The two posts that destroyed the anti-homosexual contingent on?

The mural you posted is Etruscan. The Iliad is about a bronze age war through the eyes of dark age Greek bardic poet Homer. The Iliad itself is about Achaean warlords fighting over war brides and even Patroclus are mentioned as having slept at opposite ends of their tent with a their slave women. Aeschylus lived 300 years after Homer and was a theatre gay you Kinaidos.

>OH MY YOSHUA-MUHAMMOCK, BISMILLAH AL-MACHAMBURGER, YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NON-HETERONORMAL NON-MISSIONARY INTERCOURSE HAPPENING? THIS IS ANOTHER BOSTON TEA PARTY HIDJRA, BUT IN REVERSE LIKE IN THE MARVEL HARRY POTTER JUSTICE LEAGUE!

>Greeks had laws against them.

I don't understand why child molesters think they're hated because of Abrahamic faiths. Many other cultures hate gays who follow different religions. It's weird that they will push boy fricking as a natural act.

>but it seems pretty clear that prepubescent pedophilia *is* harmful to development
Wrong. There is nothing wrong or harmful about pedophilia.

Children have a sexuality and expressing this sexuality with adults is not harmful. Children are not harmed by jerking off. Children are not harmed by engaging in sexual play with other children. Children are also not harmed by engaging in sex play with adults. Children have been free to engage sexually with adults in cultures all across the world throughout history and they were unharmed by it, because sex is something which is pleasurable and positive, not something traumatizing and degrading.

Child sexual abuse theory is pseudoscientific horseshit and there has never been any proof that consensual sexual relationships cause psychological harm. It shouldn't even be taken seriously in polite society. Every low quality study which makes this claim uses clinical samples, doesn't control for confounding factors, and most importantly, they don't account for whether or not the experience was consensual. Essentially they use victims of incestuous child rape to argue that children who have consensual sexual experiences with adults will be harmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

You can learn more about pedosexuality and adult-child sexual relationships on IPCE and NewgonWiki.

Kentler put delinquent teenage boys (not children) in foster housing with pederasts, and the study was successful.

Five decades later a few of the participants of the study came out and made a bunch of false claims in the media so that they could claim compensation.

All pedophile claims to the nobility or essential goodness of their position fall flat in the face of the fact that they are definitionally trying to support their sexual perversion of raping children. What they have cannot even be called love, because they must always throw away the object of their filthy "love" after some amount of years, lest they live with an adult and not the helpless victim of their abuse. Even then, could they not delay their sexual gratification for a time? No, because their object is only perverse sexual fantasy. All pedophiles are disgusting filth incapable of actual love and the fact that they're able to run around spewing their nonsense in liberal colleges under the guise of being "MAPs" is a testament to the perversity of our times.

>they are definitionally trying to support their sexual perversion of raping children
Believing in sexual liberation for children has nothing to do with defending the rape of children.
>What they have cannot even be called love, because they must always throw away the object of their filthy "love" after some amount of years
It doesn't follow that a relationship can not involve genuine love because it ends after a certain point.
>they're able to run around spewing their nonsense in liberal colleges under the guise of being "MAPs"
This isn't happening. It's the exact opposite. Anyone who questions the feminist narrative that adult-child sex is harmful gets exiled from colleges.

Antis are delusional, they live in an alternate reality.

>It doesn't follow that a relationship can not involve genuine love because it ends after a certain point.
Oh yes, you genuinely love your wife until her breasts grt flabby so you leave her for the next object of attraction. What genuine love! You have demonstrated that you are capable of it.
I definitely would actually kill you, completely unironically, if it weren't illegal. The fact that it isn't legal is a disgrace.

>Yes, characterize anything you don't like as (disagreeable political group to the people you're speaking with)
Child sexual abuse theory is a discredited pseudoscience which was invented by israeli Feminists in the 1970s who took samples of victims of incestuous rape and extrapolated their outcomes to consensual participants in adult-child sexual relationships. There is not a single study which shows that consensual adult-child sex is correlated with negative outcomes, because that doesn't happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#In_society
>"By the early 21st century, the issue of child sexual abuse has become a legitimate focus of professional attention, while increasingly separated from second wave feminism ... As child sexual abuse becomes absorbed into the larger field of interpersonal trauma studies, child sexual abuse studies and intervention strategies have become degendered and largely unaware of their political origins in modern feminism and other vibrant political movements of the 1970s. One may hope that unlike in the past, this rediscovery of child sexual abuse that began in the 70s will not again be followed by collective amnesia. The institutionalization of child maltreatment interventions in federally funded centers, national and international societies, and a host of research studies (in which the United States continues to lead the world) offers grounds for cautious optimism. Nevertheless, as Judith Herman argues cogently, 'The systematic study of psychological trauma ... depends on the support of a political movement.'"

Nobody believed in the moronic myth that sex harms children until israeli Feminists started pushing it in the 1970s, and that myth has since been used to attack and destroy the foundations of Aryan civilization, by making taboo age-gap relationships, delaying the onset at first marriage, eliminating youth pregnancy, and by dividing white people with mass hysteria. A society can not flourish if youth-marriage and man/boy love are criminalized.
>Your arguments are shit
Refute them, then?

Dude has pictures of children ready for posting on IQfy. Think this pedo has a little more than just that on his PC?

this but unironically.
seriously, you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone of this fact since they all choose to believe that every single pedophile is a rapist automatically. I'm still trying to think how you'd convince one normally of such a case, because it seems impossible for me to tell anyone about this without sounding like a lunatic.

What?
That post in not even readable.

How is that relevant?

>THIS *clap* IS *clap* TOTALLY *clap* LIKE *clap* HARAM *clap* AND *clap* AND *clap* SINFUL *clap* MY *clap* BRO *clap* DAWG *clap*

Oh, it's a soiteen tantrum thread.

Weird that mods never seem to ban these underage kids despite their endless tantrums and spam.

Meant to reply to

>Homosexuality is obviously an abomination that subordinates the sexual drive to the pursuit of mere pleasure.
That doesn't follow. The existence of a romantic and sexual element in a relationship between two men does not obliterate whatever other objective goods exist in that relation between them, and often the love of the other is the seed of further and richer joys and virtues. Homosexuality may be a sin and still produce 'goods'. CS Lewis said as much in his book 'Surprised by Joy', when he wrote that the erotic attachments that formed between the boys at his boarding school was the only humane part of their school lives, the only time they went out of themselves and devoted themselves selflessly to another person. He could say this and still hold to his position that homosexuality is a grave sin, because under a Christian ethic homosexuality, even when it produces objective goods, cannot be countenanced on account of the fact Christians are not consequentialists. But people who do not adhere to a Christian ethic (and whose opposition to homosexuality stems from personal prejudice, not adherence to a rational moral system) have to invent other reasons to disapprove of homosexuality, including denying the very possibility that a homosexual person, or a homosexual relationship between two people, could ever instantiate human virtues and goods. This is not a very secure argument because it is instantly demolished by the first exposure to empirical evidence of the contrary (of which there is a significant amount). I also find your argument essentially anti-human and anti-life since you denigrate romantic love as a mere 'irrational passion'. The most rewarding relationship in my life is my with my male partner -- it would be one of the most rewarding relationships in my life even without the romantic ingredient, but eros has not diminished or degraded our intimacy, but rather multiplied it. I find it perplexing to see other people be so adamantly committed to denying this. I don't understand it. I have never been hostile to you. We are alike in so many ways.

There is no such thing as 'conservative values', ipso facto. Conservatism as a word can refer to a mental tendency, a behaviour, and (I gather this is the sense in which you are using it) a modern political philosophy. In all other senses of the word conservatism can only be a relative phenomenon, relative the object or state of affairs one wishes to conserve. An ancient Greek conservative, for instance, would not hold to the precepts you outline here. There are many people who are conservatives who are not Aristotelians. And there are many people who are Aristotelian virtue ethicists who are not conservatives, or are conservative in a different way to you.
It is noteworthy you assume that anal sex is part of our relationship, when neither myself nor my partner practice it. I also find the myopic obsession with the sexual element of the relationship strange.
>Homosexuals should not have political rights, since they either do not form families or, if they form them, they disintegrate them with their behaviour.
This is not borne out by the empirical evidence. Your assertion that homosexuals should not 'have political rights' lacks clarity. Do you mean rights specifically related to homosexuality (marriage and so on) or do you mean that people with a mere homosexual preference should have their civil liberties stripped? The Catholic Church would certainly disagree with you if you mean the latter thing, and also with elements of the former position.
>Thus they have no interest in the future of the Polis
This is also not borne out by historical evidence. It is very strange for you to use the language of classical antiquitty when the record shows homosexuals and homosexual relationships playing a constructive role in the life of the city state: consider Epaminondas, or Pelopidas, or the Sacred Band, or Solon. Was Lord Kitchener a poor Englishman? Or Frederick the Great a poor German?

https://i.imgur.com/2yQaxVC.gif

>And this is why I should get to frick kids

I'm liberal (NEET - need free gibs) but you're not really winning any "I should get to frick kids" arguments.

Meant to reply to [...]

Where was pedophilia mentioned, moron? I am not the pedo poster.

It's not pedantry, I just find your claim to arbitrate what 'conservative values' are to be pompous and overblown -- especially considering that a major strain in conservative thought is scepticism towards perfect abstract philosophical systems, whether they are Peripatetic or Marxist or something else. You can see this in Cicero and in Edmund Burke.

Baseless teleological nonsense. Phantasms. Nature does not design with ‘ends’ in mind. She accumulates functions. One need only observe the utility of homosexual behaviours and pairings among black swans or bonobos, where the thing increases the creature’s evolutionary fitness. I used to be like you, but it is mental indiscipline.

A man who gets fricked in the ass is not a real man. It's against the very nature of manliness, not to mention the very nature of the penis and the butthole. You know I'm right. Deep down you know it. Which is exactly why, as I said, passive homosexuals take on the speech-patterns, habits, and etiquette of women. You can appeal to your bullshit Darwinian nominalist worldview all you like, but ultimately, every man knows in their core that this is a disgusting perversion of the human ideal.

>Anal copulation is not a compulsory feature of homosexuality.
Maybe, but then it barely counts as sexuality at all:
>"I am gay but I don't frick other men or let them frick me, we just suck each other's dicks and trady handies is all"
It's self-embarrased and restraining, which is at odds with the very principle of sexuality. It's borderline inceldom.

>rationality
The nominalistic Darwinian worldview you appealed to destroys the very possibility of rationality. For if our minds are the result of random mutations selected for survivability, there is no reason to trust one's thought processes at all.

Moreover, as "rationality" in this worldview is just equivalent to certain configurations of atoms and chemical reactions in the brain, and as nominalism disallows universals, there is no such thing as rationality. The chemical reactions in my brain are different from the chemical reactions in your brain. If there is no universal that both chemical reactions instantiate, rationality does not exist.

You could say "but the chemical reactions are similar, and this similarity is what rationality resides in". But Similarity itself is a universal. The relationship of similarity that attains between the chemical reactions in our brains and the relationship of similarity that attains between, for example, a red pen and a red motorcycle are different individual relationships of similarity. If similarity is the ground of universals, what grounds these different individual relationships of similarity, and justifies their common name? Is it a similarity of similarities? If so, what grounds the various similarities of similarities? A similarity of similitaries of similarities? You can keep doing this forever. Nominalism is untenable.

>Anal copulation is not a compulsory feature of homosexuality. You're obsessed with it.
The other types of sexual activity are similarly evil and degrading. You have not answered my repeated emphasis on the fact that passive homosexuals become cheap imitations of women, because you can't. It is a simple psychological proof of the harm that homosexuality does to the mind.