed try tho mate

>I don't want to do anything on them except all these things i want to do on them
LOL

is this your first post on the internet or are a complete underage moron?

>I'm willing to let them live their lives as they see fit
>However, they should be discouraged from A: breeding, and B: adopting, at least until
Can't have your cake and eat it

you're still doing the same thing no matter how witty you think it sounds

Denial can't save you. You claimed that you will let them live their lives, and then in the next sentence want to prevent them from breeding and adopting. Pretty sure breeding and adopting is part of how people can live their life.

Do you realize that adopting and having children involves a child?

>endangering a child to satisfy your agenda

Do you realize the cognitive dissonance you hold? You can claim to want to deny them from breeding and adopt coz muh children! :(. But at the very least, let's not pretend you are letting them lead a free life where they can do anything

>using children to advance your agenda

The "two consenting adults" argument stops being relevant when you bring children into things, I'm not even that guy.

>pointing out hypocrisy in someone's post is a "two consenting adults" argument
Now this is a strawman take note

>i will let them live their lives
>however
not seeing the hypocrisy here.

It doesn't inhibit an organism's ability to reproduce whatsoever. It just reduces this organism's inclination to. This also makes straight sex for pleasure a mental illness. In addition, if we are to assume that any mental hinderence to beneficial action, then introversion, sadness, and even certain hobbies become mental illnesses. Despite these being normal functions, and signifiers of, a healthy brain.

learn to apply logical inconsistencies you absolute ape

>I won't do any harm on you however I will cut your toes and fingers
>They are free to choose any color except red, yellow, blue...

learn to actually response to a post instead of going off tangent about something else

>You are allowed to buy anything in this store.
>however the cash register is off limits.

>you can do A except you can't do A
Are you being retarded on purpose? Do you even know how logic works?

nice deflection fagenabler

I am natalist (only for white people) but it's their thing. I down want to fiddle with their life.

>biological teleology

wrong. Evolution works on groups, not individuals. Look up indirect fitness.

>spook
A bit racist, don't you think?

Most Greeks and Romans had sex with men. Were the Greeks and Romans mentally ill?

Do you even have to ask?

>mentally ill Stirnerite
Why am I not surprised

Yes

No, sex for pleasure is amoral, not immoral. There is probably a case for moral status of sex for purpose of procreation unless you are kind of retard that thinks planet would be better off without so many people.

>the core purposes of any organism are to A: survive, and B: carry on its genes to the next generation.

No it's not

Yes.

>get sexual impulses from my body telling me to reproduce
>if I don't reproduce then my genes die out and nobody can continue my legacy
>if nobody reproduces in my tribe there's no one to continue the legacy of my tribe
>if nobody in the species reproduces then the species dies out, going against the biological imperative to not die out
Hmm but you're right reproducing isn't important or anything

So this applies to anyone who uses birth control? I don't see how it wouldn't. Yes, that includes pulling out.

Children are already in plenty of danger in the foster care system. It's startling just how horribly children are advised within it. It's also startling how few people know about this.

Advised -> abused

No really, the more children taken out of that system, the better. Put some time into learning about the system and how children are affected by it. How foster parents game the system for money while abusing children. Let the gays adopt. We already treat orphans like shit. Two moms isn't going to make it any worse for them, statistically.

Who cares? How does it affect you? Do you want morality police going door to door to make sure there are no faggots?

Gays are extremely likely to abuse boys though, they can't control themselves

A virgin like you has no reason not to kill himself then.

>who le cares about anything?????? All I need is my distractions and I'm happy
Millennials deserve death

No but I do think it is gross for a man to fuck another man. Also a lot of gays are too open with their sexuality. Pride parades are a display of degeneracy,

reddit

I highly advise OP and everyone who thinks theres nothing wrong with homosexuality to read this. This is a big redpill.

Gays are a slippery slope.

First it was gays.

Then it was trannies.

Then it was tranny children.

Obviously this will only escalate. Liberals have a psychological NEED to have an "oppressed" group to identify with, to feel like their lives have meaning. So they'll start trying to normalize more and more degenerate behaviors. Expect pedo rights to be a thing.

It is harmless fun.

They are already trying to normalize pedophilia now.

>if nobody in the species reproduces then the species dies out, going against the biological imperative to not die out

You're literally just begging the question.

>dude, self-preservation is, like, a social construct, maaaaan

Religious scriptures have nothing to do with morality. They are commandments from authority, not arguments or explanations of what right and wrong is and what is right and wrong.

>preserving your tribe or race is the same preserving yourself
Spooky

>we should not listen to God who created the human body and knows what is right and wrong

>mfw everyone ignores the most logical and fact based post in this thread

Sorry, people have a biological impulse to not let their tribe/species die out. No amount of Stirner shitposting can change the fact that humans are animals.

>He thinks his yokel philosophy can be justified by low-effort memeing.

Also

>producing offspring = self preservation
>your offspring are you
>people who aren't you are you

Unless you're arguing that children function like personal bodyguards. I have two myself, I promise you it's exactly the opposite.

Humans are not animals.

It triggers the brainwashed liberals

Sirens are going off in their heads: "RED ALERT, NON-MEDIA-APPROVED INFORMATION DETECTED, ALL CRITICAL THINKING FACULTIES CLOSE"

>Sorry, people have a biological impulse

And? Gay people have a biological impulse to fuck people of the same sex. By your logic that's their imperative and therefore it's moral/ immoral to stop them.

They do exactly function like that in hunter gatherer societies.

Less people = more threats, more threats = death

I wish you anti-science liberal fucks would stop posting and read a book