Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against homosexual sex?
I get certain utilitarian arguments like it leading to less babies, but that only applies if gay marriages are a thing and isn't an argument against the act itself.
Also, why were Christians so zealously against it to the point where it was considered a reason to burn people alive like in Ghent, or a valid accusation to levy against the Templars?
Pic related.
it's bad
Eventually it all boils down to gynocracy. Females cannot stomach having to compete for men with other men. I'm not even going to shill for faggotry but you can see the discrepancy between attitude towards male homosexuality and female homosexuality, even though both lead to zero children. Females are fully responsible for the hostiliy.
No, but I have heard the idea the homosexuality is just a sexual fetish, like transsexuals. Which is why you'll see them be more mentally ill or have other fucked up fetishes as well.
>Females are fully responsible for the hostiliy.
And I'm sure you can demonstrate this with facts/figures.
That's not a consequence of society being antigay for very long making it convinent for gays to go with fetishes and lifestyles to go against the norm?
What you posted is pederasty. That's kinda bad since it preys on minors.
Otherwise homosexual coitus between consenting adults is ok. There are really no good arguments against it except "hurr it's bad because i said so".
not philosophical arguments though
OP here, I consider men more of a "taste" to be honest but that might just be being a special snowflake.
>muh bigotry
Gays are fucking celebrated in todays society. I've seen stats suggesting most gays were molested as children, same as transsexuals and pedophiles. Obviously this kind of trauma seems to have a profound impact on a persons sexuality later in life.
It's not like sexuality isn't fluid.
kill yourself
I remember seeing stats proving that wrong. "gay culture" was formed when homosexuality was still widely opposed and just because the media loves them that don't mean the more religious nornal people of traditional society does.
post stats
Why are you triggered?
I'm pretty sure this is just wrong though
I would bet money that the majority of hate and especially violence towards gay men comes from other men
I found this out literally an hour ago but
King James I of England was so open about his boyfriend that he had the Protestant Bible translated from Hebrew to English. This meant he could get the church off his back with his own authorised rules from God.
So in turn, this Bible was translated back into the most homophobic way possible, which is the one most Americans as well as Evangelicals and the Congregation use!!! King James just wanted to fuck his boyf and the Bible is homophobic because of that!!!!
>I remember seeing stats proving that wrong.
Than show me, otherwise I have a feeling your just saying that
>just because the media loves them that don't mean the more religious nornal people of traditional society does
Vast majority of people don't live in the kind of places where that still happens in the west. They haven't seen any significant discrimination since the 80's. And no marriage and military service don't count, that's not exactly traumatic.
>Why are you triggered?
reddit please leave
>reddit please leave
I'm not from reddit though.
Are you going to answer me why you think sexuality isn't fluid or are you gonna keep throwing buzzwords?
>moral
It spreads disease, esepcaiily in the time before plumbing. Micro bits of shit everywhere.
>philosophical
It distracts from the bonding of male female love, and yes that is an argument against the act itself. As it's an act of lust, that degrades trust that can't be put toward a greater propose (kids). Of course this last part applies to all foracation outside marriage.
>I'm not from reddit though.
/leftypol/ please leave
you first buddy
So you have no arguments? Good to know then.
>why were Christians so zealously agaisnt it to the point where it was considered a reason to burn people alive like in Ghent
protestant lies to justify the """reformation"""
lutherans OUT
>It spreads disease
So does heterosexual intercourse.
— IT PERMANENTLY POLLUTES THE GENOTYPE OF THE ONE RECEIVING THE SEMINAL FLUID, EITHER ANALLY, OR ORALLY.
— IT PERMANENTLY DAMAGES THE PSYCHE OF THE VICTIM, CAUSING A COMPLEX OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, AMONG WHICH ARE INCLUDED SOCIOPATHY, MISOGYNY, PROMISCUITY, AND OBVIOUSLY, THE COMPULSION TO SPREAD THE CORRUPTION ONTO OTHERS.
THE QUESTION IS NOT HOW TO PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS "BAD", BUT RATHER HOW DO DEGENERATES JUSTIFY IT.
You never made one anyway, nobody outside a gender studies class takes your muh fluidity seriously.
Anal sex is way more likely to spread disease though
look at this fucking schizo
greek pederasty was usually between an older man and a young man that was still legal even by our laws, and was customarily not consummated. romans were the ones fucking little boys.
I take it you know a lot about psychological problems, lel.
Well yes. Pic related.
I'm OP fag, post stats.
I'm at least bi and I was at least exploited, at most molested as a child, and so were many of my "queer" friends. So I'm curious to see the refutation stats since I've only ever seen the stats correlating it.
inb4 someone accuses me of trolling
why did you respond? why did you think it was a good idea to respond? why do you think that its okay to respond?
>Butthurt (pun intended) degenerates unable to counterargue.
Except sexual fluidity has been scientifically researched and proven. You are a fool if you think sexuality isn't prone to changes under enviromental influences.
Fuck off to /lgbt/.
Why do you always samefag without your trip once someone replies to you?
posts these fucking stats correlating anything you pathetic sniveling retard
>NO ITS YOUR JOB TO PROVE A NEGATIVE
you arent worth a human life
I wanted to express my displeasure at him.
Who's a schizo now? I'm not him, degenerate.
>scientifically researched and proven.
Yeah, academics aren't exactly at their highest nowadays now are they? A professor literally published a paper with nothing but buzzwords on purpose and he got praised to no end for it. And that was in the 90s I believe.
>It distracts from the bonding of male female love, and yes that is an argument against the act itself.
First prove this is a bad thing.
>that degrades trust
How so?
>that can't be put toward a greater propose (kids)
that implies kids are a greater purpose.
>Of course this last part applies to all foracation outside marriage.
I would argue a lot of fornication outside marriage could be put towards the purpose of kids if that's all you care about.
>degenerate
Yeah, sure whatever you say.
Just because you distrust the researchers doesn't mean they're wrong.
u fuckin w0t
Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against sex between an adolescent girl and an adult man?
A: no
>Just because you distrust the researchers doesn't mean they're wrong.
Doesn't change the fact that a majority of shit published in universities today is for a political agenda, and wasn't done with any scientific basis at all.
THIS
>'preying' (courting) is bad becuz i sed so
>consent is good becuz i sed so
Fucking idiot.
Don't derail my thread AnCap fag.
I'm not an Clap. I hate them passionately.
But what if they consent?
>dont derail my degeneracy thread with your degeneracy
&Humanities
>consent
Consent is irrelevant.
Yeah man it's all one big conspiracy, fucking universities plotting to plunge our buttholes.
There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world. Not sure what you're aiming at.
>There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world.
There being a reason does not mean there's a good reason.
>Yeah man it's all one big conspiracy, fucking universities plotting to plunge our buttholes.
You know what I mean. They're begin used to promote radical leftist activism and agendas. Anybody on the internet for the past few years is aware of this.
It is a good reason. Did you want to be raped when you were little?
Of course. Keep fighting the system, brother!
>There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world
Pretty sure the age of consent is lower than the age of majority in most western countries, even America bar a few states.
>anybody on the internet
That's a funny way to say /pol/tards.
>[no reason posted] is a good reason. would you like to [non sequitor]?
dude could you at least try
Men don't like men that act like women because they (women) are not good to bring on hunts and we need all the men we got for the hunt.
that feeling has stuck with us since the stone age
Well intercourse between an adult and an adolescent still carries some amount of social stigma.
But it's a legitimate question.
>There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world
muh civvylezashun
Not an argument, moral or philosophical. Legalist piss.
>raped
Sentimentalism
>little
II did say adolescent, you illiterate. The scientific term is 'fun-sized'.
1.Your shithole is evolved for shit, not for dick.
If you put your dick into a filthy shithole which is not meant for you dick in the first place, then naturally you'll get sick easily.
2.You dick is evolved to fuck woman, not man, because human's biological structures and sexual characteristics are evolved to attract and intercourse opposite genders, not same genders, because we can only reproduce and keep our species alive by intercourse withe opposite genders, hence we have two opposite genders naturally same as most creatures on Earth.
3.If humans only have one gender like whiptail lizard, the of course we'll have no problem with homos. But we are NOT whiptail lizard, you fucking degenerate!
Pic related.
>stigma
Not an argument, moral or philosophical. Legalist piss.
Are you Chinese?
>Of course. Keep fighting the system, brother!
>That's a funny way to say /pol/tards.
Yep I guess those hundreds of videos on youtube showing black nationalist, and radical feminist politics being taught as fact in universities are just all made up. Anybody who isn't a marxist knows this /leftypol/.
>Did you want to be raped when you were little?
No, but I wanted to fuck my straight-out-of-college language teacher when I was 13.
In 'murica, maybe. College students dating highschoolers is nothing out of the ordinary here.
High schoolers are old hags; completely undesirable.
Would you like to continue shitposting?
Also a legitimate question, but not one that has any relevance to the topic.
Would I like to have had enjoyable sex with an adult that I felt comfortable with? Sure, care to offer an explanation why not?
Explain prostate orgasms being more intense than ejaculatory orgasms and having no refractory period?
naturalists BTFO
because you aren't ejaculating. ejaculation is a concrete and objective term, orgasm is subjective and entirely based on what you perceive an orgasm to be.
No, the term we're discussing about is pederasty.
>Not an argument
It is an argument though. Minors lack the emotional maturity to make right decisions. This is why they are considered minors.
Any attempt to drag a minor into bed is preying onto its immaturity and lack of experience.
fantasy !=real thing.
>anything i disagree with is subjective
W E W
ejaculation can be empirically measured. an orgasm is based entirely upon you reporting the sensation that you ~felt~.
>parents consent on the behalf of child for medical procedures
nothing wrong here
>parents consent on behalf of child for a relationship with an adult they feel is trustworthy
REEEEEEEEEEE
>emotional maturity
Not defined; not an argument.
>right decisions
Normative nonsense
>This is why they are considered minors.
It's actually to blame on the Ressentiment of old hags. Of course, Chinese bow to the loud.
>drag
Stop using loaded language.
If you want a proper anecdote (argument), I can explain a bit about the relationship I've been in for the last four years.
How about medical reasons?
It's a fact gay men have a variety of health risks directly attributed to their sexual preference. Should this mean it should be illegal? I don't know, but certainly many things are illegal for this reasons.
>This is why they are considered minors.
considered by whom? some places consider them to be capable at 14, some at 16, some at 18, and a few at 20. who's right?
>I can explain a bit about the relationship I've been in for the last four years.
Not him, but go on...
So because you can't measure a woman's orgasm empirically it isn't real?
Getting a medical treatment is far less controversial than a grown man fucking a kid. Are you seriously comparing the two?
>not an argument
>not an argument
>not an argument
Why don't you go fuck a minor if it's not an argument?
>Stop using loaded language.
Stop being a disguisting pedophile.
By society.
>who's right?
The law.
I started dating/flirting or however with a girl (13) that I've known since her birth just over four years ago, and we have had a 'healthy' relationship since despite the fact that I haven't really found her sexually attractive for the past two or so years. There was no 'dragging into bed'.
>muh society
>muh law
Chink detected.
because you cant measure something empirically you cant label it objective
You do know there's more to an orgasm than just ejaculation, r-right user?
Society and law decide how you live.
You can choose to ignore them but that will eventually have consequences.
If something cannot be made into an object then it cannot be measured as an object. An object requires an experience.
Read Gay New York by George Chauncey.
Muscle tension can be measured during orgasm. Are muscles not objects?
>Getting a medical treatment is far less controversial than a grown man fucking a kid. Are you seriously comparing the two?
I'm highlighting that consent does not in and of itself make an act good or bad.
Are you seriously saying controversy gets to decide whether or not an act is wrong? Then gee, I guess two men buttfucking was factually wrong for thousands of years.
The point is that lack of consent in a situation (medical procedures) does not make the situation wrong, therefore consent is not the arbiter or right or wrong.
>The law.
So you're just mindless animal, or in other words, a populist.
>this is what chinks actually believe
Measured by what, a machine? A person has to measure it. It's redundant if the person having it is that person, so another has to.
>— IT PERMANENTLY POLLUTES THE GENOTYPE OF THE ONE RECEIVING THE SEMINAL FLUID, EITHER ANALLY, OR ORALLY.
So how do woman stay unpolluted when they receive that same seminal fluid?
subjectively, yes. i mean you could also measure dopamine levels, but at that point you might as well say heroin causes orgasms. you COULD say it, but most people wouldnt. thats subjectivity.
I'm not Chinese.
so if you measured your muscle tension during what you thought was an orgasm, and see that the rate falls under what you label as sufficient for an orgasm, does that mean you were mistaken in believing you had an orgasm?
>Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against homosexual sex?
Of course there are, if your moral values come from Islam or Christianity, also if you think spreading STD, pederasty and twisting human nature with sexual deviation are wrong like any normal people with conscience.
You clearly are.
>normal people
>conscience
Not arguments, Ressentiment. Are you an old hag by chance?
If you cannot distinguish right and wrong when comparing medical assistance to a child and having intercourse with it then i can't bother talking to you.
But i'm not. What now?
WOMEN'S GENOTYPE ASSIMILATE " Y D N A " ALSO; THE HUMAN BODY IS OVERLY MUTABLE AND REACTIVE; THE HUMAN BODY IS ESPECIALLY REACTIVE TOWARD GENETIC MATERIAL, FROM ANY SPECIES, VIRTUALLY INSTANTLY ASSIMILATING IT INTO THE ORGANISM, AND ULTIMATELY INTO THE GENOTYPE —THIS IS CALLED MICROCHIMERISM.
THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF THE PREFERENCE FOR VIRGINS; VIRGIN INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY FEMALES —BECAUSE THEY USUALLY ARE THE RECEPTACLES OF GENETIC MATERIAL— ARE LITERALLY PURE DUE TO NOT HAVING ABSORBED ANY EXTRANEOUS GENETIC MATERIAL VIA SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
>I guess two men buttfucking was factually wrong for thousands of years.
If you look from a juidicial perspective yes it was wrong.
You are, in your heart. That's why you resent that I've 'dragged' a minor while you're eating fish and dogshit.