Why did Christianity in general develop such a hatred of homosexuality?
It's not as though we did anything wrong to them.
Actually, I'd argue it did. While Judaism did decry homosexual behaviour in its scripture, it never turned into a sentiment as it did in Christianity.
Homosexuality was hated for its association with Greco-Roman paganism; further on, in the 13th century, it became considered the most "heinous of sins", with the Dominicans (administrators of the Inquisition) encouraging the pious to hunt out suspected homosexuals, since they were legitimately seen as demon-possessed.
Unfortunately, these attitudes were inherited by Protestants to varying levels, with homosexuality being tied to demonic possession or male engagement in witchcraft.
The body is the temple of God and homosexual practices profane it.
It is sterile and mistakes an exit for an entrance.
>It is sterile
So are a number of heterosexual practices such as oral sex, none of which the Church has particularly put any effort into demonizing as it did homosexuality. Nor has the Church ever decried marriage between couples who are infertile.
imagine a beautiful sopping wet slip-n'-slide and then imagine a sewage facility. now ask yourself: which would you rather play in?
if you chose the sewer, something is wrong.
So sex is about breeding that's its primary reason.
You have Greco-Roman culture that was pretty loose with its sexual politics and celebrated sex for mostly pleasure sake and naturally early Christians weren't all that fond of such hedonism among other things. Things like love and romance that we take for granted as a end all necessity in our modern times wasn't really the case back in medieval times. Back then "courtly love" was something that people had interest in but wasn't really encouraged. In a highly Christian world sex was something purely for reproduction purpose whereas they attacked homosexuals but also people that fucked outside marriage, people who eloped, people who went to prostitutes, and anything that used sex outside of purely reproduction purposes between a man and wife. In that context homosexuality just seems hedonistic and wasteful it doesn't give you children, it doesn't expand your family/population it's just there because it feels good.
Nowadays "consensual love" is more than enough justification for sexual activity so thus homosexuality is becoming more accepted.
I think the most interesting facet of the old testament's explicit ban on homosexuality in multiple places is that it shows that even in an age where you would be killed for being gay there were still a significant number of people willing to do it. Really adds a lot of weight to the nature vs nurture argument on the side of nature I think.
>implying anal sex equals homosexuality
Not all homosexuals - even those in relationships - practice anal intercourse.
>Christianity did make pederasty unacceptable though.
I clearly said the Church opposed anything that wasn't benis in bagina sex, but my point was that you don't see the Church being up in arms about this as much as it is with the issue of homosexuality. Not to mention Protestants and the Orthodox, who don't particularly consider heterosexual oral sex to be sinful.
>"homosexuality is bad, that's why instead, you should live your life hating yourself and getting married to a person to whom you are not even remotely attracted to just to please the fictional celestial dictator from my fairy tales."
On a societal level he means, obviously there have always been perverts.
Well color me uniformed. Is it possible to get a bouquet entirely of male-only flowers? Are there perceivable differences between the two flower 'sexes', as far as the layman is concerned?
Jews hated the sexual mores of noble races (Greeks, Persians, Romans); they were also a hideous race of inbred dwarfs, and their males never possessed a shred of physical beauty. So of course they came to revile homosexuality.
Because God commanded us to procreate and reproduce, and any act that does not respect the semen such as the sin of Onanisim or laying with man in the same fashion he lays with woman is sin.
One also must point out that Christian condemns corruption (believing something is okay when its not), while with sin it encourages confession.
I know you're 12 and haven't seen any pussies in real life so far, but they're not all pretty. Regardless, it's a personal preference; is God really so petty that his reason for making homosexual intercourse a sin is that "ew that's gross xD". Surely there's something more deep to it than that?
I find feet in sex rather repulsive but that's just me and since I am not a judgemental wank stain I'm not going to regard people with a foot fetish as the scum of the Earth.
Literally the other way around.
Homosexuals hate God, hate Christians, and flaunt their deviant behavior in our faces.
While we try to teach you the errors of your ways, you castigate us for not celebrating your "lifestyle choice".
Holy shit you can speak to God? You can hear him? Holy fuck! This the greatest discovery in human history, anon knows that there is a God and he speaks to him personally!!!
You basing your morals on ancient Hebrew traditions that stemmed from traditions that most likely predate predate even the Hebrew culture.
"go forth and multiply" does not say mean "semen is sacred". That ascertion is literally a retarded as thinking that just because an advert says "buy in stores now" means that you can't buy it online or second hand.
Anyway, I find it incredibly hypocritical that a Catholic would lecture people on corruption, since Jesus condemned the rich and the greedy, effectively condemning the entire business that is your church.
i've never heard a faggot say what faggotry is a lifestyle choice.
I've never heard a faggot say they hate all Christians.
I have however heard them say they hate Christianity, but the only faggots that say that are the ones who were bullied by Christians, one of them got put in to hospital after he got beaten up and thrown down the stairs only to be beaten up some more.
>in b4 gud he deserved it xD
>"Those who live by the sword die by the sword"
>Violence and wrath are deadly sins
>"ye who hath never sinned may cast the first stone" or something along the lines of that
If homosexuality is causing no harm to anybody except themselves if they are stupid and do risky sex, then why h8? If you find it repulsive then so what? I find a lot of fetishes rupulsive but pic related
you are dead-ends and return nothing to the church, you do not fulfill the requisite unless you keep closeted and quarantined considering the disease vector it is. Also it clearly is a mental illness of impulse control.
1. Encourages promiscuity (thereby increasing the likelihood of STD transmission)
2. Celebrates hedonism
3. Condones sociopathic behavior (i.e "bug chasing" etc...)
For these reasons and others, homosexuality ought to be treated like an illness.
>he thinks homosexuality between two grown males was tolerated in Ancient Greece
Rubbing your beard up a man's hairy asshole is fucking disgusting and every sane person in History ageed with this simple claim. There's a difference between two hairy men fucking each other in the ass and the erotic relationship between an erastes and an eromenos.
Homosexuality has always been condemned by the church (Rm 1:27).
Because they were smart enough to realize that sex is a powerful bond and should be reserved for a man and his wife in order to produce children, and help maintain familial commitment and stability in the community.
Faggots fucking each other serves no purpose other than for personal pleasure, just like animal fuckers, or pedophiles, and does nothing to reinforce familial bonds within a community. Faggotry is simply an example of sex for the sake of sex, and cheapens the act, and makes it little more than a regular body function, like a burp, or a sneeze.
Examine western society today, where sex has become absolutely meaningless, like faggotry, and you see that the once strong family bonds that tied our communities together have been largely erased, as women are getting pregnant out of wedlock, and millions of children are being "raised" outside the bounds of a normal family. This destruction of the family has lead to an increase in school drop outs, criminal activity, and unwanted pregnancies.
The old school Christians understood the significance of sex, and how it served to reinforce family bonds, and strengthen the community. The acceptance of faggotry, and any other self serving sexual practices, were discriminated against because they didn't want their communities to become like our selfish and self-destructive communities today.
>Faggots fucking each other serves no purpose other than for personal pleasure
Dudes fight harder if their lover is fighting along side them.
This might be the reason religion started looking down on homosexuality:
hetero power-couple - comfy
gay power-couple - threat to the state
>that doesn't equate to hatred
>"it [homosexuality] increasingly began to be identified as the most heinous of sins by authorities of the Catholic Church."
>"In Italy, Dominican monks would encourage the pious to "hunt out" sodomites and once done to hand them to the Inquisition to be dealt with accordingly."
>By the early 13th century (time of the Fourth Lateran Council) the Church determined that "By the 13th century, due to the influence of the 4th Lateran Council, secular authorities, as well as clergy, [were of the opinion that they] should be allowed to impose penalties on 'sodomites' for having had sexual relations", and by the end of this period, "Sodomites were now [regarded as] demons as well as sinners."
>muh 1950s America was perfect!
There was high unemployment, extreme poverty in rural areas, and not to mention rampant racism that affected not just negros, but also Irish, Italians, Hispanics, Eastern Euros, etc.
No, Orthodox Christianity doesn't dogmatically forbid contraception so long as you're married, it doesn't endanger post-conception life, and it's not used to make a marriage childless.
So if they objection to homosexuality is that it doesn't make children, what about those couples who choose to use surrogates to have their own biological children? True, there's the argument that those children would be born out of wedlock (in a way), but they'd still be multiplying.
>Dudes fight harder if their lover is fighting along side them.
Really? Have YOU ever fought alongside dudes?
I have, and I think that statement is straight up bullshit, and little more than another example of faggots trying to forward their agendas by talking about shit they don't know about.
Sexual relationships create relationship drama that breaks down unit cohesion. Men fight for each other because we treat each other as brothers, not as a personal fuck toy.
Faggotry in ancient Greece has been misrepresented by homo lobby groups to further their agenda for years. There are examples of ancient Greek warriors mocking other Greeks for being faggots, such as the Spartans mocking the Athenians, and yet these examples are never brought forward because they don't support the gay agenda.
The faggot formation of Greeks could very well have been created as a result of not wanting those faggots fucking up the cohesion in the ranks of the normal men.
The same as heterosexuals, it's just the flaming promiscuous ones get more media attention. Every night straight guys go to bars and night clubs to pick up ladies for one night stands, and ladies go to get picked up- but no one assumes that all heteros never want to settle down.
Their lifestyle is as contratian as possible to the default which is why there is feud.
There is no gay culture.
I am gay and my culture is American.
>1. Encourages promiscuity (thereby increasing the likelihood of STD transmission)
Homosexuality does not encourage or necessitate promiscuity.
>2. Celebrates hedonism
Pursuing pleasure does not necessitate placing it above all else. Normal human beings agree to this.
>3. Condones sociopathic behavior (i.e "bug chasing" etc...)
This is blatantly false. It should be quite obvious that almost all homosexuals would rather avoid catching HIV.
I mean what percentage of gays in "relationships" have closed relationships? As opposed to one where they both try to seduce other men? Because I've yet to encounter one gay couple that doesn't do this.
Oh, that I have no clue on. But the pernicious idea of a 'gay culture' most likely has made more gay men give in to the idea of open relationship than there are that are truly into the idea of doing so, because of the long history of gay relationships being entirely centered around illicit sex because there was no way for them to do the kind of chaste activities that make up the rest of a relationship (holding hands walking in public, etc, etc).
You repeated the error I was pointing out in your reply to the post where I did so.
Can you not provide an answer to the question?
Supposing only one gay couple ever was monogamous, was it immoral if any sexual conduct between them was an expression of their love and affection for one another?
Yes, sexuality is a unitive act between both halves of humanity. Sex as love between two men makes about as much sense as masturbation as a realization of self-love.
Maybe it's because the general circle of people I know are gay, but don't really practice "gay culture"
There are plenty of gay people that you wouldn't know are gay unless they told you.
>homo lobby groups
face it dude you're gay as fuck and trying to rationalize your self-hate
if you weren't you just wouldn't care like the rest of us
who gives a shit what hole another person likes inserting themselves into
A) Jewish roots. The etymological connection between "Sodomy" and "Sodom."
B) Legal reforms in the 300s
C) Justinian using the gays as a scapegoat during civil unrest.
Those are the main reasons I know.
I would like to point out that the connection between Sodom's major sins and homosexuality is a Christian interpretation, not a Jewish one.
Judaism is all about Sodom's xenophobia and their not holding to the rules of hospitality.
>Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
>Spartans mocking the Athenians.
First of all, I don't see how this supports your butthurt case. Spartans, manly feirce fighters or no, aren't exactly a clean example of morality. They raped, pillaged, enslaved people, forced them to fight each other, had a marriage ritual that was essentially simulated rape-burglary, threw babies off of cliffs for minor deformities, consulted oracles for serious advice, and on top of all of this, engaged in homosexuality.
Got an academic source for that image, bruh?
I can't find it anywhere. Not even GodHatesFags.com or TheseStatsCameFromMyAsshole.com
Yes. And the NT had plenty of time to be edited by interesting parties. For instance the modern book of Mark which comes down to us has a completely different ending than the earliest Greek manuscripts we can get our hands on.
Also, whether or not this NT condemnation has bearing on anything depends heavily on whether you assume the NT came directly from God or whether it's a document created by people caught or otherwise personally invested in a somewhat-documented political struggle between Rome and a Jewish movement in the early first century A.D.
Wow. you're still not clear that a) Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; b) Jesus is God; and c) there is no OT and NT God; there is only one God, and He is Jesus.
Wow, you're still not clear that you're starting with assumptions and cultural indoctrination.
That's because Jesus, who mainly preached in Israel, wasn't exactly running into rampant homosexuality He certainly doesn't look highly upon fornication (John 4:18), I don't think he'd be impressed by Greek pederasty.
But this interpolation is present in the earliest commentaries. Most likely it was added by Mark later (according to Papias, the original was dictated by Peter to Mark, but Mark added some stuff in of his own later). Anyway, what does that have to do with Paul? No scholar suggests the homosexuality verses are interpolations.
A lot of the ancient Greeks used a mentor system, but faggots have misrepresented it as a pedophile / homosexual system.
When a kid gets to a certain age, it's easier to take criticism and abuse from somebody besides your own father, as you don't have to live with the guy that calls you a pussy to get you to man the fuck up, or runs you till you puke. Think of athletic coaches, or military NCO's, and you have an example of the mentor approach the ancient Greeks used to teach their young men how to fight as a Hoplite, and gain character as a young adult.
The Greek mentor system was about teaching and building character, not about faggotry.
>No scholar suggests the homosexuality verses are interpolations.
Wew lass, what a claim. I would have to go through the entire body of Christological academia to confirm or deny that one.
Looks like I got me work cut out for me!
not this shit agian
are you denying the existence of politicized homosexuality?
The only thing I claim to know is what you said.
And you made three claims, even listing them with a) b) c)
I said those claims were assumptions because they are. Even if Jesus literally teleported into your bedroom and said "believe motherfucker" there is still no way of ruling out who that is or what caused that phenomenon.
Why ever start with an assumption?
Ancient documentation and cultural dogma is not enough to warrant lifetime dedication to a cause whose visible consequences are sociopolitical and the furthering of the cultural dogma.
No one suspect interpolation unless there is a very strange fluctuation in the style, or textual criticism (comparing different versions of the text) suggest it. Neither is the case with the homosexuality verses.
Not him. Politicized homosexuality exists, but it does legitimize prejudice against homos.
>Ancient documentation and cultural dogma is not enough to warrant lifetime dedication to a cause
Indeed, the Holy Spirit is who spurs us onward.
But again. What does it matter what the NT condemns or doesn't? It doesn't have a true baring on the larger argument unless you come from the camp of believers.
>They raped, pillaged, enslaved people..
And? That was the norm in practically every city state. The Ancient Greek economy was heavily dependent on slave labor, just like the Roman economy would be, and later economies after them.
>had a marriage ritual that was essentially simulated rape-burglary
According to you. Some wouldn't see it that way.
>threw babies off of cliffs for minor deformities
How dare they attempt to eliminate shitty genes from their gene pool! How dare they ensure that their citizens were fit and healthy, and better prepared to face the challenges of survival, from the day they were born!
I guess if they had simply aborted pregnancies instead, they wouldn't have been so bad, right?
>consulted oracles for serious advice
Idiots today are STILL praying to "gods", so you're going to fault them for doing that, considering they didn't know shit about their environment the way we do today.
That doesn't seem reasonable.
>and on top of all of this, engaged in homosexuality.
Every group has their share of genetic defects that grow up to become homosexual, but that doesn't mean it was an approved practice. If homosexuality was detectable, like down syndrome, then they would have killed those defects at birth as well.
None of your arguments are valid.
Daily reminder Jesus was a homosexual, or at least engaged in homosexual activity with a youth.
See: the Secret Gospel of Mark, which is believed to have been the source for the modern Gospel of Mark. This account tells of an event - surrounded in homoeroticism - in which Jesus resurrected a young man (who "loved Jesus" upon seeing him), and who invited Jesus to stay with him for some days, culminating "[one] night with Jesus teaching him about the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven... whereupon he returned to the other side of the Jordan in the morning."
Let us not forget about the strange incident with the youth in the linen cloth in the modern Mark: it is very likely this young man - dressed only in a thin cloth who follows Jesus even after all the other disciples have left - is the same from the Secret Mark, and that a pederastic relationship existed!
I showed an image that even proved that homosexuality was an accepted practice among the spartans.
And my main argument wasn't that the spartans were evil, but rather how ridiculous it was to cite them mocking athenians for "faggotry."
Your argument was essentially "look at these manly dudes, they mocked fags. Fags are bad."
But the dudes in question were raping, pillaging, murdering faggots. It seems like the sort of argument only a megatroll would make.
I'd say the thread is asking why their hatred is warranted. What's your opinion, on homosexuals, constantine? You're very good at citing documents but not actually putting forward what you think.
Constantine didn't ratify that shit
so it ain't legit
our main source of approved dogma
is the government that executed jesus
>good at citing
He's an insufferable fag who - on the other hand - merely acts condescendingly, thinking that using 'refined' vocabulary is a replacement for proper sourcing.
It's ultimately a mystery but I personally subscribe to synergism.
The New Testament canon was set hundreds of years before Rome converted.
He didn't show anything
How come the MOST EDUCATED LIBERAL don't know the basics...
If they were into fucking dogs, they would prove that the ancien greeks were into fucking dogs because some guy "loved his dog"
Hardly a complement: it means you ramble on incoherently.
I'd suggest checking in at the nearest mental health center.
>anything that the bible says must be false and the truth is that there's actually a huge conspiracy to cover up that jesus was homo/was married/fled to india etc...
>I'd say the thread is asking why their hatred is warranted.
Because homosexuality is not the point of sex, sex is a unification process, a microcosm of the unification of all humanity, expressed in both halves.
Because as Peter is the rock the Church is built upon, the heterosexual couple is the rock the family is built upon, and thus all of society and the human race.
Because homosexuality is celebrated by parades that hearken back to phallus worship.
Because homosexuality has little expectation for monogamy, and homosexuality has a much, much, much higher rate of promiscuity than heterosexuality.
Because homosexuality has no great heritage of cementing different kingdoms and families together.
Because homosexuality is close cousin of transsexuality.
For many other reasons as well.
>the heterosexual couple is the rock the family is built upon, and thus all of society and the human race.
Says the one whose Church forbids clergy from getting married solely because they're cheap and stingy fucks.
All your other reasons are idiotic drivel, not even worth replying to.
Orthodox priests can have families. I hope next time you will become more familiar with the facts before you start condemning people.
Because if faggots fuck enough and produce Assbabies, people might wonder why Jesus is so special.
Yes here in the Netherlands we totally accept paedophilia, come visit, 9years old pu$$y as far as the eye can see.
Is this the same source the claimed we kill our elderly when the start costing to much money?
And that this was the result of legalizing euthanasia?
How can you take such bullshit sources seriously? Are you literally retarded?
But the faggots were never gonna have children to begin with, thus not leaving any lasting mark on their community. Why not just leave them alone? Yes, pregnancy out of wedlock threatens communities... but gays? Come on.
Complete nonsense. Have you ever read personal accounts of camaraderie from men who have fought alongside one another? I don't see how a handful of men having sexual relations during wartime would in any way lead to a weaker military. I can understand you arguing that it has no effect on military strength, but that it leads to a weaker military? That simply defies common sense.
I think that it's important to remember Christianity has always been opposed to any non-reproductive, married sex, no matter what circumstances. Two teenagers exploring each others' bodies is, in the eyes of the Church, as sinful as a gay couple.
In turn, this should cause Catholics to reconsider the vitriol with which they condemn homosexuality. Two heteros living together in a multi-year monogamous relationship and having sex are just as worthy of your condemnation as gay prostitutes having sex in a pride parade.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church still sees relationships through the eyes of a medieval institution - a social and reproductive bond, with affection as a positive side effect - and has little to say, and even less to advise, about exclusively romantic relationships and how to conduct them in the modern world. The Church isn't wrong in its teaching about homosexuality or fornication or masturbation, so much as it is talking about structures of relationships which haven't existed for centuries.
That's less to do with homosexuality itself and more has to do with the conceptions of a man's role in society. Pederasty was tolerated because it was a man showing a younger boy (while fucking him) proper Greek customs and how to be a man, and possibly trade skills. A grown man getting fucked by a grown man would be a roundabout way of that man relinquishing his duty as a man in Greek society, which was frowned upon.
Also no one gave a shit about lesbians as long as they had babies.
I'm a combat vet with 3 years in Afghanistan and Iraq, you ignorant fuck, so don't talk to me about camaraderie among combatants.
Contrary to popular belief, normal dudes think faggots are disgusting, and faggots getting into a "lovers spat" is even worse.
Just because you're a weak ass beta faggot coward, doesn't mean normal dudes think like you.
Why could men take multiple wives then? If the bond between two is strong enough to hold a family together wouldn't extra bonds interrupt that initial one? Or is that okay as long as the harem contributes to the family as a whole?
They weren't supposed to be. Sex was readily expected. The fact that they weren't chaste was a major criticism of Plato's, but that was less of a critique of the homosexuality and more of one about lust in general.
It was an idealistic portrayal like >>1347948 said. He believed partaking in the pleasures of the flesh did disservice to the form of beauty itself. One should pursue beauty for beauty's sake alone, rather than experiencing it through hedonistic and possessive pleasure.
>Why could men take multiple wives then?
Because men died in combat and of disease, and it was honorable to care for the fallen's wife and children, rather than leave them to be single mothers, which results in shitty kids, as evidenced by society today.
People will literally do anything to qualify their fee-fees if they don't want them hurt.
I've seen it reasoned that because 2% of the homosexual population is responsible for the largest margin of STIs, that means the whole is dangerous. Of course, ignoring any statistic meaning that its -relativity- has in only naming percentages and margins. And besides, if you aren't gay, what do you have to fear from getting STIs from gay men? Do you live in constant fear that a gay guy is going to spit in your drink when you aren't looking? Shit, that's comedy.
This kind of non sequitur bullshit is all a drooling retard needs to justify their existing reservations than actually challenge them like any true and thoughtful bearer of continental reason. Nevertheless, they'll claim they're here for humanities while either trolling or without a shred of self observation. Don't justify their their position with responses.
Don't give them the attention that they want. I'd warrant that most trolls are trolls because they need dopamine boosts from responses on the internet, and don't seem to be able to get them in an a more affirming or concrete way elsewhere.
You faggots wouldn't do shit.
You neckbeard cowards never challenge anything that will fight back, but reserve your beta nerd rage for school shootings and gun free zones, like the cowardly rejects you are...
>Rather than actually challenge...*
Anyways, at least only bother with people who will put out more than a line of text to qualify their position on the matter. The more effort they're willing to put out to defend their opinions, the more likely you are to actually get something out of the conversation other than mindless banter.
And women died in childbirth WAY more often. Unless you happened to have a Paraguayan level war loss within the last generation, you pretty much always had more men than women in a pre-modern medicine society.
no... I have tremendous respect for soldiers. I also understand the distinction between just war and unjust war - something an iraq war vet did/does not, making them the ignorant one.
Homosexuality between males in societies that accepted or encouraged them spread disease all over the place.
until the microscope, no one knew why, but they did figure out disease did spread through sexual contact. Some horrible and fatal if left untreated, as most diseases were.
It was a social issue. it's still an issue today. gays have much higer rates of STDs and AIDS. Why? Because there is no consequence of pregnancy. So why not just bang as many dudes as you want? Even if you weren't gay, it wasn't a big deal until people realized it could destroy entire civilizations.
Your leftist politicians could have stopped it, but they didn't.
Your "conservative" party could have kept it limited to SOF forces, but they didn't.
Don't blame us, blame congress, and all the apathetic fucks that simply ignore their shitty decisions and corruption.
I don't think he was, I think his assumption that congressional bullshit and corruption means a soldier has no say or even larger idea of what they're doing sometimes. AFter all, if you are funding an unjust war, you don't want the people who are acting and dying in your place to question it. I think is position is based off the idea that a soldier would have to be ignorant to take pride in being used like this. And I think he was using that position to draw a line of hypocrisy: That if you show this sort of cowboyishness as a soldier, it likens you to the above, and would be calling the kettle black in crying ignorance.
Nevertheless, he did a fucking piss poor job of explaining why he felt that way, so he deserves nothing but flak for his own intellectual laziness. And if you aren't willing to challenge your reservations about a group of people who have been proven to exist as long as we have, I think that is also intellectual laziness. Resorting to your typical "muh degeneracy" argument is laziness too, because it's a personal sentiment more often than not.
Granted, how you feel about fags is none of my concern as long as you show them common decency as human beings. If it's alright for a man and a woman to kiss in public, it ought to be alright for men/men and women/women to do so too.
And gays who pay taxes have to pay the hospital bills of morbidly obese straight people as well. Totally preventable, but their lack of sexual activity justifies them in being disgusting hambeasts. As a matter of fact, gays have to pay for the bills of a majority population as a minority; instead of having the luxury of their in-group that they don't mind paying for, being the majority.
This logic is really stupid and it's easy to flip.
>Why could men take multiple wives?
>Oh well, it prevents single motherhood, because there were shortage of men around and it's better than having single mothers.
>But that is statistically a non-happening, since there were far more single fathers than single mothers
>DAT HAS NOTIN TA DOO WIT ANYTING! MAAM CAN U HALP ME TYE MY SHOOZ!?
yes hamplanets are also a drain on the healthcare system but that doesn't change the fact that so are homosexuals. in fact both groups are very similar; one being gluttons for food and the others being gluttons for sex
no husbands and wives can have non procreative sex because it strengthens their family bond. as pointed out elsewhere itt heterosexual marriages are the building blocks and anything that strengthens marriages is a good thing and sex is one of them. i do however reject premarital sex.
Because the oppression of the women was due to the normalization of homosexuality. Men, being able to have relations with other men, others like themselves who thought like themselves and felt like themselves, had since the formation of the ancient Greek culture disdained women and seen them as nothing more than breeding tools. Men and women had nothing in common, they couldn't be more different. How could a man have any feelings for something so unlike himself?
And into this comes Christianity, wanting to save the meek and poor and oppressed, and sees in the culture of the day that all of womenkind would forever remain in their deplorable state unless the very culture itself changed. And so Christian leaders worked tirelessly through the ages to reverse the situation, to have man believe that he could truly love and be loved by a woman. And to make sure that their work couldn't be undone, they stigmatized the concept of male/male relationships.
Christianity was the first feminist movement.
No they don't, because they could easily start their own gay country.
But they won't do that, will they?
Nope. They'll just continue to infest normal society and bitch about how people don't celebrate their defective biology.
Gay people should NOT be able to adopt. Period.
Raising kids is hard enough in a normal household, let alone in a gay household, and it's selfish as fuck for a gay couple to want to raise a kid.
I think the bible mentions something about faggots being possessed with sin and aids and shit so god destroyed their shit little town and when some lady tried to look at it again she became a pillar of salt.
lesbians are disproportionately persons of calories as well. To me that would suggest these fetishes could be hormonal.
>The federal government spent millions of dollars in recent years researching why lesbians have a higher obesity rate than heterosexual women and gay men, according to funding records.
The ongoing National Institutes of Health study, now in its fourth year and scheduled to last another two, has cost about $3 million to date, the Washington Free Beacon reported in a recent article.
A summary of the research project said that nearly three-quarters of lesbians are overweight or obese. The rate is 25 percent higher than heterosexual females and almost “double the obesity risk of gay men,” the summary said.
The researchers, led by an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, have already concluded that lower athletic self-esteem among lesbians may lead to higher rates of obesity and that lesbians are more likely to see themselves at a healthy weight when they are not, according to the Free Beacon report.