Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 6, 2019 3:18:16 GMT
For those not familiar with my views on homosexuality, I will make them very clear and why I hold them. Homosexuality is an abomination. It is an act that used to be self evidently held to be so disgusting, so distasteful, so perverse that it was considered immoral. Now mainly because many people in Hollywood held this perversion and worked through movies, television, and their influence on liberals to normalize their disgusting behavior it is no longer considered immoral by the sheep that make up American society it must be explained clearly WHY exactly it is immoral so in this thread I intend to do so.
My argument for why homosexuality is immoral rests on the fact that there are things so disgusting, so distasteful, and so perverse that they are immoral though they do not directly and immediately hurt anyone except the people partaking in said thing.
Now many people's moral compass rests on the assumption that "if it's not hurting anybody it's not wrong." Well, those people are hypocrites because I can easily name something right now that hurts nobody but is obviously wrong. That thing is bestiality. Having sex with an animal... say your dog. Now you may object and say, "the dog is getting hurt here!" And to that, I answer, "what if the dog gives consent?" And they obviously do all the time. Anyone who spends time with an unneutered or unspayed dog knows that those animals want to get it on with everyone and everything. They are always trying to hump you and they at that moment are very willing to screw you. Now someone here might say, "a dog is like a child it doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex." This argument is nonsense because unless you are insane you believe that dogs absolutely do have the capacity to consent to have sex with each other. If they have the right to consent to have sex with each other and they want to have sex with you a human who are you to say its wrong for the human to give his consent as well and fulfill that lecherous dog's lust?
Let's go a step further. Say a scientist found a way to genetically alter dogs to where they are as smart as human beings. If those dogs, every bit as smart and sentient as human beings say, "I want a human for a lover" and a human consents, unless you are insane I believe fully that you will think that this is wrong. Why would you think these indiscretions in these scenarios are wrong? Because it is so distasteful, so perverse, so wrong, that it is immoral.
There are many deviancies that fit the category of, "well, they aren't hurting anybody." Incest for example. If a man has a vasectomy where he cannot have children and then marries his sister and has sex with her most people would say that's wrong, disgusting, and abominable and treat someone that did this very badly (I don't think they should be treated badly no matter how immoral it is.) Homosexuality used to be one of these things until Hollywood gays got a hold of the left. And if a large number of bestialphils, incest enthusiasts, polygamous people,(and I am even convinced so stupid and easily manipulated is the modern populace) pedophiles were running Hollywood, making movies and TV shows Will and Grace style glorifying it, polluting politics with their dirty money, and molding your imbecilic minds in this fashion you would defend these with as much vigor and indignation as you do homosexuality. Your thoughts are not your own, your culture and its corruption control you.
The proper role of sex is between married males and females of the same species and unrelated; anything other than this is an unnatural abomination.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on May 4, 2019 4:50:22 GMT
My argument against homosexuality is that it’s repugnant and they are disgusting individuals. I don’t need religion to tell me that. I also believe it’s an unnatural preference. I believe the promotion of such behavior is damaging to society. The LGBT community is toxic and the majority of them are the antithesis of Tradionalist and Folkish individuals. Many of the people in the LGBT community promote other disgusting behavior and Leftist political policies that are against Traditionalist/Nationalist/Conservative ideals.
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on May 4, 2019 13:43:16 GMT
My argument against homosexuality is that it’s repugnant and they are disgusting individuals. I don’t need religion to tell me that. I also believe it’s an unnatural preference. I believe the promotion of such behavior is damaging to society. The LGBT community is toxic and the majority of them are the antithesis of Tradionalist and Folkish individuals. Many of the people in the LGBT community promote other disgusting behavior and Leftist political policies that are against Traditionalist/Nationalist/Conservative ideals. Bored, so I'll play the devil's advocate... Disgusting and repugnant are subjective terms, no? Saying that its unnatural, is the 'appeal to nature' fallacy. Why are policies against conservatives, bad?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 26, 2019 11:31:34 GMT
HS is a medical and psychological disaster. Evolution doesn't make mistakes. People, who think that they are thinking, makes mistakes all the time. A Molested Generation Loses the Will to Survive It's not even a sexuality; it is an addictive and obsessive fetish, a mental disease that should be called "proctophilia" by psychiatrists who weren't trying to get rich by being the only outsiders telling their desperate patient that he is normal. If there wasn't something seriously dangerous to society about it, Gayism should have been an evolutionary choice. Instead, to limit population to the limited ability to develop resources, mankind chose infanticide, genocide, and human sacrifice. Humanity made right choice about -cides, and it allowed them to collect different pleasures, i.e. the result of their greedy nature.
|
|
|
Post by kyloscythe91 on May 28, 2019 3:50:39 GMT
gay people are not devils...they are people...just wanna say my piece...
|
|
|
Post by kyloscythe91 on May 28, 2019 3:51:09 GMT
gay people are not devils...they are people...just wanna say my piece...
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on May 28, 2019 6:29:29 GMT
gay people are not devils...they are people...just wanna say my piece... Yes, they are people, and people do immoral things like homosexuality. If someone screws their dog they are still a person. Screwing your dog is wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 28, 2019 20:06:31 GMT
gay people are not devils...they are people...just wanna say my piece... Actually, they are. The same as pedophiles, or another perverts. It's not natural to be gay. It's obscene and disgusting, and also it's not God's order. Gay's behavior decreases morality as much as hell, and hardly increases bad tastes. At the end, among gays any society will get no children and it will become dead.
|
|
Etu Malku
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 25
Religion: Mercuræn-Luciferian
Philosophy: Western Left Hand Path
|
Post by Etu Malku on May 28, 2019 23:33:55 GMT
There is only one intelligent argument against homosexuality. Life began asexually. The primary basis of evolution is an adaptation that fosters the production and survival of offspring. production was more advantageous than asexual reproduction, as it allowed for greater genetic variation. Animals ultimately developed the ability to reproduce through the coming together of a male and female member of the species. Even though homosexuality is a perfectly fine and acceptable form of orientation it does go against the natural laws of species propagation.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 29, 2019 16:05:33 GMT
For those not familiar with my views on homosexuality, I will make them very clear and why I hold them. Homosexuality is an abomination. It is an act that used to be self evidently held to be so disgusting, so distasteful, so perverse that it was considered immoral. Now mainly because many people in Hollywood held this perversion and worked through movies, television, and their influence on liberals to normalize their disgusting behavior it is no longer considered immoral by the sheep that make up American society it must be explained clearly WHY exactly it is immoral so in this thread I intend to do so. My argument for why homosexuality is immoral rests on the fact that there are things so disgusting, so distasteful, and so perverse that they are immoral though they do not directly and immediately hurt anyone except the people partaking in said thing. Now many people's moral compass rests on the assumption that "if it's not hurting anybody it's not wrong." Well, those people are hypocrites because I can easily name something right now that hurts nobody but is obviously wrong. That thing is bestiality. Having sex with an animal... say your dog. Now you may object and say, "the dog is getting hurt here!" And to that, I answer, "what if the dog gives consent?" And they obviously do all the time. Anyone who spends time with an unneutered or unspayed dog knows that those animals want to get it on with everyone and everything. They are always trying to hump you and they at that moment are very willing to screw you. Now someone here might say, "a dog is like a child it doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex." This argument is nonsense because unless you are insane you believe that dogs absolutely do have the capacity to consent to have sex with each other. If they have the right to consent to have sex with each other and they want to have sex with you a human who are you to say its wrong for the human to give his consent as well and fulfill that lecherous dog's lust? Let's go a step further. Say a scientist found a way to genetically alter dogs to where they are as smart as human beings. If those dogs, every bit as smart and sentient as human beings say, "I want a human for a lover" and a human consents, unless you are insane I believe fully that you will think that this is wrong. Why would you think these indiscretions in these scenarios are wrong? Because it is so distasteful, so perverse, so wrong, that it is immoral. There are many deviancies that fit the category of, "well, they aren't hurting anybody." Incest for example. If a man has a vasectomy where he cannot have children and then marries his sister and has sex with her most people would say that's wrong, disgusting, and abominable and treat someone that did this very badly (I don't think they should be treated badly no matter how immoral it is.) Homosexuality used to be one of these things until Hollywood gays got a hold of the left. And if a large number of bestialphils, incest enthusiasts, polygamous people,(and I am even convinced so stupid and easily manipulated is the modern populace) pedophiles were running Hollywood, making movies and TV shows Will and Grace style glorifying it, polluting politics with their dirty money, and molding your imbecilic minds in this fashion you would defend these with as much vigor and indignation as you do homosexuality. Your thoughts are not your own, your culture and its corruption control you. The proper role of sex is between married males and females of the same species and unrelated; anything other than this is an unnatural abomination. What you are saying about homosexuality can be said also about drinking beer or eating ice cream. In all such cases, if one finds the deed disgusting or distasteful, he does not do it; if he finds it agreeable or tasteful, he may engage in doing it, or the reason for not doing it may be the bad consequence of getting fat or of contracting a decease, not because somebody else finds it disgusting or abominable. At any rate, those who consider it abominable have no right to obstruct or to condemn the doers from doing it. No nation and no state of the Union have the right to legislate either for or against it. "What people should or should not eat, should buy or sell, should follow a particular or any religion, and how they should relate sexually (for reproduction or for pleasure), is beyond the domain of legislature. So, if you wish to advice people against homosexuality or religion or drinking or smoking, you have to find better arguments (than the contrary feelings of some people).
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on May 31, 2019 4:24:33 GMT
For those not familiar with my views on homosexuality, I will make them very clear and why I hold them. Homosexuality is an abomination. It is an act that used to be self evidently held to be so disgusting, so distasteful, so perverse that it was considered immoral. Now mainly because many people in Hollywood held this perversion and worked through movies, television, and their influence on liberals to normalize their disgusting behavior it is no longer considered immoral by the sheep that make up American society it must be explained clearly WHY exactly it is immoral so in this thread I intend to do so. My argument for why homosexuality is immoral rests on the fact that there are things so disgusting, so distasteful, and so perverse that they are immoral though they do not directly and immediately hurt anyone except the people partaking in said thing. Now many people's moral compass rests on the assumption that "if it's not hurting anybody it's not wrong." Well, those people are hypocrites because I can easily name something right now that hurts nobody but is obviously wrong. That thing is bestiality. Having sex with an animal... say your dog. Now you may object and say, "the dog is getting hurt here!" And to that, I answer, "what if the dog gives consent?" And they obviously do all the time. Anyone who spends time with an unneutered or unspayed dog knows that those animals want to get it on with everyone and everything. They are always trying to hump you and they at that moment are very willing to screw you. Now someone here might say, "a dog is like a child it doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex." This argument is nonsense because unless you are insane you believe that dogs absolutely do have the capacity to consent to have sex with each other. If they have the right to consent to have sex with each other and they want to have sex with you a human who are you to say its wrong for the human to give his consent as well and fulfill that lecherous dog's lust? Let's go a step further. Say a scientist found a way to genetically alter dogs to where they are as smart as human beings. If those dogs, every bit as smart and sentient as human beings say, "I want a human for a lover" and a human consents, unless you are insane I believe fully that you will think that this is wrong. Why would you think these indiscretions in these scenarios are wrong? Because it is so distasteful, so perverse, so wrong, that it is immoral. There are many deviancies that fit the category of, "well, they aren't hurting anybody." Incest for example. If a man has a vasectomy where he cannot have children and then marries his sister and has sex with her most people would say that's wrong, disgusting, and abominable and treat someone that did this very badly (I don't think they should be treated badly no matter how immoral it is.) Homosexuality used to be one of these things until Hollywood gays got a hold of the left. And if a large number of bestialphils, incest enthusiasts, polygamous people,(and I am even convinced so stupid and easily manipulated is the modern populace) pedophiles were running Hollywood, making movies and TV shows Will and Grace style glorifying it, polluting politics with their dirty money, and molding your imbecilic minds in this fashion you would defend these with as much vigor and indignation as you do homosexuality. Your thoughts are not your own, your culture and its corruption control you. The proper role of sex is between married males and females of the same species and unrelated; anything other than this is an unnatural abomination. What you are saying about homosexuality can be said also about drinking beer or eating ice cream. In all such cases, if one finds the deed disgusting or distasteful, he does not do it; if he finds it agreeable or tasteful, he may engage in doing it, or the reason for not doing it may be the bad consequence of getting fat or of contracting a decease, not because somebody else finds it disgusting or abominable. At any rate, those who consider it abominable have no right to obstruct or to condemn the doers from doing it. No nation and no state of the Union have the right to legislate either for or against it. "What people should or should not eat, should buy or sell, should follow a particular or any religion, and how they should relate sexually (for reproduction or for pleasure), is beyond the domain of legislature. So, if you wish to advice people against homosexuality or religion or drinking or smoking, you have to find better arguments (than the contrary feelings of some people). Nobody says that about alcohol or ice cream. They may think its morally wrong but its not considered an abomination/crime against nature in the way screwing your dog, cannibalism, screwing your your sister, or screwing another man is. And if the three former perversions are immoral for that reason than the latter is too for consistencies' sake. I never said anything about legislation here but states absolutely do have the right to legislate against it according to the tenth amendment of the United States. As for condemning the act; I have the right to condemn whomever I please. That's the first amendment.
|
|