Fiction has a gay character

Please fuck off /pol/

I'm gay and so far I've had only wholesome, cute relationships.
I know what you're talking about, but that's more about culture rather than nature. It always starts as rebellion, and it ends up as you binging on coke in gay clubs, having lots of casual sex. It's not about homosexuality, it's about having teenagers basing their teenagehood rebellion on their sexuality. You'll see fairly similar scenes with certain girls, who have their sexuality as their defining trait.

A complete normalization (which means that no one cares about you being gay) would result in sexually normal homosexual comunities. Until then, we'll keep having a subculture that promotes excess and hedonism.

Still, you can reject that culture, which is why the scenario OP presented can be debated.

That's the problem, you weren't meant to normalize it, and you weren't meant to celebrate it either. Homosexuality, from the most realist of standpoints, is an illness derived from egocentric ideology. Its acceptance has only hurt many of this new generations homosexuals because the reason they're gay comes from being taken advantage of by a combination of lonely perverted men and corrupt media who preys on their teen angst and insecurities. And once you become gay, it's hard to get out. You either live a lie your entire life, or you realize the truth and your appreciation and love for the greatness that is man is too strong for you to ever go for women. We are unhappy individuals, and by making gays "normal" and "accepted," you have only opened up the venue for more unhappy individuals.

>reading contemporary literature

>normal homosexual comunities

>A complete normalization (which means that no one cares about you being gay) would result in sexually normal homosexual comunities
Not really, as sex without the possibility of procreation is inherently abnormal

The thing is the subculture of degenerate faggots is what makes a complete normalization so difficult in the first place. I admit it might've been necessary in the past, but I also think it would be much better for the "normal" gay community to distance itself from it. It wont happen though, but the issue wont last very long if you consider the demographics in the only homosexual-friendly part of the world.

>muh degeneracy
>muh casual sex and drug use are bad

Why do you hate freedom so much? Is it really as transparent as it seems, that it is sour grapes because you can't get laid or score drugs, and are incapable of having fun?

>2017
>procreation is the norm
I thought we were past this guys, come on.

>Taking advantage of your free will in order to do things that are bad for you, the people around you, and society as a whole.
No, I don't hate freedom, I just hate manipulative scumbags like you.

>I'm gay and so far I've had only wholesome, cute relationships.
There's nothing wholesome about giving BJs for meth in truck stop bathrooms.

First, I don't buy that it's bad for society or people around you, second, that's hypocrisy, you're posting on fucking Veeky Forums. You should be sorting yourself out, curing cancer and helping the elderly, my spooked friend.

It's not a moral issue, it's an existential one. Hedonism is purposeless, there is no higher goal than the hedonistic act itself. It is ultimately self-defeating, and can only result in unhappiness

Casual sex and drug use can be done in a manner that doesn't defeat itself from excess, you should try it.

My brother is gay and he has the most conventional, conservative and balanced lifestyle of anyone I know. He's already married in his mid-20s and runs his own successful business. His partner is another professional and they live a pretty much standard middle-class lifestyle having both come from working-class backgrounds.

Homosexuality is only "unfilling hedonism" so long as it isn't institutionalised.

It's bad for you, and therefore, it's bad for people around you because people around you don't want to see you harm yourself, and it's bad for society because it perpetuates the cycle that creates more of people who share your ideology of self-harm which hurts them and the people around them. This distracts people from their true talents and skills, which ultimately hurts a society.

So pretty much the same as literally everything humans do and can do.

I have, it left me empty and suicidal

>Nuh-uh you're wrong because this anecdote of a literally perfect/ideal relationship exists from my perspective

>It's bad for you, and therefore, it's bad for people around you because people around you don't want to see you harm yourself, and it's bad for society because it perpetuates the cycle that creates more of people who share your ideology of self-harm which hurts them and the people around them. This distracts people from their true talents and skills, which ultimately hurts a society.

He posted on Veeky Forums, oblivious to his own hypocrisy.

Tell me, how is shitposting making you a better cog in the machine?

Paternalism is for faggots with daddy issues, tbqh

Well, don't think your own experience counts equally for every single person after invoking fucking existentialism then.

It works for me. I tried excessive drug use and sex, it was bad, Then I tried it in moderation and it's really nice.

My evidence, while anecdotal, is still better than unsubstantiated generalisations.

That's a real answer.

Not even the most SJW people I know would use made up pronouns.

>He posted on Veeky Forums, oblivious to his own hypocrisy.
I think we're all aware of our own hypocrisy, but broken people can still be idealists, can still want what's best for society rather than merely what's best for themselves. How many philosophers truly lived up to the values they espoused? It's the values that matter, not the person who is espousing them.

So let's ban sterile people having sex. Why you gotta single out the homos?

Polygamy is a male evolutionary trait, that's exactly why all psychological benefits related to marriage wither away with time and in early periods are equatable to simple cohabitation. Degenerate society is an inevitable future, my man, and your spooks will be an archaic joke in a technological dystopia we're heading to.

But the procreative urge is still present

>archaic joke in a technological dystopia we're heading too

I know you are memeing but I live in an European city where 8 out of 10 newborn babies are called muhammed

This is because every homosexual you know is in their early twenties. Your other-age-group communities are probably kinda uncomfortable places for queer people.

>free will
>things that are bad for you
[citation needed]
>society as a whole
[citation needed]

I have an urge to get my ass bred by another guy.

>there are no women in protagonistic roles
>coloured people are either nonexistent or fill a purely assistive role
>there are no queer people, or the only queer characters are villains
>the smartest character is black
>the boss is some kind of minority and is actually very abusive, but her employees are shown as racist/sexist/w/e if they have an issue with her
>a woman is stronger than a man
>there are jews everywhere for no reason
>everyone is able-bodied

Non-Veeky Forums resident here, I was told Veeky Forums was the most left-leaning board on Veeky Forums, I guess they were wrong.

/pol/ spillage, nothing more

Lol fag

Which one?

So let me get this straight
>80% of babies, at least, in your town, are born male
>and Muslim

What, did Mengele do a number on Edirne or something?

You'd be surprised.

This is what people think when they educate themselves on homosexual people on /pol/. What about all those caring, decent men with a caree going on that just want to spend their lives with someone they love? Why do you guys always have to reduce sentimental relationships to sex? This tells more about you than homosexuality in general.

Most people have sex for the pleasure of it. Sex can be meaningful, it's not all about degeneration. If you think otherwise, I don't know... I guess you've never had a gf you really loved. In that case I hope you'll find one eventually and discover the serenity and meaningfulness that love can bring into your life.

It's more like cuddling with your best friends, tell him how much you love him and, every once in a while, having cute, passionate and caring sex with him. There are people like the ones you're describing, but does it make sense to equate entire communities to them? Should I think about every straight person I've met in my life in the same way I treat the worst straight sex addicts I've known in my university years?

>is what makes a complete normalization so difficult in the first place.
It's just about overcoming the prejudices you've got. Those people are there, but they're not the totality of this group: don't hold the entire community to the standard of those people you hate the most, that's textbook (sorry for using this word, I know it's used too many times improperly) bigotry.

> I admit it might've been necessary in the past, but I also think it would be much better for the "normal" gay community to distance itself from it.
Even if I don't fit their lifestyle, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in what are they doing, or rather, I don't think we should ostracize that specific brand of hedonism while justifying the rest of them. Do you want to attack hedonism and the consequences of sexual liberation? Then don't single gay people out, attack it in everyone of its form.
And when it comes to attacking hedonism, you find me skeptic there too. I've had the luck of being able to pursue the artist life: in that sense I feel I can distance myself quite easily from my hedonistic needs mostly because I have something else worth doing that I value way more than those previously stated needs.
Most people don't have that, and teaching will quickly show you that most people don't have any sort of artistic/academic attitude. They don't have passions going on, so should I really tell them not to follow their hedonistic needs, even if this is literally the only thing life has to offer them? And even if on top of that I still consider them harmful, should I really think that they're harmful enough to deserve complete societal ostracization? Should I really think that people should live miserable, tormented lives cause of it? It may be harmful, but not THAT harmful.

>hate
I use drugs. I hate degeneracy. I hate the state. I love civilization.

>gayfags
>dont have tons of sex and good relationships with everyone and always are happy

t. Albanian

>The woman is the logical one

>This is what people think when they educate themselves on homosexual people on /pol/. What about all those caring, decent men with a caree going on that just want to spend their lives with someone they love? Why do you guys always have to reduce sentimental relationships to sex?
Because it's about their sexuality and relationships like that don't exist, they are hedonistic degenerates obsessed with the pleasures of the flesh.

You tell them that too?

I appreciate the butthurt (get it?) you've caused, well done. Homosexuals are repulsive and unworthy of even positive fictitious depiction

Nice quads.

What about me, then? I'm an homosexual and I've already described my relationships in the above post. Why am I to be blamed for the most sexually active members of this community?
How am I making the world worse? And to what extent should I deserve, in your opinion, punishment for caring and genuinely loving another human being, not as sexual object but as a person?

Well you self obsessed pansy you should probably know that there is no homosex gene which means it's a product of environment likely down to what you eat and drink and whether you were abused as a child.
If you don't make being a huge flaming faggot your identity that's fine but I still wouldn't trust you around kids given the high links between pedophilia and homosexuality, you're two of a kind.

>Well you self obsessed pansy you should probably know that there is no homosex gene which means it's a product of environment likely down to what you eat and drink and whether you were abused as a child.

That's a gross generalization. There are more statistical linkings between these phenomenons in the gay community, but it is less prevalent than you might think.

>If you don't make being a huge flaming faggot your identity that's fine but I still wouldn't trust you around kids given the high links between pedophilia and homosexuality, you're two of a kind.
This is disheartening. I don't really know what to say about it.
Whatever, keep living your life in your infographic-based world. There is nothing I can say here that will change your mind.

I don't think you really understand genes or any biology at all.

...

Lol I'm pretty sure I understand them a lot better than you, and so does John Hopkins.

That's true as you weak cunts are a diamond a dozen and all espouse the same shit, I wonder does it have something to do with your torn rectums.

Whenever anyone has anal sex it causes little micro tears in their anus which leads to blood mixing with fecal matter. This happens even if there's no pain and it's actually the reason gay men are so susceptible to STD's. You would think this is enough to clue people in that this isn't something that people should be doing but for some reason they embrace it. It's a destructive way to live.

You obviously don't, if you think a "gay" gene would even be a thing. Genes work cumulatively, they're not just on-off switches.

>it's a product of environment
Genes are a product of environment too, what are you getting at?
Also, you didn't address any of his points, you were only able to spout some pseudoscientific bullshit probably aimed at making him feeling bad or something. Truly pathetic.
>I'm pretty sure I understand them a lot better than you
You sure do, assuming he's 16.