LGBT Relationships "Fake", According to Belarus

[Washington Resistance Army]

It probably won't if you never read it.

I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

Why are libertarians defending it?

Are you guys actually so contrarian that you support this stuff now?

I'm not defending it, I just happen to think that attempting to ignore or discredit something just because it was written by someone with different views than yourself is kinda pathetic.

[The Parkus Empire]

Reductionism and very weak at that if you're actually suggesting it's not simple to make a qualitative distinction between a homosexual encounter and a heterosexual one

Whats the qualitative distinction?

Significant enough that homosexuals are distinguished from heterosexuals

[New haven america]

It probably won't if you never read it.

I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

Why are libertarians defending it?

Are you guys actually so contrarian that you support this stuff now?

They don't like it when people don't read things, even if it's complete and utter predictable trite or borderline propaganda.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Personal other is what matters in transcending your self.

In some cases. Scruton would argue in *sex*, Sexual Other is necessary. The transcendent nature of sex, he argues, hinges on encounter with the sexual other.

Parkus, you're being duped by a crypto-liberal. No true conservative would valorate a union with the Other whereby the patriarch's productive masculine energy is progressively - and I use that word deliberately - sapped by the female partner and replaced with effeminate placidity and inadventure.

To restore Man to his former greatness, it is essential that we restore the classical system of regular regenerative intercourse between rugged citizen-soldiers and introductory pederasty to set the young on the right track.

Yours conservatively,
DI

[The Parkus Empire]

Why are libertarians defending it?

Are you guys actually so contrarian that you support this stuff now?

They don't like it when people don't read things, even if it's complete and utter predictable trite or borderline propaganda.

This is the progressive's label for everything he disagrees with. :^)

[El Hamidah]

They don't like it when people don't read things, even if it's complete and utter predictable trite or borderline propaganda.

This is the progressive's label for everything he disagrees with. :^)

You'd say that for things you disagree with.

[New haven america]

They don't like it when people don't read things, even if it's complete and utter predictable trite or borderline propaganda.

This is the progressive's label for everything he disagrees with.

Main problem with that is that I'm not a progressive.

Your assumptions continue to fail, but keep it up, I'm sure you'll get it right in... some lifetime or another.

[The East Marches II]

This is the progressive's label for everything he disagrees with.

Main problem with that is that I'm not a progressive.

Your assumptions continue to fail, but keep it up, I'm sure you'll get it right in... some lifetime or another.

Sure you are. You are quite proud of your pioneering social stances.

[El Hamidah]

Main problem with that is that I'm not a progressive.

Your assumptions continue to fail, but keep it up, I'm sure you'll get it right in... some lifetime or another.

Sure you are. You are quite proud of your pioneering social stances.

defending homosexuality is as traditional as it gets. :^)

[The Parkus Empire]

In some cases. Scruton would argue in *sex*, Sexual Other is necessary. The transcendent nature of sex, he argues, hinges on encounter with the sexual other.

Parkus, you're being duped by a crypto-liberal. No true conservative would valorate a union with the Other whereby the patriarch's productive masculine energy is progressively - and I use that word deliberately - sapped by the female partner and replaced with effeminate placidity and inadventure.

To restore Man to his former greatness, it is essential that we restore the classical system of regular regenerative intercourse between rugged citizen-soldiers and introductory pederasty to set the young on the right track.

Yours conservatively,
DI

This is queer propaganda and I can see right through it easier than a pair of lace panties

[The Parkus Empire]

Sure you are. You are quite proud of your pioneering social stances.

defending homosexuality is as traditional as it gets. :^)

Ginsberg you wrecked the country

[Jelmatt]

Personal other is what matters in transcending your self.

In some cases. Scruton would argue in *sex*, Sexual Other is necessary. The transcendent nature of sex, he argues, hinges on encounter with the sexual other.

That sort of comes down to saying that "homosexuality is wrong because I say so." The argument rests on the idea that a sexual other can only be the opposite sex; the conclusion is sort of implied in the premise.

[The Parkus Empire]

In some cases. Scruton would argue in *sex*, Sexual Other is necessary. The transcendent nature of sex, he argues, hinges on encounter with the sexual other.

That sort of comes down to saying that "homosexuality is wrong because I say so." The argument rests on the idea that a sexual other can only be the opposite sex; the conclusion is sort of implied in the premise.

The Sexual Other is an Other Sex, obv. The question is whether or not sex without an Other Sex is unethical

[Jelmatt]

That sort of comes down to saying that "homosexuality is wrong because I say so." The argument rests on the idea that a sexual other can only be the opposite sex; the conclusion is sort of implied in the premise.

The Sexual Other is an Other Sex, obv. The question is whether or not sex without an Other Sex is unethical

There really doesn't seem a good reason to make the division between a personal and sexual Other rather than "I say so," is my point. If he begins by defining moral sex as necessarily involving a sexual Other, i.e., necessarily being heterosexual, then he's already excluded any possibility of homosexuality from the start.

[Grenartia]

That's because pretty much every translation from every version of the Bible derives from one or two translations from the middle of the second millenium. If the fabrications, mistranslations, and misinterpretations happened before the influential translations were completed, then it would easily explain it.

Church tradition from both the RCC and Orthodox churches going all the way back to the Apostles has pretty much always held that homosexual acts are sins. This isn't exactly a controversial position.

Neither the RCC nor Orthodox are infallible.

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

Gee, a book made in the 80's made by a hardcore conservative traditionalist, yep, that's totally gonna change my mind.

More to the point, you see he always cites these obscure books by terrible people, but he never comes up with his own arguments, he always relies on others to do his thinking for him.

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.



I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that 1. sex is about transcending the self, 2. and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and 3. so it basically is just about self pleasuring, 4. like masturbation, 5. which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

1. Oh, goody! Mumbo-jumbo! That's a convincing premise.

2. lolwat

3. And...?

4. Oh my god, this is fucking amazing.

5. The author is a dumbass. Shit like this is why I don't take philosophers seriously.

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

Well he's obviously never actually talked to gay people about this subject.

He's obviously never done anything other than sit on his ass all day and scribble down unfounded bullshit.

well, his explanation is that he thinks it's unethical because homosexuals don't recognize the personal existence of their partners and view it as a form of masturbation. so I think it's safe to say he doesn't know what he's talking about

That's not what he says. He says sexuality is about an intimate encounter with the Other, to become them, almost. And that since sexuality is sexuality, the Other is primarily defined in sexual terms. Without man and woman, there is no sexual Other.

Which is pure bullshit.

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

That's his rational? In that case 1000 cats must have been super transcendent. Lots of "sexual difference" there.

I guess if this guy is some sort of irrefutable expert on sexual ethics, I have no choice but to fuck a rock. Anyone willing to contribute to my GoFundMe so I can go to Arizona?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, but that's Scruton's take. Masturbation has quite a few health benefits: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... sturbation

>plannedparenthood

So you're dismissing actual medical info just because you happen to disagree with what Planned Parenthood does? Holy shit, you have gone off the deep end.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Sexual Other is an Other Sex, obv. The question is whether or not sex without an Other Sex is unethical

There really doesn't seem a good reason to make the division between a personal and sexual Other rather than "I say so," is my point. If he begins by defining moral sex as necessarily involving a sexual Other, i.e., necessarily being heterosexual, then he's already excluded any possibility of homosexuality from the start.

If there were no important division this wouldn't even be a question since there would be no such thing as sexual orientation.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Parkus, you're being duped by a crypto-liberal. No true conservative would valorate a union with the Other whereby the patriarch's productive masculine energy is progressively - and I use that word deliberately - sapped by the female partner and replaced with effeminate placidity and inadventure.

To restore Man to his former greatness, it is essential that we restore the classical system of regular regenerative intercourse between rugged citizen-soldiers and introductory pederasty to set the young on the right track.

Yours conservatively,
DI

This is queer propaganda and I can see right through it easier than a pair of lace panties

t. an unrepentant degenerate

[The Parkus Empire]

>plannedparenthood

So you're dismissing actual medical info just because you happen to disagree with what Planned Parenthood does? Holy shit, you have gone off the deep end.

Planned parenthood is an extremely partisan organization which contributes money to politics. I wouldn't trust it anymore than you would a Christian Charity source.

[Dumb Ideologies]

>plannedparenthood

So you're dismissing actual medical info just because you happen to disagree with what Planned Parenthood does? Holy shit, you have gone off the deep end.

Parkus doesn't even dive into the pool anymore, he just does backflips on the diving board in the hope of slipping and falling.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So you're dismissing actual medical info just because you happen to disagree with what Planned Parenthood does? Holy shit, you have gone off the deep end.

Parkus doesn't even dive into the pool anymore, he just does backflips on the diving board in the hope of slipping and falling.

I mean, the level of denial is strong in that one. Wow.

But since PP is "partisan", perhaps an article edited by a doctor is better: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320265.php
Not that I'm holding my breath here, you know.

[Conserative Morality]

So you're dismissing actual medical info just because you happen to disagree with what Planned Parenthood does? Holy shit, you have gone off the deep end.

Planned parenthood is an extremely partisan organization which contributes money to politics. I wouldn't trust it anymore than you would a Christian Charity source.

Yes, we are all aware of what a hot-button political issue masturbation is.

[Grenartia]

Yeah but another male is someone other than yourself, so I still don't get it. Sounds pretty stupid.

Someone other than yourself, but not some *sex* other than yourself. Which Scruton sees as the defining Other when it comes to sex

That just sounds like an arbitrary, useless, and stupid restriction. Where is his rationale for it?

Good godless heathens, if its this easy to refute a guy with a PhD from Cambridge, I really need to consider switching majors.

Sex is not about transcending one's humanity, though

Why are you putting barriers in the way of maximal self-transcendence Parkus? Are you hoarding the most intimate encounters with the Other for yourself? :^)

Parkus confirmed for lithofucking fetishist.

Yes there is.

Where would you like to start? The fact that gay sex releases the same chemicals in the body as straight sex, or the fact that you don't need a vagina or penis to have sex. (I would post examples but I'm afriad the mods would get mad)

It does, of course, but Scruton would say that sex purely for hormone stimulation is "narcissistic," just about self pleasuring

I'd guess he'd know all about narcissistic self-pleasuring, considering that's what his entire job description seems to be.

Why would God care about homosexuality anyway

Literally no reason. The anti-queer shit probably came from organized religion trying to more effectively control people's lives and make them produce more slaves faithful followers.

I think your pet philosopher is taking one of the best things about sex, and clumsily twisting it into a brute cudgel out of sheer bigotry.

He is.

[The Parkus Empire]

This is queer propaganda and I can see right through it easier than a pair of lace panties

t. an unrepentant degenerate

Obviously the reference to lace panties was a figure of speech.

[The Parkus Empire]

Planned parenthood is an extremely partisan organization which contributes money to politics. I wouldn't trust it anymore than you would a Christian Charity source.

Yes, we are all aware of what a hot-button political issue masturbation is.

Right, therefore a Christian political organization would be a reliable source on it. :^)