>>405675
>Basically everywhere you look, you'll find some amount of it
>but It's definitely something realand heckin’ valid y’all!
No one was saying it never happened in the past. The ancients could not have spoke critically of faggots without having encountered them.
This comes across as a goalpost-shift from your "fucked each other left and right" statement earlier.
>The point isn't just that the practice existed before and that makes it OK,
Then, to be frank, what anyone did in the past was irrelevant.
>how you cannot logically be against homosexuality in any reasonable capacity other than saying "It disgusts me"
Truly a mystery.
>recurrent practices demand analytical understanding to check if they're compatible with our current society
Lying is recurrent, and depending on the context, entirely benign. I wouldn’t jail someone for it but I would certainly still consider it bad.
"compatibility" with our current society has no bearing on whether something is a mental illness, or immoral, or anything really.
If you’re approaching this from a subjectivist lens then the whole conversation is pointless anyway.
>as the practice barely affects you as an individual
The past 20 years aside, it doesn't affect me at all if someone eats glass, its still clearly a mental disorder. Actually, transgenderism doesn't affect me personally at all either, and if not it being forced by the likes of Blackrock would be easily "compatible" with our current society. Even things t like organized crime arguably are "compatible" with our current society.
>oh no, less men to breed our women"
While yes, having a sexual preference for things you can’t even impregnate is evolutionary speaking a terminal illness, its not even directly about reproduction.
Men are naturally wired to be attracted to women much like how >we are naturally wired to hunger for edible food among all sorts of things. In any other scenario
except transgenderism when someone’s attraction or cravings are counter to the natural wiring for humans, it is correctly identified as a mental illness by most people, though there are often a minority who say its fine. A man being attracted to men is clearly a malfunction in the same basic way that hunger for glass or any other mental illness is.
So reproduction, while more important than you give it credit for
as a lack of reproduction in fact would be incompatible with any society and globohomo has clearly been trying to increase the amount of faggotry in the West is beside the point. As the previous post mentioned, there’s a very big different between eating digestible food for reasons other than hunger and eating glass. Choosing not to drive your car is very different from driving it into a sewer.
Plus absence doesn’t cause incontinency or spread aids.
> At least it should be, if they weren't so fucking promiscuous. Even I concede that the fags are disgusting when it comes to behavior like bug chasing).
Correlation does not equal causation, but it does not deny causation either. Given the statistics on these things I would not be surprised if one contributed to the other.
And bug chasing specifically? Viewing disease as desireable is not a big leap when you already view an asshole as such.
>some representation, indicates that it existed
You say that "it existed in the past therefore it was okay" wasn't the point and yet you keep speaking as though it was. Of course it existed in the past, people would not have hated faggotry if they never knew what it was.
>taboo
Much like it was before 2 decades of forced propaganda.
and still is outside of liberal shitholes.
>disgust at faggotry is a reaction heavily induced by cultural aspects
>the Greek philosophers were imperfect for their own time
<greek culture did not particularly care about a small subsect of the population
If they were disgusted by faggotry despite their culture, that contradicts your notion that it is an unreasonable response heavily induced by cultural aspects. If they were disgusted by faggotry in agreement with their culture, then it was looked down upon in Greece more than you make out. Regardless, one thing you cannot reasonably accuse them of is believing something without having thought about it. This was the point of the “appeal to authority”.
Also, if you’re going to dismiss opposition to faggotry on the basis that it is an emotional reaction, you should not be spending the majority of your posts using appeals to emotion such as "some amount of gay existed everywhere you look", "its definitely something real", "You only dislike it because it disgusts you", "look at the demand for femboy/ladyboy/futa porn" "It's basal because sex is human".
And on the topic of culture, there is more propaganda to influence the West’s opinion on faggotry now
in one very specific direction at that then there has ever been. So, there is really no reason to think your position is any less biased
that and you’re actually gay so.
>>405706
>Might as well fully embrace your eugenist self and kill any mutants at birth while at it then.
Keep resorting to that strawman buddy.