Idk why should people accept homosexuality?

good advice thread we have going on here.

Thanks

Are you against oral and anal sex too? Because that's not the way we were biologically made to have sex.

That's why I posted

People are not biologically made to do many things but that we do anyway. You're using a computer to browse on Jow Forums right now; do you think that humans were biologically made to use such a thing? Or watch TV? Or use a car? No we weren't.

It's because incest usually involves a child, and incest eventually results in weird mutant kids.

Tehnology doesn't have to do anythng with this

No its not. Religeon states men cant have sex with women before marriage or with multiple women. Religeon also states that hetero sex has to be performed in a certain position.
See how using religeon as a reason is dumb as fuck and doesnt make any sense.

Biologically speaking hetero sex isnt any more natural that homo sex. Did you know we have to now schedule birth dates and induce labor because a baby can and will stay inside over 9 months, well into 10 months and kill the mother? Childbirth has always been extremely risky before modern medicine.
Also blood type O+ with rh will cause adversive reactions with a O- mother and will actually terminate the pregnancy.
Meanwhile, sucking cock and butt sex doesnt have any of these extreme consequences lol. Maybe a UTI if you dont properly clean yourself

Define biologically made, then.

That can't be an excuse for the nasty things.

Neither were cartoons, but half the people on this site still want to fuck them.

Yes but people with same sex can't have sex accept oral or anal witch are both not by religion or biology ok

>Religeon states men cant have sex with women before marriage or with multiple women
Hell no! Allah allows me to have many wives.

>That can't be an excuse for the nasty things.

Finding something nasty is a subjective criteria completely unique to yourself. Use obtective criteria.
There are plenty of people who find the use of technology nowadays absutely nasty.

But by religion is still ok to have heterosexual sex and by biology is naturql beacuse humans are made to hqve heterosexual sex

Which religion? You need to be more specific, there's more than one, all with a lot of different rules.

Nobody's forcing you to, just don't make your non-acceptance lawbreaking

Biologically we are made to have heterosexual sex

Yes and that is wrong too but its not the topic

However according to any religion homos should be executed.

But all of them say homosexuality is wrong

You didn't define biologically made, you dingus.

homosexuality is wrong by (most) religion. It's clearly right by nature though, given that many, many species practice it. Don't think of evolution as "survival of the fittest", it's more "survival by any means". Therefore, homosexuality either helps (there are some claims for this, but I find them to be reaching pretty far), or at least doesn't harm the species.

A lot of things are wrong by religion, and many religions don't agree on the same wrongs. I guess that's a personal thing, whether you believe it's "morally wrong" for a certain subset of people to exist and express themselves sexually.

>The fittest
Some are the fittest at living off of utter scraps. It's not that chickens are terribly clever or useful animals, it's that they survive off of fucking trash and have adapted to life under human care
Surely if something else had decided to wander along and be more food-like for us we'd be eating it too.
So sometimes 'fittest' is 'fittest to the purpose of the apex' too

Honestly there haven't been any really universally correct views on humans
Subscribing to religious concepts is silly because a lot of them damn the very kinds of people who follow them, it's just easier to sugar-coat that and deny it-- for instance the sin of Sloth is inaction in the face of slights/crimes against God, unwillingness to keep to Godly/good ways in the face of need, etc. etc., it's not just being lazy but having an indolent personality or a tendency to avoid conflict for one's own safety. In fact, most religion suggests every person who lives by its tenets lives as selflessly as possible so as to ensure a mutual gain for all across earth

I dunno what to really say

>Idk why should people accept homosexuality?
You're wrong. Nobody expects you to accept homosexuality
You should *tolerate* homosexuality. Not *accept* it.

Media tries to "bend" the definition of "tolerance" into more of an acceptance, but it's just plain manipulation.
What is expected of you is tolerance, and tolerance by definition means "allowing some degree of wrong".

So "be tolerant" of homosexuality means "allow some degree of devilry that is homosexuality to run rampart as long as it doesn't affect your life".
Nobody asks you to treat it as something right. It is still wrong and you can treat it as something wrong, but the media would prefer if you loved it.

You have a good point

This is correct, but having homosexual sex isn't biologically impossible, doesn't prevent the species continuing and seems to be a legitimate avenue of enjoyment for some people. There's a lot we're biologically made to do that we don't do anymore, so that's a bit of a fallacy honestly.

Buddhism is an interesting exception. It simply says no "sexual immorality" and leaves that up to the culture in question as to what is and isn't immoral. If we're allowed to include modern religions, raelism is 100% pro all sexuality. Obviously ancient cultures like the greeks who were fine with homosexuality reflected that in their religions as far as we can tell (not that the religious culture of ancient greece was anywhere as moralistic or individually impactful as judeo-christian culture is - actually, that's a complete anomaly throughout history as far as I can tell).

Exactly! If it's working there's no need to stop doing it (where working is defined as the species continuing to exist, happiness/comfort levels and position in the ecosystem being completely seperate issues). In a world were dung beetles exist, it's quite clear that simply knuckling down and finding a niche is the best way to survive, even if it's unpleasant.

The sloth point is an interesting idea too. I'm really not that versed in Christianity myself, but it does make a lot of sense. Humans tend towards casting themselves/their group as "good", and the others as "bad" though, so true selflessness is very, very rare, and I don't think we can call those who fail "selfish". It's more complex than that, which is always why I get confused when people call homosexuals "faggots" and "sodomites" and denounce them.

Most romantic/sexual relationships I've observed, been in, viewed in media were unhealthy. But some people really do love and respect each other. Isn't it a case by case basis? Like, not just for this, for everything?

(cont)
I just always get vaguely jealous of anyone confident enough to think they have authoritative answers on human morality, without qualifiers. How can they be so sure that "good" is even attainable? How can they be arrogant enough to think they are that quality personified?

I'm ready to do it with all fags.

Attached: homosexuality_is_a_crime.jpg (590x442, 47K)

But sill there is the question why should we tolirate gays and not incest?

Why should we tolirate gays and not incest? Does that mean we shouldn't tolirate gays?

Gays can't produce jack fuck all
Incestuous couplings have the chance to produce retard offspring and we have quite the problem with noncontributors as it is between the elderly, NEETs and already-present retards

I mean you can say anything you like, I'd happily take a pair that doesn't conceive over one that conceives at risk

Incest decreases the quality of the gene pool after a few generations, homosexuality doesn't affect the gene pool any more than infertility would.

Yes gays can't reproduce anf that is why it's wrong and not ok by biology and incestuous couplings give birth to retarted and ill children and that is why it's wrong too

Biology and morals are distinct from each other.

Not in this case.

Yes they are but homosexuality is wrong in both ways moraly and biologiclly

In every case.

It's not though. Biologically it's inefficient. Morals are not a thing that is set in stone, and are in fact very variable among societies, individuals, and even the same individual in seperate circumstances.

You are trying to apply logic to mob thinking, but society doesn't work that way.
Many things we do (as humanity) are irrational. We are preaching tolerance of homosexuality now, and tomorrow we'll be banning it while opening ways for other nonsenses.
Maybe we'll live to see it happen, maybe not.

Imo it's better to think of it not in terms of morality, but in terms of fashion. Nowadays lgbt is fashionable, so media and simpletons jump on that bandwagon.
It's just a current trend. No point standing in its way or you'll get trampled. Just climb out of the ditch and watch the stampede run by.

Because homosexuality doesn't have a biological impact on the species when reproducing because, tada, faggots can not reproduce. Incest on the other hand is a dangerous game because you can still develop feelings at which point literal reproduction, mixing genes of ones relatives, leads to degeneracy, at the very latest after the third generation of incest. And no, you can not argue that you could wear a condom. It's a taboo in society, understandably so, as well as biologically. There's just to much risk at hand that any species turns impotent if they go into that direction.

I used to know a guy that wanted to have kids with his wife. He found out that his sperm is defective and knowing that his relatives have similar issues he tried to figure out what the cause for this is/was. Turns out his family used to live for generations in some remote village and the married among cousins first generation and so on for so many generations that they rendered their entire biological uniqueness and fertility to being literally incapable of reproduction due to incestous gene mutation

Sorry I might got off the point when I tiped moraly but what I meant is religiosly and by most religions its wrong and its probablly on to individual in what he believes in but in most religions its wrong and if you dont have religion than its biologicly wrong and moraly it depends but peronally Im christian and by both religios and biological ways its wrong

>it is wrong
This would be fine if we didn't already have an adoption system with people in it who get passed over because purists would rather 'have their own' while women who front-shit kids from womb to foster care don't catch anything because you're more concerned about the balls touching
Like, you just want them to be straight for your own morality-- you're completely ignoring everything else attached
It's like just being 'pro-life.' Fuck you, you don't give a single shit about that kid as soon as they pop out of the vagina. If they go straight for adoption nobody gives a fuck, it's not in the womb anymore so it's a fucking passe bad joke

I genuinely hope people like you either realize what the fuck is so wrong with your views or just croak before you get a chance to enact the kind of vile shit they'd drive you to do

So one more time: I'll happily take a couple that doesn't produce babby, over a couple that's just going to muddy the gene pool with more non-contributors who are dead ends on family trees
Though that's more like a family fucking shrubbery, the way incest works.

And incest im not going to treat it diffrenly than homosexuality beacuse they are both wrong in both ways and that is just me personaly and if you dont have religion than it deppens on you moraly how you presseve it

So op did you want advice on something or...?

I just wasn't sure how to think and how to preseve it but now I came to an conclusion that its wrong

>beacuse they are both wrong
They are not wrong, they are questionable at best.
How is moral involved in homosexuality, can you elaborate? Honest question because i can not understand that perspective as much as i think about it. With incest i get it, it's can be an abuse of power and biologically speaking it's morally questionable to consider risking birth defects if reproduction is intended.

... by ignoring any and all input given in this thread and saying "lalala religion says it's wrong and I don't know how biology works so that's wrong too"

Incest is wrong beacuse religion and biologicly there are retarded children and homosexuality by religipn is wrong too and by biology we are not made to have sex with same gender so it is wrong biologicly

And I didnt say how i didnt understand biology I explained how it is wrong in by biology

Look, the thing is you've just said that you agree religion =/= morals so unless you have a non religious argument for why it's wrong for two people (of any combination) t have sex without a baby arising either due to their choice not to have one or inability to have one (barren women included here), you need to stop repeatedly saying it's biologically and morally wrong like a broken record no matter how many times different people bring up different, thought out arguments to try and make it clear that it's not "wrong". By the way, interesting sidenote, "wrong" isn't even the word I'd use for a question of biology. 3+3=7 is wrong, as in, it's factually incorrect, but questions of human sexuality and the social implications are all too complex to fit into simple words like "good, bad, wrong" etc.

Also, a little curious OP, but are you stupid? Like, congenitally or something? I was already leaning to it but this
makes me think I'm pretty damn sure you might just be stupid.

Also, if you've made up your mind then I guess there's no point us continuing to conversation. So, before you go, please do share your staggering reasons, which, you've up till now, apart from "can't make babies in the bum" kept hidden. Firstly I always ask antigay types to give me a reason that's logically sequential and succint, and they never have. Secondly, bum sex (albeit with my penis in women's bums) is a real favour of mine, and I will NOT stand for being told I am a bad person.

Do make sure to tell me why I can't sodomise a woman, otherwise I'm gonna send a cheeky message to my current fwb and see if I can't do so tonight.

You know what, scratch all that. You're a fucking mouthbreather. None of this flows logically. It's not even the intolerance anymore. I'm worried you're having a breakdown or a stroke of some kind. Please seek assistance OP.

Wrong is always up to perspective.
Is it wrong for male and female to enjoy safe sex? No, especially in western society which is so sexualized. It used to be wrong to have mix races, that's now a fetish and a very common thing. From the perspective of biology it's even good, because there's more genetic variation. With a society that is as educated and enlightened as the western ones, incestous safe sex with consent isn't that much different from the sports fucking that's going on anyway. The only thing that can be considered wrong, because of multiple implications from different scientific fields, such as biology/genetics, verifies that these actions will have a negative outcome, whereas homosexuality, doesn't really have that, except AIDS, which is a 20th century phenomenon.

>we are not made to have sex with same gender
We were biologically "made" to do whatever the fuck we want, because we're humans and we can find a way if we damn well please. If a dick fits in an asshole, then we were biologically "made" to do so.

No, fag, you're wrong.

>Incest is wrong beacuse religion
Religion doesn't define moral. If you go according to that every Jew is morally allowed to kill none-Jews, same for Muslims none-Muslims or Christians none-Christians, ffs even Buddhist. Don't pretend to have moral high ground because you cling to an outdated book with logical fallacies.
>biologicly there are retarded children
Starting at third generation, if you'd know a bit what you are talking about you would mention that detail, which you don't because it doesn't confirm your bias.
>homosexuality by religipn is wrong too
Tell that to the animal kingdom which has been practicing homosexuality before humans even existed.
>and by biology we are not made to have sex with same gender so it is wrong biologicly
Based on what logic is that? A man can "biologically" put it in a goat, a cherry pie, or a hornet nest.

You have no idea what you are talking about, your arguments are awful and you are simply uneducated and just want to confirm your own bullshit

Having anal sex isn't natural its what we humans made up ourselves and I dont really see the point of this conversation and I agree I was stupid when I got peronal religion into this but i not know what i should think and that is it,moraly you can think want you want and i can think what I want so its the end of this conversation.

Both are moral

Your morality is messed up. Things aren't immoral because of reiligion, nor because of "nature". Things are immoral if they are propensed to cause people harm. An incest baby is propensed to cause people harm (a deformed baby will have a worse life, all other things being equal) , and often because of the power dynamics in families incest CAN be child abuse. However you can construct scenarios where incest is moral.

Nice rebuttal

anal sex likely predates modern man, as many other animals practice it, and not just by accident either.

I see where OP is coming from. I was born and raised in a small catholic country, and my family was always against homosexuality - not as, let's lynch them homos, but when someone was known to be a queer, people would look at them funny and make scornful comments behind their back.The notion of homosexuality was just unnatural for our small community, it was ungodly degeneracy and something against human instincts. Now, I know that homosexuality existed in ancient Greece, that it occurs in nature, and that some people are just wired that way. I've learned to tolerate it, but it still feels "unnatural" and wrong. Because a part of that collective consciousness of my little town will probably always be a part of me, as I was born and raised into it.On the other hand, even in my little village homosexuality was a lesser evil than incest. Incest was and is a total taboo in my community.

Because if incest people breed, their offspring will be bullied in school for being inbred.

>their offspring will be bullied in school
There's no schools for such degenerates.

No, you're a fucking moron. I was raised by parent who were full fledged ufo believer/conspiracy theorist types and while i fell for it as a kid, I'm a completely logical/skeptical/rational thinker about such things now. Don't blame your past for your future, that keeps you from changing and makes you weak.

No. What the fuck's wrong with you? Children aren't punished for their parent's crimes in any modern democracy. Fucking hell man.

I said I was wrong when I got religion into this but I decided what should I bealive and I will not treat homos and incest diffrently just for you to know P.S I am from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Homosexuality is a social illness without any religious and biological excuses.

>Please seek assistance OP.
maybe this was the reason for him posting this thread on Jow Forums after all, he's calling for help

How is homosexuality biologically wrong? Incest is culturally wrong because you have a close social relationship with your siblings and parents, and when you interbreed you're trying to evolve and have a viable population. That's why opposing groups exchange mates rather than just fucking their sisters.

user, I'm not talking only about my parents, or even only about my extended family.That was the mentality of all people in the vicinity. And it doesn't matter anyway, as I don't mind my current worldview. I have changed a lot, can interact with queer folks without any issues. I don't support their lifestyle, just as I don't support the lifestyle of smokers, but it doesn't mean that I dislike them for it. Mostly I just don't care.

Well, I don't care what you think, but if you were in my country, and I saw you being violent towards someone just for being gay, I'd have to be violent towards you. A lot of people feel this way too. I don't think that's SJWish, because I'd hit a gay man too if he was attacking someone for being straight or whatever.

Just keep your anger in your head, and let it slowly rot you, and I don't give a fuck, nor would anyone sensible.

By the way, if english is your second language, I'd give you full passes on that. It's not your language use that's the problem, it's your actually maladaptive thought patterns.

Like, your brain is the thing that's off OP. You're sick and need help. Please get it.

So now that you've determined to stay homophobic, and given that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, how about if we all agree to stop posting, you do too, yeah?

You accept what is and isn't a part of you. I guess equating a kind of sex to self harm is a bit of a harsh stance to hold for someone who's let go of their hangups. If you're comfortable with how you are, and you aren't hurting anyone, you're free to do whatever. But don't for a second blame another person for what you think. You get to decide that, and if you don't, you're a fucking intellectual coward, and given you've compromised the sanctity of your own brain to an outside influence, you've invalidated the entirety of your own intellectual existence.

Believe what you want to believe. If you want to think homosexuals are unnatural, own it. Don't blame your family and your childhood neighbours like a fucking coward.

It's a bit immoral to call someone sick just for having my opinion.I just came to conclusion beacuse by religion(personaly)and biology incest is wrong and people think incest is wrong,so I think we shouldn't think homosexuality is ok beacuse its wrong by religion and biology so I will not treat homos and incest diffrently.But pleasedont call me sick just for having my opinion I think you are wrong but I dont call you sick

And I dont blame this on anybody

>homosexuals are unnatural
There's no natural homosexual communities.

Because they don't differentiate between men and women, like degenerates, they don't fucking care. If anything hetero sexual animals benefit from it because it leaves them with more choices. Honestly are you fucking retarded?

You are sick because you cannot perform basic logic, because you are posting in an incoherent style, because you aren't using this thread as a discussion board but simply as a way to repeat the same points over and over again. This is mentally ill behaviour.

You're allowed to dislike homosexuality. You're allowed to be religious. That's not what's making you sick. See a therapist.

Yes, there are. There's evidence of human homosexuality in every single culture we know enough about to find the evidence.

Outside of humanity, giraffes are one species of note. Most giraffe sexuality is homosexual and male (carried out anally), and aside from breeding, male giraffes form enclaves where they routinely mate with each other. It's also worth noting that while enough giraffes seek females when the females are in heat for the species to continue, a very large percentage of them are exclusively homosexual and never have sex with a female member of their own species.

If that isn't a natural homosexual community, what is?

No. That would be bisexuality. Allthough it's not 100% clear cut, homosexuals do not find the opposite gender attractive.

Godspeed based

I build this thread beacuse I was not sure what to so I build it in advise thread to see what other people thought and maybe I could think the way you think but now I know how to think

What i meant was that the social community, the hierarchy structure, organization, whatever, doesn't give a shit as long as the courtship behavior doesn't impact straight animals.

Incest among peers should be acceptable as long as there is no reproduction. Incest between younger and older family members has the issue of grooming so it's best to be broadly against.

PS there is no argument against bestiality that doesn't also work against eating meat

Don't flaming, fag. Save it for Hell where you're going to.

>If that isn't a natural homosexual community, what is?
Misinterpretation of couple scientific articles, which in fact don't contain such information and conclusion.

9/10 copulations took place between male giraffes.

Thanks for making my day. Like the typical american you have proven that european education is superior. And with that i can safely say, your genes will result into a mediocre life at best as well as for your offspring if your line doesn't die because of degenerate stupidity

Incest is wrong because you have a much higher chance of producing genetically damaged offspring. Your child with your sister gets born with some debilitating defect OR they get born with some defect in their genes that doesn't get expressed until later. Either way, the more it happens and the more people that practice it the more horribly fucked the world is.

Homosexuals, OTOH, don't face this issue. As far as propagating the species, they can adopt or they can use surrogates.

Arguing about "Oh but it's not natural! Men and Women are supposed to mate and make babies!" is not a valid argument because we do a ton of unnatural shit every day. Sitting at a desk all day is not natural and neither is drinking milk into adulthood.

If an incestuous couple castrates themselves so that they can never have children, I guess that would make it equivalent to being gay.

Old fake. Now it's not working even with teens.

You're wrong again, fag. I'm more European than you. Unfortunately for you, you can't see my flag on this board.

1.5 million middle eastern folk also claim to be european since 2015. The way you express yourself is so very close to that of a bible belt american, that i could have sworn that you are garbage from that part the world.

In the end you are still, ignorant, can't explain and on top you hold a book that has never been adjusted over the evolution of men, society and so on. In short: you are pretty fucking stupid

By your logic, masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, prostate stimulation and sex with condoms are unethical.

If you believe this, you're pretty damn conservative and I'll just have to say "I disagree".

The question is, "Who does it harm"? Gay people cannot have children, so it only theoretically 'harms' the two of them. It's even been proven that gay people who adopt children successfully raise kids as well as hetero couples.

If incestual relationships bear children, they will be very likely to have very disabled children. There's also issues where older siblings coerce the younger siblings into stuff. Then it becomes a weird codependence thing.

yeah, but what about GAY incest?

That, by legal definition, is not possible.

This is obviously a bait thread

interesting philosophical question.

Maybe both are neither right or wrong. Maybe it's all a matter of occurring or not, and a reality of the world.

Incest is almost always associated with abuse and can cause birth defects very easily. If you read up on actual incest at all you will see that it's not like what is portrayed in porn and fucking anime or some shit. It's almost never actually consensual and usually involves an older sibling or parent taking advantage of a younger more vulnerable family member and forcing them, either by rape or grooming, to have sex with them. The lasting psychological effects of it are also another massive problem.

For me the biggest issue, if incest were legalized, would be the fact that the government is essentially giving people the "ok" to fuck their siblings and other family members. The home is a place where you should feel safe and shouldn't be worried about fucking or getting fucked. Imagine you come home and your gross older brother tries to have sex with you and there is nothing you can do about it because what he did is completely legal. It heavily blurs the line on what is sexual abuse and what isn't.

None of this shit is a problem in homosexual relationships. They have their own issues of course, like a higher risk of STDs for gay men and a higher risk of domestic violence for lesbians, but those issues are pretty self contained and are being worked on. Incest though, is a whole other can of worms and can have a ton of repercussions that affect more than just the individual. Entire families could be torn apart by legal incestual relationships and the level of psychological and physical abuse that can result from it is disturbing on its own, not to mention the massively increased risk of genetically fucked up children being born.

That's just my take on it though.

So does eating your mate, ripping apart living things and eating them while they're still alive, and complete lack of morals. They all exist in nature but we've all decided that maybe nature can fuck off because it has shit ideas and that's why we have planes and heaters because we don't give a fuck what nature feels like doing or thinks is right.

incest makes deformed mutant children, gay sex doesn't