• Happy pride month, xisters of the schlog!

What do you think of Homosexuals?

Post thread
majority of them arent even gay and they just do that so they wont die like incel chuds , thats why alot of them are revolting faggots who have extreme fetishes for sex and other hedonistic filth [angry]
 
Cobbert said:
The point is that gays aren't following christian rules because the religion hates them anyways. What does them being not as powerful anymore have to do with anything? They're still actively antagonizing gays and calling them rapists and pedophiles.
Click to expand...
Christianity does not hate people. Christianity hates sin.
 
AR47 said:
One of the biggest pseud traps is religious people trying to prove their religion's rulings by earthly reasons.

Nobody cares if homosexuals are 1000% more likely to molest kids and blow up buildings. It still doesn't follow from those facts that homosexuality is immoral.

This mindset of trying to prove the immorality of something purely from its temporal effects seems like a modern, utilitarian mindset. Moral claims can be purely ideal. For example blasphemy being wrong is purely based on justice, and not on any effect it may have on people's lives.

At most these kinds of statistics could support the idea of something being immoral. Because virtue and vice are self supporting. Bad things usually lead to more bad things. And good things usually lead to more good things.

You also see this with Muslims trying to argue why eating pork is prohibited. They will say stuff like 'pigs are disgusting' and 'pork is inhealthy', even though this is totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Argumentation like that only works if both people share a belief system. If my opponent doesn’t give a shit, then it will obviously not work
 
Cobbert said:
Homosexuality is inherent so if they view it as a sin, then yes, they hate people as an extension. Because you cannot change homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Nuh uh.

Heterosexuality is also inherent, yet some people are called to live in celibacy.

Psychopathic and sadistic tendencies may also be inherent, yet it is immoral to act on them.

If you think suppressing things for your entire life is bad or impossible then you're just weak or stupid. Simple as.
 
AR47 said:
Nuh uh.

Heterosexuality is also inherent, yet some people are called to live in celibacy.

Psychopathic and sadistic tendencies may also be inherent, yet it is immoral to act on them.

If you think suppressing things for your entire life is bad or impossible then you're just weak or stupid. Simple as.
Click to expand...
Are you stupid? The difference between homosexuality and being a sadist is that being a sadist hurts people.
Two guys having sex does not affect anyone else in the slightest. Why do you feel the need to opress something that literally doesn't affect you?
 
Cobbert said:
Are you stupid? The difference between homosexuality and being a sadist is that being a sadist hurts people.
Two guys having sex does not affect anyone else in the slightest. Why do you feel the need to opress something that literally doesn't affect you?
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant to what I just wrote.
 
Cobbert said:
Are you stupid? The difference between homosexuality and being a sadist is that being a sadist hurts people.
Two guys having sex does not affect anyone else in the slightest. Why do you feel the need to opress something that literally doesn't affect you?
Click to expand...
Also why are you asking about something I literally posted about in the previous page?
 
AR47 said:
Totally irrelevant to what I just wrote.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly what you wrote. I know you are capable of supressing homosexuality. But why? I don't get why people should be forced to do this.
How would you feel if you had to pretend you were gay and marry a man?
AR47 said:
Also why are you asking about something I literally posted about in the previous page?
Click to expand...
You argued that homosexuality is immoral because "Uhhhh it just is okay??". Literally braindead morality that only christcucks can come up with.
You don't get to restrict the lives of people just because some 2000 year old book said it was evil.
 
Cobbert said:
How would you feel if you had to pretend you were gay and marry a man?
Click to expand...
Gay people can also just be chaste. They don't have to marry a woman.
Cobbert said:
You argued that homosexuality is immoral because "Uhhhh it just is okay??". Literally braindead morality that only christcucks can come up with.
Click to expand...
The point is that morality can and often is purely ideal, with no regard for it's actual effects. For a lot of secular people you can convince them of this with a few hypothetical situations involving injustice and ill-intent.

Also 'x is wrong because my religion says it's wrong' is a perfectly legitimate response to ethical questions.

The explanation of why homosexuality is wrong may differ from religion to religion. IIRC Catholics for example believe that all unnatural sex acts are immoral. Unnatural here meaning non-creative. They also see usury as immoral because it's unnatural. But you should ask someone else than me about this.

Also 'we don't know lol' can be a perfectly legitimate response to certain questions.
Cobbert said:
You don't get to restrict the lives of people just because some 2000 year old book said it was evil.
Click to expand...
This is so stupid. All morality is inherently imperialistic, since you are making claims about what others should and shouldn't do. And all laws are ''oppressive'', since you are restricting what others can and can't do.


At least we can agree that Christianity does not hate gay people, as I demonstrated previously.
 
Last edited:
AR47 said:
Gay people can also just be chaste. They don't have to marry a woman.

The point is that morality can and often is purely ideal, with no regard for it's actual effects. For a lot of secular people you can convince them of this with a few hypothetical situations involving injustice and ill-intent.

Also 'x is wrong because my religion says it's wrong' is a perfectly legitimate response to ethical questions.

The explanation of why homosexuality is wrong may differ from religion to religion. IIRC Catholics for example believe that all unnatural sex acts are immoral. Unnatural here meaning non-creative. They also see usury as immoral because it's unnatural. But you should ask someone else than me about this.

Also 'we don't know lol' can be a perfectly legitimate response to certain questions.

This is so stupid. All morality is inherently imperialistic, since you are making claims about what others should and shouldn't do. And all laws are ''oppressive'', since you are restricting what others can and can't do.


At least we can agree that Christianity does not hate gay people, as I demonstrated previously.
Click to expand...
>Gay people can also just be chaste. They don't have to marry a woman.
So how would you feel if you were in love with a woman but were told you can't have sex with or marry her? If you say "yes because da bible said so" you should know that you are actual cattle. Literal slave mindset.
>Also 'x is wrong because my religion says it's wrong' is a perfectly legitimate response to ethical questions.
No it's fucking not? Not in this case. This isn't like muslims not eating pork. Your morality demands people force it on others even if they don't follow it themselves. And this is a problem because homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. You are punishing others over a victimless crime that you arbitrarily declared is a sin. That is just plain wrong no matter how you twist it.
>All morality is inherently imperialistic, since you are making claims about what others should and shouldn't do. And all laws are ''oppressive'', since you are restricting what others can and can't do.
There is a difference between banning things that harm people and banning things that hurt no one. Especially when it affects the lives of people this deeply, especially when your rules cause harm themselves and especially when the only justification for it is a religious belief that is not based on any rational fact, yet has its tenants forced on people unaffilated with it.
 
Cobbert said:
So how would you feel if you were in love with a woman but were told you can't have sex with or marry her? If you say "yes because da bible said so" you should know that you are actual cattle. Literal slave mindset.
Click to expand...
>Muh feels
This is so retarded. Your completely arbitrary judgment about what counts as a slave mindset has no effect on whether a certain moral claim or religion is true. I don't care about it.

Agape is infinitely deep. Romantic love is shallow compared to it.
Cobbert said:
This isn't like muslims not eating pork.
Click to expand...
Muslims would like to ban pork if they had political power, though.
Cobbert said:
No it's fucking not? Not in this case. Your morality demands people force it on others even if they don't follow it themselves. And this is a problem because homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. You are punishing others over a victimless crime that you arbitrarily declared is a sin. That is just plain wrong no matter how you twist it.
Click to expand...
SOURCE!? Why should I believe that this would be wrong? You are offering absolutely no reasons why this would be the case. Why exactly should pain be the principle that should determine legality and not evil itself? Also there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
Cobbert said:
that you arbitrarily declared is a sin.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about.
Cobbert said:
There is a difference between banning things that harm people and banning things that hurt no one.
Click to expand...
SOURCE!? I'm going to need a source on that one. Why is there such a difference? Why should I believe that? Why should harm be the principle that determines the legality of something and not evil? Again, this is completely arbitrary. And you've offered no reason as to why someone should believe it.

Cobbert, you are a very stupid person(assuming that this isn't all just bait). Please think about things before posting. You should evaluate your own positions on things, and the reasons why you believe them. And also see what happens if you take them to their logical end conclusions. You should also consider what other people believe, why they believe them, and what kind of operating system they may have as a result of those beliefs.
You are not good at convincing people of anything.
 
AR47 said:
>Muh feels
This is so retarded. Your completely arbitrary judgment about what counts as a slave mindset has no effect on whether a certain moral claim or religion is true. I don't care about it.

Agape is infinitely deep. Romantic love is shallow compared to it.

Muslims would like to ban pork if they had political power, though.

SOURCE!? Why should I believe that this would be wrong? You are offering absolutely no reasons why this would be the case. Why exactly should pain be the principle that should determine legality and not evil itself? Also there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

You don't know what you're talking about.

SOURCE!? I'm going to need a source on that one. Why is there such a difference? Why should I believe that? Why should harm be the principle that determines the legality of something and not evil? Again, this is completely arbitrary. And you've offered no reason as to why someone should believe it.

Cobbert, you are a very stupid person(assuming that this isn't all just bait). Please think about things before posting. You should evaluate your own positions on things, and the reasons why you believe them. And also see what happens if you take them to their logical end conclusions. You should also consider what other people believe, why they believe them, and what kind of operating system they may have as a result of those beliefs.
You are not good at convincing people of anything.
Click to expand...
Xe claims to be a troon too.
 
AR47 said:
>Muh feels
This is so retarded. Your completely arbitrary judgment about what counts as a slave mindset has no effect on whether a certain moral claim or religion is true. I don't care about it.

Agape is infinitely deep. Romantic love is shallow compared to it.

Muslims would like to ban pork if they had political power, though.

SOURCE!? Why should I believe that this would be wrong? You are offering absolutely no reasons why this would be the case. Why exactly should pain be the principle that should determine legality and not evil itself? Also there is no such thing as a victimless crime.

You don't know what you're talking about.

SOURCE!? I'm going to need a source on that one. Why is there such a difference? Why should I believe that? Why should harm be the principle that determines the legality of something and not evil? Again, this is completely arbitrary. And you've offered no reason as to why someone should believe it.

Cobbert, you are a very stupid person(assuming that this isn't all just bait). Please think about things before posting. You should evaluate your own positions on things, and the reasons why you believe them. And also see what happens if you take them to their logical end conclusions. You should also consider what other people believe, why they believe them, and what kind of operating system they may have as a result of those beliefs.
You are not good at convincing people of anything.
Click to expand...
>Your completely arbitrary judgment about what counts as a slave mindset has no effect on whether a certain moral claim or religion is true
Granted. But I don't need it to have an effect because christianity is a delusion. Nobody knows anything about God, heaven, sin or whether any of these things actually exist. Any religion that claims otherwise is lying.

>Muslims would like to ban pork if they had political power, though.
Yes and that is when it becomes a problem because then they force their values on others. Do you not understand that?

>Also there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
Uh yes there is? When people declare something forbidden even though lt hurts no one. That's a victimless crime.

>SOURCE!? Why should I believe that this would be wrong?
??? What the fuck do I need a source for?? No God ever told you that homosexuality is wrong. No God ever told anyone anything. Believing otherwise is simply a delusion. If God exists then he has certainly never interacted with the physical world, and especially has not ever spoken to anyone, ever. Any conclusion that you make from "words of God" are conclusions based on lies. Acting out those lies and hurting people in the process is wrong if you value not hurting people.

>You are offering absolutely no reasons why this would be the case. Why exactly should pain be the principle that should determine legality and not evil itself?
>SOURCE!? I'm going to need a source on that one. Why is there such a difference? Why should I believe that? Why should harm be the principle that determines the legality of something and not evil? Again, this is completely arbitrary. And you've offered no reason as to why someone should believe it.
Again why would I need a source for that? Of course harm should be the main principle. What do you even mean with "evil"? Your only definition seems come from an old book that you take as fact even though countless claims it has made have been factually disproven.
I would be fine with this if you only enforced your belief of "evil" on yourself. But you don't. You want to force it on others. That is what I take issue with. The difference between your faith and normal moral codes is that your faith is a delusion. And it leads you to declare things "evil" that do not hurt anyone, then hurt them in the process of trying to eliminate your delusional perception of "evil".

>You should also consider what other people believe, why they believe them, and what kind of operating system they may have as a result of those beliefs
I do consider that. I consider that there are christians who believe homosexuality is wrong, because of a 2000 year old book, and then force this belief in the form of forbidding gay men to love each other in practice. When beliefs based on delusions hurt people they are unacceptable beliefs and immoral by any regular metric.

>You should evaluate your own positions on things, and the reasons why you believe them. And also see what happens if you take them to their logical end conclusions
What would the end conclusion of my beliefs be if I may ask?

>You are not good at convincing people of anything.
I try to argue logically, not in a way that is the most convincing.
 
Cobbert said:
View attachment 144599
How do people write deeply hateful shit like this and think they are in the right? I would start a rational argument but you're too far gone for that. Please reconsider what lead you to thinking like this of others. This isn't you.
Click to expand...
heres the general argument in a "nice" way for you
gay people spread STDs several times more than straight people, abuse their children more often, are more likely to be pedophiles, etc etc
 
Back
Top