>it’s incorrect to say that homosexuality is unnatural because many animals display homosexual behaviours!
is this the best atheist argument for the gays? by comparing humans to animals?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
secular homosexuality
Who cares
No
This is their best argument
Apathy and turning a blind eye.
First they came for the homosexuals and I did not speak out because I was not a homosexual. Then they came for the swingers and I did not speak out because I was not a swinger. Then they came for regular unmarried sex havers like me but there was no one left to speak for me.
And then they stopped coming for people because all the problems were solved
What's the problem with me fricking chicks I'm not married to? I'm not a homebreaker, never fricked a woman who was in a relationship with someone else.
It’s generally not good for either you or her. It’s fun, but it’ll make your future marriage weaker. People who are promiscuous before marriage are much more likely to get divorced (I believe that it slowly fricks up your brain by cheapening the very strong connection your brain makes with someone when you have sex). Then there’s always the risk of STDs and unmarried pregnancies; a million things can go wrong and then your life is literally over). Also, sex is a very serious thing and creates a very strong emotional bond, and doing that with random people or just girlfriends will intensify heartbreak that just doesn’t need to happen, especially for women.
This is a personal anecdote, but I’m not perfect in this regard, and I genuinely wish I had waited for marriage, like my spouse did.
Why do you think all that? You've never had sex, it's not like you have any relevant experience.
i have had sex. He’s right
Curious, I've had sex but I think he's wrong.
You’re probably gay man. Not a big deal but if sex with women is a negative experience for you…
>You’re probably gay man. Not a big deal but if sex with women is a negative experience for you…
You're accusing somebody of being gay because you're incapable of monogamy?
What sexuality of people have the most sexual partners in their lives?
Homosexual men.
You didn’t bother to read my post. I mentioned that I’ve had sex outside of marriage and that I’m now married. There’s no point in engaging with you further.
Lmao boohoo, mean people are gonna judge me duh internet
>secular homosexuality
as opposed to..?
propagandized institutional homosexuality
The stuff they do in cloisters
If homosexuality is good because some animals do it, then I should be able to go outside naked, rape everyone I see, whenever I want, and I should be able to kill any man if I feel that he competes with me. Also flinging shit or eating it is perfectly fine.
Homosexuality has absolutely no excuse to be legal, homies who say otherwise are borderline moronic
you're not supposed to be writing on a keyboard all fricking day while slowly becoming a disgusting mass of lipids either and yet here we are
I don't even like gays and would prefer if homosexuality wasn't a thing. But you authors are insufferable.
>Jesus of King because he is the Messiah, the Son of God, because he rose from the dead like a magic zombie!
>Why? Because the Bible says so!!!
Do Christians really believe this?
Obviously we know it's much more nuanced than this. But oversimplifying someone else's argument is a bad look, anon.
>speaking in absolutes
You have to be 18 to post here.
>is this the best atheist argument for the gays? by comparing humans to animals?
It's interesting that Christianity wants to lift man up, but atheism wants to bring man down to live like a beast of the field. Reminds me of Nebuchadnezzar's story from the book of Daniel.
in absolutes
>You have to be 18 to post here.
Is murder absolutely evil? Is child rape absolutely evil? You sure you're not the one who's underage?
>It's interesting that Christianity wants to lift man up, but atheism wants to bring man down to live like a beast of the field.
There is no specific thing that atheism, as a whole, wants. There are things that individual atheists want, which are often different. (Marx and Rand were both atheists, you'll recall.)
>Is murder absolutely evil?
Depends on what you mean by "evil". Is killing someone in self-defense, or in defense of an innocent, evil? I suppose if you define "murder" as "unjustified killing" then all murder is, tautologically, evil, but then you're just offloading all the interesting work to the definition.
>>Is murder absolutely evil?
>Depends on what you mean by "evil".
Way to ignore my actual argument.
What argument? you're a fool if you can't just answer "yes".
Maybe I should have said it depends on what you mean by "murder". If you define "murder" as "unjustified killing" then yes all murder is evil, but the question is which killings are unjustified?
>If you define "murder" as "unjustified killing" then yes all murder is evil, but the question is which killings are unjustified?
It's not about how *I* define words, you moronic moral/truth relativist.
What exactly does it mean for a moral statement to be factually true or false?
So you're just going off on irrelevant tangents now? Is this how you moral/truth relativist subhuman trash try to save face?
You couldn't just say "yes" to my questions of "is murder absolutely evil" and "is child rape absolutely evil"
You should be put on a list.
Why don't you answer my question? What does it actually mean for a moral statement to be factually true or false? Certainly my moral intuition agrees with both of your statements, but I don't see how it can be factually true or false.
>Why don't you answer my question?
Hypocritical to say this when you started your deliberate moronation by refusing to answer mine.
Thanks for proving you're amoral subhuman trash, hypocrite.
I'm saying your question is a category error and cannot be answered as asked.
>"is murder evil"
>"is child rape evil"
>herp derp I can't answer that I am very smart
Behold, the power of secularism.
I can say that I personally consider it evil, but if there's some intrinsic essence of good or evil that resides in certain things I've yet to see a method for testing for its presence.
You should absolutely have a nice day.
That's not an argument.
Moral equivalence
>>Is murder absolutely evil?
>Depends on what you mean by "evil". Is killing someone in self-defense, or in defense of an innocent, evil? I suppose if you define "murder" as "unjustified killing" then all murder is, tautologically, evil, but then you're just offloading all the interesting work to the definition.
>my actual argument.
You're just being a fricking moron.
Who talks about self-defense when asked about murder? You're a fricking moron.
>strawmanning
>not responding to the entire argument, continuing to distill to simple dualistic arguments that are framed so your argument is the only logical one
>childish "no u" answers
>caps lock
Again, you must be over 18 to post here.
Most of this post
is an exact quote of your posts, moron.
They're replying to someone else, and I'm referencing the thread of replies as a whole. You're struggling to keep up.
That's a weird way of saying you're intellectually dishonest and a liar.
Ad hominem
>calling a spade a spade is ad hominem because it hurts me fee-fees
You literally refuse to answer a simple question and you think parroting this nonsense makes you smart or clever.
You're not offering any evidence to back up your claims about me or the other anon. Your insults to his/my character are baseless and can't be derived from what we're saying. You're not calling a spade a spade, you're calling a spade an axe and doing a poor job of trying to gaslight other people on a laotian grass growing forum into believing you're not.
What question are you asking that isn't being answered?
>and you think parroting this nonsense makes you smart or clever.
There you go assuming my intent again. Also, "parroting" implies that there is no thought behind it. I'm considering what you're saying and matching it up to pre-established logical fallacies. To "parrot" would be to mindlessly repeat some drive; "cringe christcuck", "kys zoomer", "you have to go back", and so on.
Homosexuality isn't even that common in nature. Most bugs and animals, who have this tendency are poisoned by chemicals.
And yes, I would kill a brittle-boned politician if I had a chance. Animals are superior to humancels by the way, most people are absolute subhuman consumer mindless drones.
It's not an argument for homosexuality. It's an argument against it being unnatural. It occurs in nature therefore not unnatural. You are moving the goalpost in a really obvious way, so much so that it's hard to believe you aren't doing it sincerely out of stupidity.
>It's not an argument for homosexuality.
They always use it as an argument FOR homosexuality.
>It's an argument against it being unnatural.
They aren't saying that anon. You're purposely misrepresenting the standard pro-lgbtq argument.
>It occurs in nature therefore not unnatural.
So LGBTQ activists recognize their orientations as defects because homosexuality occurs occasionally in nature just as physical birth defects occur occasionally in nature?
No anon. They aren't making that argument. You're purposely misrepresenting their argument.
>You are moving the goalpost in a really obvious way, so much so that it's hard to believe you aren't doing it sincerely out of stupidity.
NO anon. That's clearly what YOU are doing right now as you accuse others of it.
You are a legit sociopath.
You are a legit evil person.
You are a snake.
Animals also eat shit but that don’t make it right!
You ever see you dog vomit and then eat it's own vomit?
No, the best argument is that consenting adults are allowed to do what they want.
>everyone should be able to do what they want bro
t. Marquis de Sade
Enlightenment liberalism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Why shouldn't they? As long as everyone involved consents, what business is it of yours?
>As long as everyone involved consents, what business is it of yours?
Consent is bullshit as evidenced by women retroactively retracting consent being recognized by the law.
If that's the case that's bullshit on the law's part, provided there was no coercion at the time.
It illustrates a flaw in the core of Enlightenment liberal ideology in that it presumed reason to be a faculty that human beings naturally possess and created frameworks to govern society based on rational consent in sincere hopes that rationality would be able to rule the passions which inspire tyranny, but these expectations were drafted in a vaccum by correspondence between the intellectual elite of Europe and North America, and when the time came for them to be put into practice those ideals turned out to be ephemeral except in the United States. In France the high-minded republican dreams of le philosophes was turned into a revolutionary bloodbath and then a new empire. In Latin America it was just a cynical play by local elites to seize power from the Spanish crown during the chaos of the Napoleonic Wars. Even in the US the Revolutionary War unity which Washington called for the preservation of was broken with the establishment of the first party system. Throughout the 19th century you had societal shifts with the religious Second Great Awakening in North America and Romanticism in Europe further divorcing them from the premises of Enlightenment liberalism, and ironically that sentimentalism would be married to the aspirstions of liberalism and it would be romantic nationalism that led to nationalities breaking away from the historic empires and creating new states along liberal-constitutionalist lines, while amplifying feelings of American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny in the US. Any optimism in Europe was smashed by World War 1 and crushed by the Great Depression leading to those new states becoming dictatorships, followed by communist domination in the aftermath of World War 2. The US being an ocean away was able to insulate itself for some time, but as the world became ever more interconnected the counter-culture movements of the 60s would dramatically change the character of Western nations worldwide with consequences to the present day.
Hume was proven right about reason being a slave to the passions. The exercise and perception of power are fundamentally irrational concepts and liberalism is powerless except when it rides on the coattails of more persuasive and less systematic movements such as nationalism. The administration of law and the enforcement of frameworks of consent are ultimately governed by cultural expectations and as those shift and fray we lose any common sense of what they mean. Historically, silence was understood to signal consent between parties under the legal principle of "qui tacet consentire videtur," but today we would consider that unacceptable. Rationalistic laws handled by irrational men produce irrational governance and make reason a farce.
t. Rapist
marquis de sade is explictly against the notion of "if it doesn't hurt anyone have fun" he is literally the man for him "sadism" is invented.
That is not an argument for why homosexuality is fine, just an argument against the notion that it's unnatural, which is frequently argued. The argument that it's fine is much simpler: consenting adults have a right to do as they like in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
What's the alternative moraloty? Making a tortured appeal to Aristotlean and thomist philosophy that somehow doesn't allow slavery?
No, these people want to reinstate slavery.
how do you fail at spelling morality
It's probably a typo (i.e. tried to type the right spelling but physically fumbled it) rather than a misspelling (i.e. actually thought that was how it was spelled), since I and O are right next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard.
>homosexuality is gross and icky and weird!
>meanwhile christians:
the conversation you think is happening:
>homosexuality is wrong
>no, it's not, because it occurs in nature
the conversation that's actually happening:
>homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural
>that reason for hating homosexuality is wrong because homosexuality is not unnatural, it occurs in nature
it's not an argument in favour of homosexuality in and of itself, it's a response to and refutation of a shit argument _against_ homosexuality
I just don’t give a frick anon. I’m genuinely baffled about how much you care what other consenting adults do alone in their homes.
I’ve never given a frick, but people like you of all people should understand that it’s wrong to hate people for not conforming to normative behavior and interests.
He and those like him just want a group they can violate and victimize. All the sophistry and wird salad is just a cover, what they really want is free reign to curbstomp gays because it satisfies their sadistic urges.
The argument is against the idea of it being unnatural.
But, even if it were true, the human species is pretty unnatural.
Naturally, many of us would be dead from deceases that had been found cures to a century or so ago.
>secular homosexuality
As opposed to religious homosexuality?
Christian homosexuality?
Don't like it, simple as.
>>it’s incorrect to say that homosexuality is unnatural because many animals display homosexual behaviours!
>is this the best atheist argument for the gays? by comparing humans to animals?
Even zoophiles quickly noticed that homosexual acts between male mammals are very rare. They literally complain about it on zoovilleforum and complained about it on the now defunct Beastforum judging by ancient screen saves and deleted wayback machine archives.
I remember one guy said something like this -
"There's hundreds of stallion x mare vids but only five legit stallion x stallion vids. Why? this sucks.
Is human-centric homophobia negatively affecting the lives of horses? We need to kill off the Cis. Can't happen soon enough. They only exist to bring more of us into the world."
It's disturbing when you realize just how messed up those people are.
Homosexuality is a mental disability that has always existed despite never being selected for because random mutations occur in all populations. human reproduction isn't perfect and flawless.
Mental and physical disabilities are more likely to occur together in the same people.
This explains why -
LGBTQ people are more likely to be autistic, suicidal, have down syndrome, eating disorders, poor immune system function even when they aren't HIV positive etc.
Endorsing homosexuality is like endorsing people who are born with three legs as if it is a gift.
Animals being born with three legs doesn't magically make it a good thing.
Homosexuality is more common in societies with endemic multi-generational inbreeding and older mothers/fathers.
Once again pointing to its cause being random mutations.
Like autistics, some homosexuals can be great people like Tchaikovsky, but the vast majority aren't.
Homosexual male couples are more likely to rape their children than heterosexual couples.
Lesbian females are more likely to kill their children than heterosexual couples.
>. They literally complain about it on zoovilleforum and complained about it on the now defunct Beastforum judging by ancient screen saves and deleted wayback machine archives.
How and why are you privy to all this?
continued -
Homosexual males in particular have acted as a reservoir for HIV and uncommon helminthic parasites, viruses and chronic bacterial infections.
The anus simply wasn't made for sex.
It offers very little resistance to pathogens.
The veganal cavity on the other hand is very well adapted to protecting the body from pathogens.
Homosexuals are more likely to be zoophiles, pedophiles and necrophiles than heterosexuals.
They are also over-represented as serial killers.
conversion therapy is stupid because it never works and only endangers children when they are entrusted with "cured" former homosexuals.
The Catholic church learned this the hard way.
HIV is spread more easily by anal penetration than any other common method.
Even HIV positive needle stabbings have a lower chance of infecting you.
The only method of HIV viral transfer more effective than anal sex is major blood transfusion involving at least a liter.
Homosexuals are also more likely to be political extremists.
Christians, Muslims and Orthodox israelites are Ironically ensuring the production of more homosexuals when they force homosexuals to have children.
Middle-eastern Muslims have increased their homosexual rate with generational inbreeding.
The aging European population have increased their homosexual rate with their older parents.
The solution is to not do these things so that the homosexual rate can be kept at around 1% or less.
Continued -
There are many other interesting facts but it would probably be a waste of time to delve any deeper on a random IQfy thread.
Good touch typing practice, I guess.
Stay strong anons.
>Christians, Muslims and Orthodox israelites are Ironically ensuring the production of more homosexuals when they force homosexuals to have children.
Its not genetic. Some decades ago they were 1% of the population, now the most recent generation says its 20/30% gay. Meaning its propaganda, culture, nurture, same with troons. Perversion is spread by exposure.
>Its not genetic. Some decades ago they were 1% of the population, now the most recent generation says its 20/30% gay.
They still aren't even 5% today anon.
If you actually check out the proportion of homosexual couple households in America it's around 1%.
You're blindly repeating bullshit propaganda. People will happily say they are gay in a random questionnaire if it's considered "cool".
But they aren't going to have sex with somebody they aren't attracted to in a shared house for ten years for the "coolz".
Christians and Leftists are both idiots that think sexuality is some learned malleable behavior.
It isn't.
The only incidences of changing sexual orientation I've ever heard of are some men with dementia or massive brain damage from car accidents who became impulsive sex addicts or suddenly lost all interest in sex.
One dude with a massive brain tumor became a compulsive pedophile.
Isn't it also plausible that many bisexuals end up with the opposite sex just because there are more available partners of the opposite sex?
>source: trust me bro, I rape animals so you know I'm legit
you know the european country that's the most hostile to homosexuality in Europe and the most trad in Europe has the most HIV right?
They try to make it as if homosexuality is an intended behavior and an integral to a species when it never is.
It's an abnormality of gonochorists arising from hormonal imbalance leading to confusion and odd behaviors. It has no benefits and is, in humans, as disgusting as other abnormal paraphilias such as pedophilia or scatophilia. These are mental illnesses.
It's like arguing cancer is a good thing because every multicellular organism can develop it.
It always was, is and will be a gross perversion and should remain socially treated as such. Research and application of brain and hormone therapy and medication should be pursued with hope of restoring those sexually and mentally ill.
All I said is entierly within an atheistic view.
Homosexuality in animals is almost never decadent like it is in humans, it's usually always functional and done for reasons to support the survival of their species.
Only in shit like the universe 27 experiment that are unnatural and forced scenarios do you see animals exhibit homosexuality reminiscent of humans.
>Only in shit like the universe 27 experiment that are unnatural and forced scenarios do you see animals exhibit homosexuality reminiscent of humans.
Lol, nothing about that experiment had anything to do with humans aside from severe forced inbreeding over generations creating bizarre physical and mental defects.
The whole comparison with human population increase, living in buildings etc is just exceedingly stupid and embarrassing to listen to.
>trying to form a rational argument against homosexuality instead of just rejecting homosexualry because it’s gross
Simple as
It's also funny how people who make this argument ignore the very real possibility that homosexual behavior among animals is just the result of introducing industrial-grade chemicals into the ecosystem.
Didn't someone observe gay penguins in Antarctica (far from industrial civilization, at least at the time) back the 1800s?
Not that I'm aware. We do know, however, that man-made chemicals, such as BPA, are hormone disruptors that spike estrogen levels and cause sexual dysfunction in various species, including Humans. When introduced at a young age it no doubt has a critical impact on development. In other words, don't drink from plastic bottles.
so there's more gays because the climate is changing? i thought that wasn't real and that doing anything about it was evil socialism.
The weather doesn't need to change for microplastics to cause hormone imbalance. But you already knew that.
if we have so much invisible plastic in our balls that we're all sterile than the climate is 100% fricked. too bad we're not gonna do anything about it. just more for israel while we cry about how the gays are disobeying moses.
Being fat stupid and gay is a choice. You can't change the world, but you can change yourself as long as you know how to take care of your body. There's your whitepill anon.
just sitting down a lot significantly decreases the length of your life, far more worse for you than getting fricked in the butt. why shouldn't all of us go to auschwitz with the gays, if this is about healthy behavior and not enforcing old israeli rules from the torah?