Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Miku the Based]

Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.
Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.

except, they were doing it before gay people got rights

I’m aware, but pedophilia is not legal now, is it?
It makes sense that pedophiles wouldn’t protest back then, when it was legal.
But it isn’t legal now, I’m saying that homosexuality, among many other things, are causing the pedo-protest nowadays, not back then.

[Palmyrion]

Catholics imposing their moral standards on others isn't morally justifiable, but imposing your expected behavioral standards on Catholics is morally justifiable. Sure thing.

I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

[Hjallvinter]

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

[Palmyrion]

Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.
Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

"muh hoimosexuality is harmful to reproduction"

"hurting the families' prospect at genetic continuation"

Agreed. Kin selection by gay uncles doesn't exist.

"rely on a influx of converts"

no thanks, this isn't even an argument

[Necroghastia]

Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence.

and what kind of "prevalence" are you talking about, hm?

It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour.

hell yeah gays live forever
typos aside
a) how is a surrogate immoral
b) what about cis/trans gay couples

Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation.

so? that's their business

I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases

why?

Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation.

no one gets "converted" to being gay my dude
it's just a way ppl are

Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

and this is something you feel concerned about despite us having survived for countless years... why?

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

[Necroghastia]

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

those articles didn't really address any point tbh
you point, if there was one, was utterly incoherent

[Nilokeras]

practice in immortal behaviour.

I too loved 'Only Lovers Left Alive' and wished it was even more gay and decadent

[Hjallvinter]

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

those articles didn't really address any point tbh
you point, if there was one, was utterly incoherent

Dunning Kruger incarnate.

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

He didn't. It's a strawman.

Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.
At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.
Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

"muh hoimosexuality is harmful to reproduction"

"hurting the families' prospect at genetic continuation"

Agreed. Kin selection by gay uncles doesn't exist.

"rely on a influx of converts"

no thanks, this isn't even an argument

What is the Replication Crisis?

[Palmyrion]

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

[Disgraces]

I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

How the Hell did you understand that from what they said?

[Kowani]

I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.
your whole point is easily dismantled

I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?

...no it wasn't lmao
NAMBLA was advocating for the legalization of pedophilia in a time when gay rights didn't exist yet
this is fucking incoherent

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

you know
i'm getting really fucking tired of motte-and-bailey arguments
literally nobody claimed LGBT+ advocacy existed in a vacuum, by the way
that you failed to understand my point is your fault

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

When did he say that?

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Okay, thanks.

[Palmyrion]

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

How the Hell did you understand that from what they said?

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Sundiata said this in a separate thread. What he doesn't know, is that anything he says anywhere at anytime, can be used against him, anywhere at anytime.

[Punished UMN]

Depends on your ideology. Ideology is everything.

[Nilokeras]

What is the Replication Crisis?

This just in: Charles Darwin part of the replication crisis in psychology for some reason

[Hjallvinter]

I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?

...no it wasn't lmao
NAMBLA was advocating for the legalization of pedophilia in a time when gay rights didn't exist yet
this is fucking incoherent

No, those articles did not address that *one specific point* that I made out of *4* in regards to the slippery slope of LGBT and the fact that it does not exist in a vacuum. But go ahead, throw the baby out with the bath water, while I await you to demonstrate that their advocates exist in a vacuum.

you know
i'm getting really fucking tired of motte-and-bailey arguments
literally nobody claimed LGBT+ advocacy existed in a vacuum, by the way
that you failed to understand my point is your fault

You're tired because you're wrong. You literally claimed not even a page ago that none of what I cited was evident of a slippery slope in regards to the advocacy of LGBT, and now you're trying to deflect. It's ok. You can walk away from the screen whenever you like.

[Honeydewistania]

To justify something, it would have to be rational. Homophobia is in no way rational, in both a literal and practical sense.

[Disgraces]

How the Hell did you understand that from what they said?

When did he say that?

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

Sundiata said this in a separate thread. What he doesn't know, is that anything he says anywhere at anytime, can be used against him, anywhere at anytime.

How about you read the entire comment next time? He fucking said that locking up people for being gay is "morally repugnant".

[Odreria]

Today’s liberals will never understand the joy of homophobia

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?

...no it wasn't lmao
NAMBLA was advocating for the legalization of pedophilia in a time when gay rights didn't exist yet
this is fucking incoherent

Interesting, I didn’t know that, and I certainly see where you’re coming from.
But many pedophiles today advocate for them being in the LGBTQ+.
But let’s stop arguing, we both agree that pedophilia is bad, and that homosexuality is good, and what more do we really need to agree on?

[Palmyrion]

those articles didn't really address any point tbh
you point, if there was one, was utterly incoherent

Dunning Kruger incarnate.

When did he say that?

He didn't. It's a strawman.

"muh hoimosexuality is harmful to reproduction"

"hurting the families' prospect at genetic continuation"

Agreed. Kin selection by gay uncles doesn't exist.

"rely on a influx of converts"

no thanks, this isn't even an argument

What is the Replication Crisis?

For one:

Hmm, yet you pretty much agree with the logic - and hence the argument - of locking up gay people for having gay sex.

When did he say that?

The problem is homosexual sexual conduct is consensual sexual abuse. The factor of consent makes sodomy, anal or oral, with any part of the human body, no more acceptable, at least to me. If two addicts 'consented' to abuse themselves together in an orgy of drink or drugs, it would still be destructivery and morally wrong.

Ok, it's one thing to be morally opposed to homosexual acts. I get that. I even get the rationale for criminalizing homosexual acts.

For you raising up the replication crisis, you can't even prove the study I cited about gay uncles can't be replicated.

[Picairn]

Philosophically and practicality homophobia can be justified.

Ah yes, like how racial superiority can be justified with "science". The Nazis would like a word with you.

"Some races are meant to lead and some are meant to be led."

Excuse me while I go vomit.

At best they are a benign element in society to a element in population stagnation and/or decline in a given society depending on ifs prevalence. It is shown from basic reasoning that in order for a homosexual couple to reproduce they would need a surrogate and therefore practice in immortal behaviour. Otherwise they contribute to two people from a family line genetic dead end, hurting the families prospect at genetic continuation. I consider this socially unacceptable in both cases.

Why is it a concern to you about how people live their lives?

Another factor in the case of rejecting homosexuality is the effects it has on population. They rely on a influx of converts due to the nature of the homosexual community with its constant crisis in population. The more prevalent it is the more converts they have to take in in order to not end after one generation. Considering humans and most mammals is a sexually dimorphic species it necessitates the primacy of heterosexuality in its further survival.

Our mammalian ancestors survived the meteorite, we survived the Ice Ages, the Black Death, Spanish Flu, two World Wars and endless smaller wars, famines and plagues in between. What makes you think the resilience of mankind can be extinguished with... being gay?

[Hjallvinter]

What is the Replication Crisis?

This just in: Charles Darwin part of the replication crisis in psychology for some reason

I'm rather certain Darwin didn't publish the study you cited.