why have so many cultures and religions thoughout history hated gays? is there something we dont know?
>>482715
Most haven't really had any conception of "the gays" as we understand them.
>>482715
Fags are disgusting. Those cultures were correct. But liberals refuse to consider that they might have been right.
Its because of abrahamic religions
Outside of them its not a big deal or its more ambigious
I really want to pet that cat
>>482715
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjPQ_jVlEnQ
>>482715
Surprisingly fewer than you'd think.
The Romans and Greeks had no problems with it.
1. The family unit. Homosexuality threatens the father's lineage when the son starts wanting the cock.
2. Male bonding. Camaraderie is fractured when soldiers start worrying if their bros want to fuck their ass when they shower together naked, despite what Le SJW Spartan Maymay tells you. That's why homophobia is so rampant in social situations: it's a way of securing the platonic relationship between teammates. Homosexuality is more prolific among the intellectual class because this pressure doesn't exist there.
3. Because there is a less dramatic sexual maturity in males as opposed to females, homosexuality quickly becomes synonymous with pedophilia. This is exacerbated by the fact that men will "settle for" other men over women if the men have long hair and have shaven their bodies; in other words, have feminized themselves through the process of mimicking younger boys. When homosexuality is associated with pedophilia, heterosexual men react to it more angrily because they feel their male heirs' masculinity is at risk.
4. In many societies, it was considered "manly" to fuck another man in the ass but weak and feminine to be fucked in the ass. This mentality is the origin of modern prison rape. It is difficult to maintain a romantic homosexual relationship when this double standard exists; homosexuality is thus only tolerated as a form of humiliation.
>>482743
You are disgusting did you ever stop to consider that you gross degenerate?
all fag-enabling religions did not survive to this day
read hayek on religion and traditions
>>482802
>What is Buddism
>>482715
People confuse hate with uncomfortable and tolerance with acceptance.
>>482715
Because you literally can't make your civilization progress without heterosexual fucking. Otherwise it will die out in a generation.
Now many civilizations didn't exactly hate it but they didn't encourage it either. Antiquity was probably the most pro-homo age ever, if you ignore the modern times
>>482781
So sick of hearing this bullshit regurgitated by every ezine-reading mongoloid.
First off, in ancient times they didn't have a concept of a sexual identity. They didn't see it as "being gay." Gay sex was something you did, you couldn't "be gay" because that wasn't a thing. Rather, they interpreted things in passive/dominant roles often in the analog of male/female relationships. So if you took in the ass or mouth, you were the "woman" in the relationship, the passive one. If you were the one doing the fucking you could still retain your identity as a man.
Now, in Greece sexual relationships followed this pattern to a T usually. There would be a passive and dominant person. The passive was either a girl or a young boy. It was considered somewhat "acceptable" for a boy to fill a passive role, but an adult man would be an aberration and both parties would be seen as perverts.
In Rome it was a little different. Pederasty was not nearly as commonly accepted, and there was more of a stigma attached to it. It wasn't illegal or anything, nor were there very dire consequences for being known as a boy-buggerer, but let's just say you'd be very easy to tease. Adult homosexual relationships were just as taboo there as in Greece, the indulgences of emperors notwithstanding. If you used the behavior of emperors as the standard you'd have us believing bestiality and pedophilia were widespread and accepted in Rome.
>>482871
Thanks for your informative post I just didn't consider OP worth more than a blatant 'It wasn't always true.'
>>482715
Because homosexuality is abnormal and a million years of evolution has hard-wired humans all over the planet to see this (quite rightly) as a threat to the species.
Regardless of what anyone claims, ALL humans have a instinctual aversion towards homosexuals, just as they would towards an albino or someone who is otherwise physically handicapped; Defective = Dangerous.
You don’t have to teach someone to be “homophobic” but you absolutely have to indoctrinate someone to accept homosexuality.
Now this isn’t to say that a homosexual can’t be a productive member of society but the fact is they have a genetic defect and are not normal.
>>482871
>they fucked men in the ass but it wasn't gay!
>>482776
What's the problem with someone having a mental disorder?
It's not illegal to have ADD. It's not illegal to have OCD. We don't forcibly treat those people to change them.
>>482781
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Neoplatonists had problems with it (the last ones had problems with their own bodies actually)
>>482776
I thought Sam was just doing a really brilliant shtick here like with the 2070 paradigm shift but no these are his unironic opinions.
Kinda ruins the magic a bit.
>>483310
Read his post again then delete yours in shame for your stupidity.
>>482826
a religion that condemns homosexuality for being self-indulgent in material things.
![socrates-hemlock[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/n3nhcOq.jpg "socrates-hemlock[1].jpg")
>>482715
because it's against the norm thefore anti-nature and since it's against nature itself it should be destroyed.
when someone holds power he will want to maintain the status-quo and hold everything and everyone like it was during it's prime so anything that didn't enter this mold is seen as a threat.
so it was always ok to be gay "indoors" but once you starting showing it you're were fucked.
the same principle applies for example to genius, they're agains the norm and anti-nature but if they cooperate with the powers that rule the place they can live or else they will also be "invited" to give up their existance.
I believe the anus is a lot more susceptible to infection when being penetrated by a dick, than the vagina is. I think even the Greeks looked down on sodomy. It's very risky behavior and can lead to diseases and epidemics, and those were not joke in ancient times.
>>482743
>But liberals refuse to consider that they might have been right.
>implying it's not a matter of conservatives refusing to consider that they might be wrong about something for once
>>483784
>because it's against the norm thefore anti-nature and since it's against nature itself it should be destroyed.
wew lad. Conservatism is against the norm and therefore anti-nature and should be destroyed.
Because way back in the day, it wasn't easy to survive, like 50% of kids died in childbirth IIRC. So people not reproducing AT ALL was pretty detrimental to survival.
It's a pretty meaningless thing to hate them now however considering how retardedly populated Earth is now.
>>483784
There's literally not a single thing that humans do that isn't natural. If it exists, it's natural.
>>483923
True but there are aberrations.
> so many cultures and religions thoughout history hated gays?
How many? I think overwhelming majority of cultures were indifferent, some were pro-gay, so to say, and only some few exceptions actively hated/persecuted them.
>>483932
impossible, nothing can happen that wasn't determined to happen by the natural forces
unless you're willing to explain what it means to deviate the observation holds no value
>>483913
yes, it is.
conservatives are just delaying the inevitable - the progress; because they're confortable and want to keep it that way.
but even though i might be considered part of the left wing, i have to say that conservatism is utterly necessary to keep your historical and cultural identity and avoid getting stuck in a global "culture" with all the pros and cons that would follow; since the left is usually too eager to follow the progress path and do it in a disordedly way thus cutting their own roots in the process.
>>483923
everything that isn't part of the norm is anti-nature but that doesn't mean it's wrong - i wasn't being judgemental in my previous post: for example, many claim homosexual is a sin created by humanity but animals do it all the time so it's part of nature itself - but on the other hand is anti-nature since it's a devious behavior since it's not being used as it was meant to be: male & female to breed.
>tl;dr: anti-nature =/= morally wrong
>>484200
>using your lungs to smoke is anti-nature
>using your eyes to watch tv is anti-nature
>using your legs for a massage is anti-nature
can Your argument get any shitier?
>>484208
>can Your argument get any shitier?
Yes, he could always attack you on your grammar.
>>482715
>gays
20TH CENTURY POLITICAL CATEGORY
>>482715
You are thinking of abrahamic religions.
Most religions didn't hate sodomy in any way.
Greeks and Romans didn't think sodomy was wrong in on itself, but the man being penetration would be deemed less masculine than the one doing the penetration.
The Babylonians liked crossdressing and other funny business. They considered that eschewing social norms was part of civilized culture.
The mesoamericans had gods of homosexuality.
A guy that studied Roman sexuality on /r/askhistorians said if a man slept with your wife or raped her you could legally orally rape him in order to get back your dignity. Oral sex was also reserved for slaves since a good Roman would never sully with virtous mouth. Sounded interesting enough.
>>484323
>if a man slept with your wife or raped her you could legally orally rape him in order to get back your dignity
What about the teeth? I wouldn't risk it.
>>484200
new =/= progress
t. not a conservative
>>484327
Well your fellow Patrician bros would help you.
>>484327
>What about the teeth?
Hammer
>>484333
Would the judge be there?
This is kinda hot.
>>484337
Degenerate catamite!
Disease. Scientific method and microscopes weren't around back then. But superstitions collected around things that seemed to affect people negatively. Hence why common symbols warning of disease include rats, ravens, homosexuals, etc.
>>482715
The ancient world overcame short life expectancy with large families. Gays couldn't contribute to the population count and so were treated differently.
>>483978
What do you mean? You act as if genetic defects don't happen.
>>482796
>his hatred is outdated
IT'S 2015
Because people put themselves in the position of gay people and find it disgusting, so they think its wrong.
>implying it's not nature keeping the population down.
>>484240
And the Gallic tribes drowned known gays in a big in the name of one of their gods.
Not all pagans were bumfucking enablers.
Why have so many cultures and religions throughout history loved boys? Is there something we don't know?
>>485052
>And the Gallic tribes drowned known gays in a big in the name of one of their gods.
Well, they were uncouth barbarians.
>>485052
>And the Gallic tribes drowned known gays in a big in the name of one of their gods.
Funny you mention Celts.
"'Despite the fact that their wives are very beautiful, the Celts have very
little to do with them, but instead abandon themselves to a strange passion
for other men. They usually sleep on the ground on skins of wild animals and
tumble about with a bedfellow on either side. And what is strangest of all
is that, without any thought for a natural sense of modesty, they carelessly
surrender their virginity to other man. Far from finding anything shameful
in all this, they feel insulted if anyone refuses the favours they offer."
Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC)
>>482802
>read hayek
>>483436
He is a showman. Regardless of what his fans or even he may say and try to portray. Everything showmen do is exaggerated in order to attract attention to themselves.
Gays aren't common.
On top of that, (and something women don't really understand), men hate gays because they make them feel insecure.
Men view women sexually in a certain way, in a way only men know. The concept of other men viewing them in this manner produces defensive and hostile reactions.
because the process which they go about attaining their frivolous goals ends up ripping apart the dominant culture of a civilization
thanks marx
>>482743
There is literally nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Name one thing that doesn't have to do with "I think it's icky!"
And no, religious objections don't matter.
>>485467
>Name one thing that doesn't have to do with "I think it's icky!"
Literally read the thread.
Because humans will find any reason they can to hate other humans.
Homosexuality found in many other species as well. It's a fact of life and no reason to think less of a person. It might have something to do with those cultures having a taboo on sex in general.
Isn't it strange that nature often makes an oopsie with chromosomes, something that almost guarantees genes will not be passed, but doesn't randomly give someone an extra arm or eye as much? The last one makes more sense for survival, but would be pretty scary in a community of people.
>>485895
>Homosexuality found in many other species as well
That's a horrible argument; Necrophilia, Cannibalism, Rape etc. is found in many other species as well.
>>485920
I wasn't making an argument, but I can discuss it.
In rape or assault, there is a victim. In consented homosexual acts there is no victim. It also increases the happiness of two people.
Does homosexuality spread diseases? Unprotected sex can spread diseases, this doesn't require someone to be gay. Does being gay make you have unprotected sex, losing free will?
Then again, I'm not sure what people are arguing about exactly. Is it gayness itself, gay people or gay acts that are bad?
>>485021
Outdated in the sense that we have soap and way more people than we need, memelord
>>485467
It is a public health hazard and leaches off a nation's healthcare system.
natalism and hygeine it was just optimizing survival. It's fundamentally indulgent and can only be pursued fully when industrialization and technology has allowed for base covering. Even buddhism rejected homosexual priesthood on this grounds.
>>482715
Because they're worse and less worthy than virile family men? It's like asking why bad soldiers or bad students are disliked. Same-sex behavior was tolerated in the ancient world as long as you fulfilled these duties.
>>486169
Buddhist priests reject any sexual thoughts anyway.
On the subject of your image, gayness is due to chromosomes, it's not a mental illness. And those statistics don't imply causation, it might as well be their circumstances in America.
>>486163
>Enlighten me:
If a bunch of ayyrabs started spreading HIV, it would be bioterrorism, but when faggots do it, it is behaviour to be inspired by and deserving to be paraded around on the streets.
>>482871
Are there any books about the subject? How about Pompeii, the writings that survied the volcano seem to imply man on man action to be quite normal.
>Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!
>Secundus likes to screw boys.
Some of the gtaffiti/writing on the walls of Pompeii
>>486269
those are predictive models, and the relationship is not accidental.
And why isn't it one, it was considered to be until the APA got cry cullied in the 70s to remove it. No study has conclusively shown homosexuality to be biodetermined, the cultural persuasion isn't to be overlooked.
>>486274
Me thinks you're more angry at the people applauding faggots than the faggots themselves.
>>486303
well gays like muslims don't do a proper job of policing their movements and let the dykes rise to the top
>>486290
Are you saying people can turn gay and you can predict it? It's scientific fact that it's determined at conception. People can be brainwashed to fool themselves, but that's another matter. Maybe campaign against sexuality brainwashing instead?
>>486341
no homosexuality with respect to those outcomes is predictive, the infidelity,domestic violence, disease and dysfunction is endemic to their community, if you actually cared, you would accept these facts and speculate how to decrease these occurrences.
>campaign against sexuality brainwashing
I would but I'm on campus and don't want to get 86'd by speech codes.
>>482776
Probably has a lot to do with there being so few homosexuals in general, a small count which is narrowed down even further when looking for a partner who would fit you well. A lot of homos are lonely because of this. I'm gay and I live in Sweden. You might think it's optimal, but I live out in the sticks and when I turn on Grindr or Tinder the nearest guys are like 50 and live 35 kms away. Also lets not pretend that life for a gay person even in a liberal country is exactly the same as for a straight person, social expectations and dynamics are different.
>>482997
What a grossly simplified perspective of reality
>>486225
I wonder if they used lube, and then what kind of lube?
>>486469
Spit and oils, I'd guess.
>>482715
it is because doing gay stuff makes you a great warrior, as evident by Sparta, which was full off great warriors who did gay stuff all their life.
>>485467
Its heresy, then.
>>486414
Ah I see what you mean, it's predicting what already occurred. Still, that's correlation, not causation. I accept the fact that those problems exist and that a person being gay increases the chances of them having committed such act. But that does nothing to say being gay is at fault.
>>486509
no one is saying that but it's not an accident they are tandem, for reasons.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/
Just going to leave this here
>>486630
>thinks a foreskin magically makes the anus produce lube.
>>483904
It seems like both sides of the spectrum tend to react to what the opposing side is saying.
It makes much more sense to cal "being gay," as the phrase is commonly used, a choice, something that liberals are afraid to do (because their opponents say the same thing).
On the other hand conservatives don't seem to get that sexual attraction isn't exactly something that needs to stratify people.
>>486630
For buttfucking you need lube. Lots of it.
