So I've said this before...

not doubting, but sources? would like to at least get a general background on it.

gay men are a modern phenomenon who have never existed prior to today

ancient romans and greeks who had wives and children who occasionally dabbled in faggotry and pedestry at the bathhouses are totally different from the faggots of today

I'm fairly aware of the brief memeology of these cities and their role in Sodomy, however if you'd like to contribute something a bit more descriptive than six words, I'd greatly appreciate it user!

nice trips. But i think that goes with what I was saying along the lines of
>Seems like in antiquity homosexuality for both sexes was sort of... tolerable I want to say, certainly not revered but not shunned either.
obviously there has been no record of Same sex families raising young (at least to my knowledge) but to say gay men is a phenomenon is a bit exaggerated. I'd say the concept of gay relations[hips] were acknowledged but limited when compared to today's society where two men or women can raise young and be functioning members of society without persecution or legal discrimination.

something like this, faggotry was just considered a novelty of civilizations that were at the edge and probably was just considered a fetish, most minds like Plato thought it degenerate

If you don't know what you're posting about, don't post at all.

Close but no, gays have always existed in human society going back thousands of years. "Modern" gays are a new thing born out of the sexual revolutions of the 60s and people who are just gay but don't feel the need to make it their whole life get strung along with it. Within the LGBT community there's massive pressure to "be yourself" and really conform to your letter or (typically self) designated gender/sexual orientation, this stifles any real discussion of what it actually means to YOU to be gay.
I wouldn't argue about anything like gay men having 100+ partners a year or the ridiculously high rates of HIV/AIDS on top of many other STIs because these are all self-evident, they are a gigantic issue within the gay community but there is seldom any discussion about it as it's always seen as "inflammatory" or homophobic to point out real issues and try to do something about them (It's called practising safe sex).

Tl;dr gay individuals exist and always have, BEING gay is modern.

Faggots ruining everything for gays.

There's gay people, then there's faggots.

When a Roman Emperor indulged in too much boypussi he got murked by the Praetorians.

See Nero.

Octavian, Tiberius, even Caligula, and Claudius were all pretty straight.

I'm not going to site an historical text but I will give an observation.

Judeo religions are big on man and wife and the formation a union that passes beliefs down to new generations. This is how the religion survives, indeed this is how the culture and humanity survives.

Gays aren't going to raise children, they're values are questionable at best and probably don't align with those of us who want to see our progeny through to a better world. Values like child education, land inheritance, and family strength/cohesion are relatively lost on the gay.

This and general degeneracy.

ah yes the old, there's x people, then there's racial/sexual slur.
sorta like blacks and niggers, Asians and chinks, and of courses jews and Jews.

I don't use the word faggot to refer directly to gays. You can be gay and not be a fucking faggot. I could explain further but I'll just let Louie break it down for you.

youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw

Pretty sure the founder of the Catholic Church talked about the sin of man laying with man and women/women. Specifically sex, so not against celibate homosexual relationships

It ultimately goes back to the laws of Moses, from which Christianity inherited this thought.

Why were the Jews against homosexuality? Other than it being an "abomination" it's unclear. Like a lot of the Israelite's laws it could have just simply served to mark them as being different from their heathen neighbors.

I don't support abortion in any case other than mutual death of both lives and 110% support the nuclear family however this is not something I could ever form. No value at all is lost on me and assuming it is SOLELY on the fact of my sexuality is ridiculous.

Fundamentalist exists in every movement, it would be ridiculous to say that you are cut from the same cloth as Joseph Kony simply because you are a Christian.

You say that sure but you have no biology imperative assuring this generation begats a better life for next. I'm happy about the values you have currently aligned yourself with but you have no true reason to see them through, it's not in your nature. You can't possibly fathom the imperative of nurturing and caring for a life and assuring its prosperity.

And yes I can make these statements about your sexuality based entirely on reason.

Except celibacy is encouraged in Christianity so obviously not making children isn't the problem.

Celibacy is encouraged to those married to God. Nice try but it's not the same thing. If God wanted us all to be celibate than he wouldn't have said
>“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genius 1:28

Would it at all change your reasoning to know that I'm studying to be a disabilities service teacher and my current boyfriend and I see adoption or a donor-child arrange in our future?
This is all anecdotal granted but whatever "reason" you use to judge and evaluate me is flawed because you're seeing me as a gay man with conservative values not as an individual. You judge people by the content of their character not your assumptions based on the "group" they fall into.

Well that wouldn't be the first time Christians retconned something, but even though celibacy isn't required its still considered the superior path.

>I'm not like those other gays

Sex is allowed only for making kids. Sex just for pleasure is fornication.

Shidddd e nos!

>fag is a phoneposter

>Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Ezekiel 16:49

You know it cunt.

I'm not saying you're a terrible person I'm saying your values are obviously differant than us normies. That being said there is a reason why all the Judeo religions are against homosexuality. It's not just to be hateful, God is against it. I'm not God but I can tell you that within reason raising a child is not in God's plan for you. Why on earth do you even want to raise a child? Is it to raise another homo friendly future allie, pushing a progressively left leaning culture? How do you even have "conservative values" then? The "conservative" environment you plan on raising this child will surely be confusing for it. God I plead you to reevaluate why you want a child, I doubt you have a virtuous reason.

Nice strawman with zero evidence dumbass.
Situation needed

*citation

Matthew 19:11-12
> 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

1 Corinthians 7:27-31
>27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. 29 I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

That fact that you want to raise a child with your gay lover proves you have no ingrained biological drive to raise a healthy child or concept of family. What your planning on doing is child abuse.

what evidence do you proves that it would be harmful to the child.

Nice! You tried to cherry pick an argument off the internet to prove God wants people to be celibate and you picked a fucking zucchini lol.

>That just says there are a select few who may not be the best for marriage. In fact as a Christian I can tell you that it is taught that marriage is not God's plan for all of us. But for the vast majority "be fruitful and multiply".

Common sense. The same reason the single parenthood is bad for children. >There are two sexes (fact)
>It takes both sexes to create a child (fact)
>it requires both sexes to correctly raise a child (some how not a fact?)

Aaaaaand if biological fact and reason doesn't do it for you here's an article linked to a bunch of studies and research.... I can't link a tiny url...

>here
ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&zid=a9764475de34e422c34761f9631ce865&action=2&catId&documentId=GALE|EJ3010014234&userGroupName=viva2_tcc&jsid=d04

I disagree. He is pretty clearly implying celibacy should be your default choice. But regardless if it is for everyone or not he still says celibacy is the superior path.

>7 But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, he will do well. 38 So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Do you even hear what you're saying?
It's not for you to tell me what to do what to think and what to feel. By what RIGHT do YOU tell me how I should live!
>God is against it
Cite it and I'll freely cite back all manner of things He's against which exist today you wouldn't give a damn about.
>raising a child is not in God's plan for you
By what fucking divine communication with God did he tell YOU, a stranger with no connection to ME His plan? My covenant is between ME and HIM not you, you have absolutely no right to speak about His plans to me.
>Homo-friendly progressive breeding.
How fucking delusional can you be? I want a child one day because I want one and I'll love them whomever or whatever they develop into which is more than can be said for millions of garbage parents the world over I also doubt you give a shit about.
>I doubt you have a virtuous reason.
How fucking dare you criticise my virtues knowing nothing about me. I have never harmed a person not would I have any want or reason to and do much in my own way to help them, but YOU question MY virtues! What do you even believe a gay relationship looks like? Do you just assume it's leather daddies plotting to molest children? Oh it must be because otherwise Gays might just be normal people who have a different relationship than most people.
I plead that YOU re-evaluate your understanding of God and Christianity and stop blatantly hiding your
hypocrisy under a literal interpretation of the Bible. 50/50 you're a Papist or Southern Baptist.

Glad to hear all of Christians have been getting it wrong the whole time. I'll now divorce my wife and spread the word to all the ill-informed Christians that we should stop reproducing.... You're a moron.

>fag that thinks god is accepting of sodomy

So to you both are bad but which do you think is worse?
A child likely to have the minimum of time spent with one parent and would have a shaky and unfulfilled relationship with them or a child with two parents of the same sex and a better connection and relationship?
In essence is it better to have little knowledge of a "proper" parental environment or adequate knowledge of an alternative parental environment?

God loves the sinner yes or no? Vote now on your phone.

God wants the sinner to keep sinning yes or no?

See
You're going to screw up that kid. If you want to help children great, do it financially through donations and volunteer work. It seems like that's your only clear motivation which isn't good enough to raise a child.

God wants to be understood the exact same way by everyone yes or no?

So you're also in favour of taking away anchor babies because it isn't a good enough reason then?

>Where did the gayness = Damnation meme come from?

Paul

They're both damaging to the child and child development statistics/studies (crime rate, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, etc) are clear when it comes to single parents but we don't have the wealth of sample group size when it comes to same sex parents but what little research we do have isn't good.

>any part of my religion i dislike i can change
this kind of attitude is exactly why people hate fags

Actually single parent households are very prevalent in the Hispanic community so yes. Anchor babies should go with whatever family they do have.

>Glad to hear all of Christians have been getting it wrong the whole time
No, celibacy has always been considered spiritually superior in Christianity.

Explain why denominations are a thing please. If you don't live a fundamentalist life currently you're just being a hypocrite.

They're all wrong right user? Yours is the only "true" belief right?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Don't forget blacks too single parent rates are incredibly high as well. You're fully justified in making them orphans in order to work towards making nuclear families.

so because protestantism split into so many denoms that means sodomy isnt a sin?

somehow this thread now resembles something out of the comment section on Youtube.
thats ok, I'll re post my questions again just in case you all forgot the point of this thread.
>Where did the gayness = Damnation meme come from?
>Why was it so heavily enforced and covered up in Medieval Christendom and the Islamic World?

>Christians have been getting it wrong about celibacy
>"No, Christians have been getting it wrong about celibacy"

say the nonChristian moron.

It means if there's a denomination that says it isn't it won't be in that denomination. Or are trying to tell me that Jesus actually didn't come to America to kick-start Mormonism?

>he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
what did he mean by this

My entire argument has been that it's detrimental to the family

They're orphans already. Your solutions is to give them all to gay couples!? How about fixing the fucking welfare state that's creating all the broken black families. You're over simplifying a bigger problem that you likely don't even understand and are just trying to mask a symptom.

Because in that context he will be married to God which is what I said in the very beginning... you moron x3

1. Paul mostly, before that it just kind of existed and people didn't really give a crap.
2. The Church had massive amounts of influence in society and government and could tell people what it wanted on account of only the clergy and nobility being allowed to read the Bible. There's two real parts of Christian history, before and after the printing press.

Also it was pretty shit for everyone back then and Jews, Gays and Infidels are good scapegoats.

Nah remember the gays aren't allowed to have kids either. Only stable White Christian ones are allowed, maybe the Asians but not too many right because they're different. Although I see your point for fixing black families and how the welfare state sucks atm. So how about this radical idea, the state can be the father AND mother to all these orphans! We can't have all the fathers just being released from prison back into society so the state should take the burden.

Please leave Nu/pol/

...

*Hides your pedophile priests*
Pssshh nothin personal kid.

yeah the church was wrong to trust fags

Nice! You jumped right over point. The blacks need to raise their own kids the government has no place in any famil... oh why bother you're and idiot.

>pic related fag

There are examples of homosexuality in ancient Greek art but your image isn't one of them. Both of those figures getting fucked are female.

The ancient Greeks we're so wise. They knew all along traps weren't gay.

What the fuck are you talking about? I cant think of how many LGBT organizations there are that preach safe sex and offer free condoms and STI testing.
Sounds like you have a pretty bad superiority complex

I hope those arguing anti lgbt remember what website they're on

Or what, your feelings might get hurt? Fuck off faggot.

Why do God created gays? and how can gays stop sinning if they can't become straights?

Most pedo priests will take whatever they can have, it's not like most of them are really gay even when they prey on boys.

Paul

>Plato
>a greek
>a greek philosopher
>saw homosex as damaging to society

In much the same way the idea that someone needed to own land to have a stake in government and matters of state; it was believed that an individual needed to have a family to have a stake in society. It put your skin in the game and obliged you to think about how the choices of yourself and others would reflect back on you. furthermore, marriage and childrearing was a political and business transaction that secured alliances, ended wars, and ensured the peaceful transition of property.

Homosexuality was seen as fundamentally antithetical to all of that, and you will note that the less obliged to his neighbors for stability and prosperity a society is, the higher the incidences and acceptance of homosexual behavior.

Why not Hadrian then

...

>why did God create gays
you can do this with everything murderers, blasphemers, adulterers etc the answer is the same stop sinning

And how a gay is supposed sinning? It's not like they can force themselves to like women and noy men.

its not about feelings as much as it is actions.

Cool story bro. I've been saying that for most this thread. Also only land owners should be able to vote now.

Not that I oppose your political opinion but I'm curious. How do you define owning land? Because there is a very significant amount of individuals who do not fully own their land as much as the Banks own their land and they do what they can to pay for said land over a period of time. Even if you were to argue that owning a home is not the only way to gain voting rights and that the common man could buy single plots of land, no matter the condition or use of said land, this would only increase the price of land due to supply and demand concept over access to voting rights.

They can become celibate

So being single sinful? what if someone is not some kind of monk but is unlucky in love?

>so does that mean being single is sinful?

I didn't say that, god didn't say that, no one has said that, no one has ever said that ever. How high are you my dude?

Sure that sounds great! Any way to reduce the number of idiot civilians who vote based on feeling rather than know a shred about policy. If we restricted who can vote based on who has a metric of understanding in the way this republic is governed than that would more beneficial to everyone compared to what we have now that is slowly destroying the fabric of western society. Under this plan I wouldn't be able to vote YET but I'm not far from owning land so I'll get there eventually through hard work/benefiting my economy and countrymen.

You ever bother to look at reality? The economy isn't based on land ownership and you'll probably never have a real say in any form of government. You're fooled

Paul literally encouraged people to stay celibate, marriage is allowed for those who can't help themselves.

1 Corinthians: "I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. 9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion."

...

It is in the Bible. Back then people were more conservative. If a man sleeps with another man like he would a woman he shall be stoned and his blood shall be upon his head.
Why they did it... I don't think many Christians did it back then, but definitely Jews and Muslims. There was a book about the Crusades I read, it touched on this a bit. I can't remember the name but it was along the lines of Unholy Empires and (adjective) Wars.

But the Bible talks about lust too, anything sexual is lustful and thus degenerate.