Hi /pol/, find a flaw in this.

>>69348497
You're spook.

>>69348497
And how should queers simply abstain from buggering each other?

Would gay porn be allowed?
Should any sexual encounter always be fueled by viagra and other drugs, as there's literally no way a faggot can get a hard on from a female?

>>69348497
I agree.

Burn the fags now.

>>69350676
do you worry about pedophiles, necrophiles, the incestuous, the polygamous, the cuckolds, the zoophiles... not getting any?
Homosexuality is just another sexual degeneracy and was seen that way before the gay lobby and the cultural marxists launched their multi-decade brainwashing campaign.

>>69348497
>they arent a class
>only refer to them as class identifiers
nice

>>69352005
Yes, because when pedophiles, etc, don't get any, they go out and take some.

It has been proven again and again, that access to pornography lowers the amount of rape or other criminal acts.

If you could never have sex, and were forced to masturbate to, lets say, dolphin vaginas for the rest of your life, would you be content?
That is, assuming you lived in a world were being straight was criminalized.

>>69352103
Calling people who engage in homosexuality homosexuals is no more a class identifier than calling people than engage in pedophilia pedophiles.
The difference in your perception of what I said, and it's because of the successful gay lobby campaign.

>>69352197
I'm talking about real-life sex. Are you talking about porn? Are you suggesting we should legalize pedophilia because pedophile would just rape otherwise?

>>69352471
I'm saying that we should allow outlets for urges that have been proven throughout history to be virtually impossible to simply repress.

There will always be groups of these people wanting to blow their loads.

Either allow them an outlet, or they'll make one themselves.

>>69348497
The only thing I don't see is why homosexuality is a harmful behavior. Overeating (like what I'm doing right now) is harmful, and the consequence is obesity and death, and overeaters take that willingly.

>>69352807
Yeah, and societies that allow that (i.e. not legally banned) and don't even have an anti-[that behavior] awareness campaign, tend to have that behavior become more prevalent. And it's society that bears the costs.

For example, the US (and several other Western countries) now have an obesity pandemic. IIRC, the current obesity rate in the US is 35%. That's a third of the population.
The obese do not pay more in healthcare, but they cost WAY the fuck more. The obese are LITERALLY bankrupting the US healthcare system.

You can say it is either morally right or wrong for one to self-harm or self-destruct. But societies that choose the latter, tend to have those problems grow and consequently wane and get out-competed by societies that choose the former.

For example, it is illegal to not wear a seat belt. In many countries, suicide is illegal.

AND, homosexuality is less comparable to overeating which is a non-sexual behavior, and more comparable to a ton of other socially destructive sexual behaviors.

>>69353332
I don't want to derail too much, but the obvious solution is for the state not to pay for fat people, or anyone, for that matter. Either they will curb to the market forces of obesity being expensive, be more productive to pay for their bad habit, or die.

The ills of homosexuality are increased STD (treat it as their problem, like with obesity), lack of new children being born (which isn't a problem in overcrowded areas). What other ills of homosexuality are there? Degeneracy is degeneracy, yes, but taking it up the ass doesn't prevent one from being an economically productive individual.

>>69348497
>A FUCKING TREE

>>69353696
Letting market forces take care of hamrful behaviors has been tried before and it leads to too much build up of damage before the system eliminates it.
Typically what happens is people experience too much pain and suffer too much damage long before the libertarian system was theoretically going to eliminate the problem under the weight of its own unsustainability, and the people then ask government to step in and fix it. For example, legalizing speculation just as what happened in the early 2000's and lead to the Financial Crisis of 2008. Letting those companies fall and be eliminated by the market's would have done massive amounts of damage to the economy, that would have dwarfed the amount of damage that they had already done.

If a behavior is KNOWN to be harmful, and a small amount of ink on the books, a simple law, is all it takes for it to be reduced to the absolute minimum of frequency of occurrence, then why should we not spend that tiny amount of ink and instead pay the cost of the massive damage that behavior does to society and/or to the economy while that idiotic self-regulating automatic system takes its sweet time eliminating it from the system. The automatic system can ONLY eliminate a harmful behavior AFTER it has done all its damage and then some, and even at that point, the elimination of that behavior is not certain.

Guess what. The idiotic system of market-based morality, since it is amoral and does not enshrine into law guards and checks against immoral behavior, keeps generating NEW instances of immoral behavior even if it did eliminate the old instances.

Besides, the vicious never bear their own weight. They pass on the costs to the virtuous. That's why same-sex marriage was passed, for the virtuous heterosexuals to subsidize homosexuals' life of degeneracy. That's why transsexuals are passing laws for their sex-change operations to be covered by the "cis" taxpayer.

cont

>>69353696
cont
>What other ills of homosexuality
There's too many ills to list here. Incl. sky-high anal cancer rates.
Other ills, dangers and threats incl. it growing, affecting more people, creating its own lobby, changing the definition of marriage.
Passing same-sex marriage does two main things:
-First it is a direct financial subsidy and incentive by heterosexual taxpayers towards homosexuality, homosexual marriages and households which are MASSIVELY unstable and abusive and churn out all sorts of criminals and social problems.
-Sends the message that marriage is not about children, so more heterosexual people gradually start to have more children out of wedlock, which are statistically much less stable environment for kids and have far worse outcomes for the kids as compared to those born in married hetero households.

Lastly, same-sex marriage drastically decreases the social status of marriage, as it something that even homosexuals can have. If it is not about the children and society recognizing the massive undertaking and investment that having and raising children is, then it puts society's recognition of your efforts as not above its recognition and respect for, say, heterosexual one-night-stands.

There's a reason why society and the state recognize and reward lifetime monogamous heterosexual relationships but not heterosexual one-night-stands or homosexual relationships.

>>69355158
>>69355107
Ok, I'll concede.You make sense.