So I've been trying to figure out where the very common dislike of homosexuals, especially men comes from. But I'm not coming up with anything really satisfying, so I thought I'd ask you guys since I know at least some of you feel this way to one degree or another.
As a straight guy, since I first heard about the concept of gay it sounded great to me. People who have most of the benefits of men, but they're not going to compete to attract women. If anything they will try to convince others not to compete for women either. It's many of the benefits of eunuchs, but without any drop in testosterone.
But obviously tons of people do not like them, which brings me to my question. Why? I have heard it's unnatural, but that seems weak since so much of what we do in the modern world is unnatural. Is it that men don't like the thought that other men might be looking at them the way we look at women? Is it jealousy that they never have to deal with women in relationships in the same way we do? Is it just that they tend to be flamboyant and annoying irregardless of who they want to fuck?
Or am I missing something else entirely? I'm not looking for a debate or to change anyone's minds about what they think about it/them. Just honestly curious about it all.
FUCK FAGGOTS
FAGGOTS ARE DISEASE THEY SHOULD ALL DIE.
KILL ALL FAGGOTS.
FAGGOTS AND LESBIANS ARE CANCER OF HUMANITY
FAGGOTS,LESBIANS AND TRANNIES ARE SCUM OF EARTH
GOD WILL JUDGE YOU
>>73893724
The fact that fags cannot bear children is a big part of it. I'm fine with lesbians because they can make a family, but fags only adopt which means they cannot be a successful family. Also, marriage was made to protect the family by keeping the two parents locked together to raise the children.
>>73893902
/Thread
>>73893902
But there are plenty of diseases in straight sex too... that doesn't seem like it can be the whole thing.
>Cancer of humanity
I don't even know what that means. Nothing better?
Fags get glassed, it has happened and will happen.
Buggering little boys is important ritual magik; and all propagandized degeneracy are steps to normalize practices of the inter-generational satanic abuse of children.
Such things exist whether you tip your fedora's about it or not.
>>73894327
Okay, but with the world population as high as it is already do we really need everyone to be breeding? Isn't it actually in your genetic best interests to have productive members of society that will do jobs, but not compete with you to spread your genes into the next generation?
That's why I mentions eunuchs. They seem to fill a similar role, but with fewer drawbacks.
>>73894502
So you basically belive that pedo and homo are linked? Honestly I don't think you're correct, but if it's what you believe, that's a good answer.
>>73894726
If that were true everywhere, yes. But in lots of countries, there are too few people, or they can have more people (e.g. Canada, Australia, Japan) In India and China, there are too many people, so it applies there.
>>73895045
I live in Canada and would disagree with it needing more people, but I take your point. Still though, wouldn't you rather have your children be the ones to go on to populate other places? Not other people's?
It's not like we're in danger of going extinct. But the more children you produce vs how many your neighbor produces is an indication of how well your genes will do into the future. Wouldn't one of the better scenarios be that you produce more children than your neighbor? (assuming we keep a functioning gene pool)
>>73895537
Having lots of people have lots of children would fulfil that for everyone - if you and your neighbor have 4 children and one from each family emigrates, that would mean you're showing better genes, and spreading them to strengthen genetic stability.
>>73893724
fear of rape.
