[Samseau]

(11-12-2012 10:52 PM)j r Wrote:  

A couple of things. You're employing a logical fallacy here. There's no reason that homosexual relationships can't be part of "healthy sexual practices," you've just decided to define it a priori as unhealthy. And that is fine by me, I have no desire to force everyone to accept beliefs and practices that they find repugnant. That has to work both ways though.

Homosexuality is unhealthy for the following reasons:

1. Anal sex spreads STDs more than any other type of sex
2. Homosexuals have insane partner counts, spreading STDs even more
3. Homosexuals find young men to be hotter (just like a straight man prefers young women) and homosexuals tend to target young boys who are virgins to try and get them to have their first sexual practice with another man, increasing the odds that they develop homosexual tastes. In this way homosexuals tend to be pedophiles, like Sandusky, more so than heterosexuals, because homosexuals realize that if they get to a boy when he's young they can "turn" him gay.

And no, I don't have "proof" for #3, because our culture is too PC to ever conduct this kind of research. But I have extensive experience with gays due to them hitting on me all the time, my step-brother being gay, and having had a gay roommate, so I know what their culture is like.

Personally I have nothing against gays, but if I were to raise some sons there's no way I'd let homos in the same room with them alone.

Quote:

Also, realistically, how does a modern society effectively ban homosexuality? We've just seen what happens politically to social conservatives. People are only going to spend so much time and energy policing other people's private lives. There's a reason that the most homophobic societies right now also happen to be the most backwards.

You'd have to do it at the town-wide level. For example, a town could ban homosexuals from living in the town, or from them being married, or from them raising children in their communities if they so wished.

OldNemesis Wrote:

This is a very interesting concern considering that you stated you're libertarian but still want to establish the Nazi-style control about which consensual adults can have sex with each others, and which cannot.

First off, there are many types of libertarians, but I would call myself a Communitarian-Libertarian.

Communitarian-Libertarian means promoting decentralized government, and putting power at the bottom of the structure - at the town level - so that if people wanted to ban homos from their community they could do so.

Communitarian-Libertarian would oppose the federal government from banning gays all across America, but they would not oppose banning gays in just one town.

Communitarian-Libertarian is a political philosophy, not a ethical one.

Quote:

I wouldn't call you intolerant. Instead I'd ask you why do you care?
I really can't understand why American people like so much to peek into each others' bedrooms. In Europe this just doesn't happen.

I'd never want to raise my kids in a community with freaks fucking animals and their own family members.

[Excelsior]

(11-13-2012 01:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Homosexuality is unhealthy for the following reasons:

1. Anal sex spreads STDs more than any other type of sex

Just leaving this here real quick...

[oldnemesis]

(11-13-2012 01:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Homosexuality is unhealthy for the following reasons:
1. Anal sex spreads STDs more than any other type of sex
2. Homosexuals have insane partner counts, spreading STDs even more
3. Homosexuals find young men to be hotter (just like a straight man prefers young women) and homosexuals tend to target young boys who are virgins to try and get them to have their first sexual practice with another man, increasing the odds that they develop homosexual tastes. In this way homosexuals tend to be pedophiles, like Sandusky, more so than heterosexuals, because homosexuals realize that if they get to a boy when he's young they can "turn" him gay.

Your logic here is really flawed:

1. Not all homos do anal, and a lot of straight people do it too. If this is a real concern, then the government should ban anal sex altogether. The issue here is anal sex, not homosexuality.

2. Same as above, some straight people have insane partner counts as well. The issue here is many sexual partners, not homosexuality.

As you see, the pattern you developed is "gays do X, and X is bad, so gays should be banned" instead of "X should be banned"

3. It is not possible to develop homosexual tastes, you either have them, or you do not. However even if this was the case, the government cannot be in business of enforcing people's sexual orientation, exactly the same way the government cannot decide which religion you should follow.

Quote:

And no, I don't have "proof" for #3, because our culture is too PC to ever conduct this kind of research.

The studies have been conducted already, and it was even cited in a few recent court cases. You probably should at least get familiar with them assuming you really want to learn about how the things work.

Quote:

Personally I have nothing against gays, but if I were to raise some sons there's no way I'd let homos in the same room with them alone.

Just make sure you keep them away from a church, the churches here in US seem to be full of pedo homos.

Quote:

You'd have to do it at the town-wide level. For example, a town could ban homosexuals from living in the town, or from them being married, or from them raising children in their communities if they so wished.

Communitarian-Libertarian means promoting decentralized government, and putting power at the bottom of the structure - at the town level - so that if people wanted to ban homos from their community they could do so.

I know it, this is called "direct democracy", but more particularly it is called "mob rule". Just let me clarify:

- If the people want to ban blacks from their community, should they be able to do so as well?
- Or ban married interracial couples (or even anyone non-white) from living in the town?
- Or have death penalty for the men who hit on the town women?
- Or have the right to rob bypassers who go through the town?

Just trying to see where your limits are, if any.

Quote:

I'd never want to raise my kids in a community with freaks fucking animals and their own family members.

Well, you have no way to prevent it. Hopefully you're not so naive to think it doesn't happen right now in YOUR community just because it is not legal. Just look at all those pillars of morals got caught molesting children.

[oldnemesis]

(11-13-2012 12:59 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

At least gays can get married in certain parts of the US while Mormons cannot have a polygamous marriage in any part of the country - a legal one anyways.

The main issue with legalizing polygamy is the legal framework around marriage, which is tied up to the assumption that you can be only married to one person. Just a few things to think about:

1. Chained polygamy - assume a dude A married two chicks, B and C. Now a chick C wants to also marry two dudes, D and E. This means the dude A is kinda married to two other dudes while he didn't give the consent to that. Consider the legal rule of shared spousal debt, and you'll get the idea.

2. Add/remove issue - if someone in the family wants to also marry someone else, should it be all-allow or any-allow? And if dude A wants to drop chick B out of family, but chick C likes her and wants her to stay (and wants dude A to stay too), should she be able to prevent this?

3. Limit/immigration - should be there any limits? Could I go to Philippines, marry like 20,000 girls and bring them to the US with me as my spouses?

Now each of those issues may be worked around, but this will create some other issues in return.

[Dillon]

On a lighter note:

http://jezebel.com/5959605/prudish-mothe...s-vibrator

[Samseau]

(11-14-2012 02:32 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Homosexuality is unhealthy for the following reasons:
1. Anal sex spreads STDs more than any other type of sex
2. Homosexuals have insane partner counts, spreading STDs even more
3. Homosexuals find young men to be hotter (just like a straight man prefers young women) and homosexuals tend to target young boys who are virgins to try and get them to have their first sexual practice with another man, increasing the odds that they develop homosexual tastes. In this way homosexuals tend to be pedophiles, like Sandusky, more so than heterosexuals, because homosexuals realize that if they get to a boy when he's young they can "turn" him gay.

Your logic here is really flawed:

1. Not all homos do anal, and a lot of straight people do it too. If this is a real concern, then the government should ban anal sex altogether. The issue here is anal sex, not homosexuality.

2. Same as above, some straight people have insane partner counts as well. The issue here is many sexual partners, not homosexuality.

As you see, the pattern you developed is "gays do X, and X is bad, so gays should be banned" instead of "X should be banned"

3. It is not possible to develop homosexual tastes, you either have them, or you do not. However even if this was the case, the government cannot be in business of enforcing people's sexual orientation, exactly the same way the government cannot decide which religion you should follow.

1. Less than 1%?

2. Straight people don't even hold a candle to the average homo... from what I've been told by homo's low partner counts are around 50-60 partners by age 24.

I was at the STD clinic a few weeks ago (I'm clean). She asked me how many partners I had in the past year, and I asked the clinician how my partner count compared to other partner counts.

She told me, "Well, some guys have hundreds of partners each year. One guy recently came in with over 1000."

Then I said, "Don't include gays."

She then said, "Oh... around 2-3."


There's no comparison between gay life and straight life. Fags love to fuck, and they fuck all the time, whenever they want, with whoever they want, and the reasons are obvious.

Gays are like straight men, in that they prefer youth and beauty. So whenever two young gays meet, odds are good they will fuck.

3. So why haven't they found the gay gene(s) yet? Have you ever tried to interview any gays? I have, and I've had a few tell me their childhood abuse stories:

Quote:

Existing cross-sectional research suggests associations between physical and sexual abuse in childhood and same-sex sexual orientation in adulthood.

Quote:

Quote:

And no, I don't have "proof" for #3, because our culture is too PC to ever conduct this kind of research.

The studies have been conducted already, and it was even cited in a few recent court cases. You probably should at least get familiar with them assuming you really want to learn about how the things work.

Where are your court cases that show otherwise?

Fact is, all the evidence suggests that gayness is both a product of genetics and environment - that's why the ancient Greeks openly practiced homosexuality, because it was a learned behavior from older males to younger ones.

Quote:

Quote:

You'd have to do it at the town-wide level. For example, a town could ban homosexuals from living in the town, or from them being married, or from them raising children in their communities if they so wished.

Communitarian-Libertarian means promoting decentralized government, and putting power at the bottom of the structure - at the town level - so that if people wanted to ban homos from their community they could do so.

I know it, this is called "direct democracy", but more particularly it is called "mob rule". Just let me clarify:

- If the people want to ban blacks from their community, should they be able to do so as well?
- Or ban married interracial couples (or even anyone non-white) from living in the town?
- Or have death penalty for the men who hit on the town women?
- Or have the right to rob bypassers who go through the town?

Just trying to see where your limits are, if any.

Nope, it's not direct-democracy, democracy only plays a part.

First, people still have their basic rights. Second, no community should be able to ban people who already live there. They may have the right to exclude new types from coming in, but someone already living in a community has the right to stay or leave.

Third, if some group of racists wanted to go make their own town and then forbid anyone without certain racial characteristics from joining, then that is their right to do so.

It's really no different than this forum excluding any women from joining.

Quote:

Quote:

I'd never want to raise my kids in a community with freaks fucking animals and their own family members.

Well, you have no way to prevent it. Hopefully you're not so naive to think it doesn't happen right now in YOUR community just because it is not legal. Just look at all those pillars of morals got caught molesting children.

The point is, even if it does occur, my community will back me up and get rid of the undesirables.

[Wutang]

(11-14-2012 02:45 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 12:59 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

At least gays can get married in certain parts of the US while Mormons cannot have a polygamous marriage in any part of the country - a legal one anyways.

The main issue with legalizing polygamy is the legal framework around marriage, which is tied up to the assumption that you can be only married to one person. Just a few things to think about:

1. Chained polygamy - assume a dude A married two chicks, B and C. Now a chick C wants to also marry two dudes, D and E. This means the dude A is kinda married to two other dudes while he didn't give the consent to that. Consider the legal rule of shared spousal debt, and you'll get the idea.

2. Add/remove issue - if someone in the family wants to also marry someone else, should it be all-allow or any-allow? And if dude A wants to drop chick B out of family, but chick C likes her and wants her to stay (and wants dude A to stay too), should she be able to prevent this?

3. Limit/immigration - should be there any limits? Could I go to Philippines, marry like 20,000 girls and bring them to the US with me as my spouses?

Now each of those issues may be worked around, but this will create some other issues in return.

Fair enough but it seems like most people who are against polygamy aren't against it because of the legal issues but rather because they find it dis-tasteful for whatever reason. The institution of marriage has taken a huge hit in the last 20 years or so but the general public does still seem to believe that ideal romantic relations involve two people that have made a social pact between on another. The reason the gay movement has been so successful recently is that they've managed to successfully recast gay relations in the public eye as essentially the same thing as a committed monogamous relationship between a man and woman as opposed to the orgy of promiscuity that it was viewed as before.

And Samseau - if you reed the book The Red Queen there is actually a section where it mentions a study that was done on the sexual behavior of gays and lesbians in San Francisco. Lesbians tend to have a very low average amount of partners through out their life time (I believe the number was 4) while gays had similar numbers to what you mentioned. A good percentage were in the hundreds.

[oldnemesis]

You seem to miss the main point, which is that you can only outlaw the specific behavior, not the lifestyle. It doesn't matter that you don't know how many gays do anal versus the straight people. And it doesn't matter that your information about the number of sexual partners came from a ridiculous source (why would a gay dude who doesn't fuck anyone go to an STD test clinics at all?)

Regarding gay gene, I take it as you don't really know genetics, so here's an explanation: a lot of things are encoded by the combination of genes going some specific way. Sexual orientation seem to be one of those. Unfortunately there are too many combinations, and it is damn difficult job to find out the proper one (you basically have to brute force it which requires a lot of samples and a lot of computing). Give the scientists some time and they'll find out.

Regarding abuse, the empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This page also refers to some "conservative studies" which has been found out being fake. A few of them have even been mentioned in the Judge Walker's ruling in Perry vs Brown; have you ever read it?

Ancient Greece is a laughable argument at best. "Practicing homosexuality" doesn't make one gay. You're not going to turn gay because some dude sucked your dick twice a day for a week. Same way the lesbian won't turn straight if a dude fucks her for a month.

Now to your "libertarian ideology":

Quote:

Nope, it's not direct-democracy, democracy only plays a part.
First, people still have their basic rights. Second, no community should be able to ban people who already live there.
Third, if some group of racists wanted to go make their own town and then forbid anyone without certain racial characteristics from joining, then that is their right to do so.

So it's kind of "grandfathered" mob rule, where some people are "better" than others just because they happened to live there earlier. Then I'll ask you a question I ask all the libertarian people I've met: why you guys don't put together some money, buy some land somewhere in the US, and establish the libertarian community there? Like putting your money where your mouth is.

Quote:

It's really no different than this forum excluding any women from joining.

No, it is. Same way as you cannot refuse service to someone just because he's black, but you are completely fine to refuse a black person to enter your home because he's black.

Quote:

The point is, even if it does occur, my community will back me up and get rid of the undesirables.

Maybe, once they learn. Or maybe not, if the dude doing it is bringing 70% of the community income and owns the whole town, while you're an average Joe renting your apartment from him.

[oldnemesis]

(11-14-2012 02:31 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Fair enough but it seems like most people who are against polygamy aren't against it because of the legal issues but rather because they find it dis-tasteful for whatever reason.

This doesn't matter. The courts in EU and US have said that you cannot outlaw a behavior just because you don't like it. Even if you really, really don't like it. There must be a governmental purpose. So if you want to have it legalized, focus on governmental issues, not on the people's dislikes.

[ColSpanker]

"Regarding gay gene, I take it as you don't really know genetics, so here's an explanation: a lot of things are encoded by the combination of genes going some specific way. Sexual orientation seem to be one of those. Unfortunately there are too many combinations, and it is damn difficult job to find out the proper one (you basically have to brute force it which requires a lot of samples and a lot of computing). Give the scientists some time and they'll find out."

So what you are saying is that the gay gene has not been discovered? But that it will be discovered? What scientific research is going on to discover the location of this as-of-yet undiscovered gene?

[Wutang]

(11-14-2012 05:12 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-14-2012 02:31 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Fair enough but it seems like most people who are against polygamy aren't against it because of the legal issues but rather because they find it dis-tasteful for whatever reason.

This doesn't matter. The courts in EU and US have said that you cannot outlaw a behavior just because you don't like it. Even if you really, really don't like it. There must be a governmental purpose. So if you want to have it legalized, focus on governmental issues, not on the people's dislikes.

That's my view as well. It's why I believe bestiality, polygamy, incest, and pretty much every other behavior should also be legalized if homosexuality is. And like you pointed out - there are legal issues associated with polygamy but they could be worked around. Aren't the the welfare and well-being of polygamists more important then some legal paperwork?

And I do truly believe that most people are against polygamists not because of any legal issues that would result from it being legalized but simply because they have a personal dislike for the idea. What I was criticizing was the contradiction between championing homosexual relations as an paragon of modern and progressive relationships in the 21st century - almost idealizing them in a way but at the same time looking down on polygamists as weirdos. I don't think anyone can deny that polygamists gets a much more harsh rap from our culture then homosexuals.

[Samseau]

OldNemesis Wrote:

You seem to miss the main point, which is that you can only outlaw the specific behavior, not the lifestyle.

Do you somehow believe that the behavior and lifestyle aren't attached?

Quote:

And it doesn't matter that your information about the number of sexual partners came from a ridiculous source

I cited multiple sources, one of which was an STD clinician.

The clinician in particular is interesting because even though more promiscuous people are more likely to come in for STD testing, promiscuous gays are off the charts for partner counts, whereas promiscuous straights can have their partner counts listed on one hand.

Quote:

Regarding gay gene, I take it as you don't really know genetics, so here's an explanation: a lot of things are encoded by the combination of genes going some specific way.

Read my posts for comprehension, please:

Samseau Wrote:

So why haven't they found the gay gene(s) yet?

And even if they find the gay genes, it still won't change the fact that gays can be made if they are molested as children. It seems to me that gayness comes both from genetic and environmental factors.

Quote:

Regarding abuse, the empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This page also refers to some "conservative studies" which has been found out being fake. A few of them have even been mentioned in the Judge Walker's ruling in Perry vs Brown; have you ever read it?

This is a quote directly from the article you linked me:

Quote:

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

Thus the current science on this matter is inconclusive. I would say the scientists aren't approaching the problem in the right manner either.

Scientists should run their sexual attraction tests (with the hookups motoring genital blood flow) by using images of teenage boys, not pre-puberty boys. I can guarantee you the results will be drastically different. The same way straight men can find 15 year old girls to be sexy is true of homos viewing 15 year old boys.

Quote:

Then I'll ask you a question I ask all the libertarian people I've met: why you guys don't put together some money, buy some land somewhere in the US, and establish the libertarian community there? Like putting your money where your mouth is.

Because the Federal Government would crack down on the place for not paying any taxes and businesses that used the freedom of association rule.

Wutang Wrote:

And Samseau - if you reed the book The Red Queen there is actually a section where it mentions a study that was done on the sexual behavior of gays and lesbians in San Francisco. Lesbians tend to have a very low average amount of partners through out their life time (I believe the number was 4) while gays had similar numbers to what you mentioned. A good percentage were in the hundreds.

It's funny how people act shocked when it's mentioned how promiscuous gays are, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of human nature - i.e. men are hornier than women.

[Moma]

Samseau is right regarding the gay promiscuity. My ex used to mess around with women and she said gay men bang like crazy. The gay culture is a hook up culture. Men don't play games when it comes to getting ass.

Also, saying that not all homos practice anal is absurd. What else can a homo do besides drill another dude up the Gary Glitter?

[Wutang]

What stops heterosexual men from banging all the women they want? Women. Most women are not willing to go along with the program. With homosexual men it's different as they are going after men rather then women and men tend to be more up for random, emotionless sex.

[oldnemesis]

(11-14-2012 08:22 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Also, saying that not all homos practice anal is absurd. What else can a homo do besides drill another dude up the Gary Glitter?

You can't be serious.

[oldnemesis]

(11-14-2012 06:38 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

That's my view as well. It's why I believe bestiality, polygamy, incest, and pretty much every other behavior should also be legalized if homosexuality is. And like you pointed out - there are legal issues associated with polygamy but they could be worked around. Aren't the the welfare and well-being of polygamists more important then some legal paperwork?

Yep, they could be worked around. But someone has to do it. Polygamists should not expect their Jesus-praying representatives and puritanical neighbors do this for them.

[oldnemesis]

(11-14-2012 08:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Do you somehow believe that the behavior and lifestyle aren't attached?

Nope. Looks like you're still not getting it: there are some gay females too. Not sure if they even do anal sex, but even if they do it's quite safe for them.
But again this is irrelevant, because you cannot outlaw the lifestyle, just the behavior.

Quote:

The clinician in particular is interesting because even though more promiscuous people are more likely to come in for STD testing, promiscuous gays are off the charts for partner counts, whereas promiscuous straights can have their partner counts listed on one hand.

You do understand that your "source" is basically quoting the rumors from the third parties?

Quote:

Read my posts for comprehension, please:

Samseau Wrote:

So why haven't they found the gay gene(s) yet?

You didn't figure it out. There may be no isolated gay gene/genes. Same genes which would be responsible for sexual orientation may, for example, be responsible for a lot of other things such as creativity, potency, chance of early hair loss, pace of aging, immunity to certain types of diseases and so on. There may be no fixed set of "gay gene/genes" at all.

Quote:

And even if they find the gay genes, it still won't change the fact that gays can be made if they are molested as children.

Fact is something which is established and proven. Nobody has proven that yet.
BTW, if the teenager male is molested by a female (or a girl is molested by a male), do you think they turn gay too? Or it is just extension of your belief that you can become gay if a dude fucks you in the ass?

Quote:

I would say the scientists aren't approaching the problem in the right manner either. Scientists should run their sexual attraction tests (with the hookups motoring genital blood flow) by using images of teenage boys, not pre-puberty boys. I can guarantee you the results will be drastically different.

And what it is supposed to prove? That there are gay pedos as well as straight pedos? You don't need any test for that. Just look at Catholic Church, a lot of its pastors preferred boys.

Quote:

Because the Federal Government would crack down on the place for not paying any taxes and businesses that used the freedom of association rule.

Why wouldn't you pay taxes? That'd be free income for you as you'd be like most Red states, which receive more federal tax dollars than they give in taxes. We in CA and our friends in NY wouldn't probably mind supporting another bunch of people seeking freedom at our expense. You'd have to negotiate with your non-libertarian neighbors anyway, right?

Sure, you won't achieve true independence right away from the start. But at least this would be a start - and considering how many people vote libertarian this is actually the only way you can achieve anything at all.

Quote:

It's funny how people act shocked when it's mentioned how promiscuous gays are

It's funny that some people forget that a gay person may be not only male, but also female.

[Dalaran1991]

I'm starting to get seriously worried with the degeneracy in the West.

The other day on my Facebook there was a huge discussion about incest acceptance. My friend tried desperately to explain how it is morally and socially unacceptable, the leftists wouldn't hear it: if they are two consenting adults, why does it matter?

What's next on the list? Necrophilia? Pedophilia? Cannibalism?

[Vanguard]

Delete

[Gustavus Adolphus]

(11-15-2012 04:21 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

there are some gay females too.

Quote:

Fact is something which is established and proven.

Quote:

It's funny how people act shocked when it's mentioned how promiscuous gays are

Quote:

It's funny that some people forget that a gay person may be not only male, but also female.

Old Nemesis: I clipped a bunch of your conversation, but I am curious to your current thoughts. Obviously, this is an old post with a recent bump. Do you have a new perspective several years later?

My recent case study of 1 does not prove anything, but it is still an experience that was true. Not hypothetical. My current belief (until proven otherwise) is there are very few true lesbians. I think most are simply emotional vampires that can be turned less bisexual for a brief period of time before going back into their mind's devotion (reason unknown). Sometimes this devotion is clandestine or overt, but they observe and desire a specific human trait that when shown by a man is repulsive. So they defer to women. That being said, they are willing to forgo this devotion if superior mating characteristics are presented, as this chemical process and subsequent actions are done 'in the moment' and do not count towards the complete nature of said lesbian persona.

EDIT: Old Nemesis hasn't posted since 2012. I assume it would be rather pointless to hope for a response.

[Tim in real life]

While a lot of people about homosexuality (to the point even women hamster, "gay guys are my competition"), I can't believe a lot of people missed out on how obsessing over zombies is necrophilia.

Now, using the original Greek meaning of the word:

"necro-" = dead
"philia" = obsession; doesn't have to be sexual

No wonder the DSM won't classify obsession over zombies as necrophilia.

[MKDAWUSS]

(10-04-2015 10:37 PM)Vanguard Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 08:38 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

I'm starting to get seriously worried with the degeneracy in the West.

The other day on my Facebook there was a huge discussion about incest acceptance. My friend tried desperately to explain how it is morally and socially unacceptable, the leftists wouldn't hear it: if they are two consenting adults, why does it matter?

What's next on the list? Necrophilia? Pedophilia? Cannibalism?

Liberals are logically obligated to support incest. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to legitimize their fervent backing of homosexuality. This is why the legalization of gay marriage at the federal level is so dangerous. Now, the Supreme Court would have to legalize incest and polygamy in order to be consist with the current law.

I like to bring that argument up just to watch these "equal and inclusive" people flip to inconsistent bigots in mere moments.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I understand that people don't like to watch homosexuality between two gays and find it revolting.

However I wouldn't want to criminalize it and have Oscar-Wilde times return or see ISIS psychos throw off some gay guy off a roof.

What is a fact is that homosexuality is endemic to humanity. A small part of the human population was and will be gay. However for the majority or at least 50% of the homosexuals now it's more created via circumstance - low T-count, toxic food, lack of nutrients during pregnancy, sexual abuse, promotion of homosexuality, no other choice (incel) etc.

What's wrong in our current system is not homosexuality, but the fact that it is promoted and you have to love it or otherwise you lose your job and are a hate-monger. Of course it should be illegal to hit them just because they are gay.

Now as far as the next points on the social change agenda:

Pedophilia will start harmless with the lowering of the age of consent to legitimate levels of 16, but then those psychos will continue until age zero - that's where McKinsey tested too - he actually paid pedophiles to sexually arouse toddlers.

Next along the same line will be incest along the lines of "Why not, if we don't have kids?" The question becomes even more insidious if you couple it with pedophilia and father merrily fucking his 10 year old daughter and she thinking that it's perfectly normal. It's not - it's not good at any age.

The same will go for the rest:

+ Bestiality
+ Necrophilia
+ Cannibalism
+ Snuff - killing during and after sex

This "everything goes" mentality will go on as long as the same powers rule our world.

[Horus]

(10-05-2015 03:46 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Pedophilia will start harmless with the lowering of the age of consent to legitimate levels of 16, but then those psychos will continue until age zero - that's where McKinsey tested too - he actually paid pedophiles to sexually arouse toddlers.

What's this about? I couldn't find anything on Google.

[Horus]

Dupe.