[Apollo21]

My first concern would be whether they have 10 fingers and 10 toes
and no birth defects...then raising him or her with the right values.

The next major concern is them getting an education and a job so
they're not still living at home when they're 30.

As long as they do that they can do whatever they want.

[BrewDog]

(03-12-2017 03:22 AM)McCarthy Wrote:  

I did not know there were so many pro-faggot people, here. Jeez, even in a masculinist forumboard the marxist gay gender is floating around.

Spectrum, impressive video.

Indifference towards something doesn't mean you're pro-anything. I don't give a single fuck about the NBA but it doesn't bother me that it exists. I don't wish them any ill, and if a friend confessed to me that he were a pro basketball player, I'd tell him, "That's fine man. I don't give a shit either way."

And libertarians are the complete opposite of Marxists. We just see real problems in the world, and two men holding hands doesn't harm me in any fashion just like my neighbor hitting a bong next door doesn't affect me either. Fuck, I'll go even further... I wish there were fags everywhere because that would mean ALL the pussy for me.

It's completely illogical to believe, "Well, my son was born with his brain on the outside of his skull, but at least he's not a cocksucker! Atta boy!" Some people have their priorities wrong.

[McCarthy]

(03-12-2017 02:30 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 03:22 AM)McCarthy Wrote:  

I did not know there were so many pro-faggot people, here. Jeez, even in a masculinist forumboard the marxist gay gender is floating around.

Spectrum, impressive video.

Indifference towards something doesn't mean you're pro-anything. I don't give a single fuck about the NBA but it doesn't bother me that it exists. I don't wish them any ill, and if a friend confessed to me that he were a pro basketball player, I'd tell him, "That's fine man. I don't give a shit either way."

And libertarians are the complete opposite of Marxists. We just see real problems in the world, and two men holding hands doesn't harm me in any fashion just like my neighbor hitting a bong next door doesn't affect me either. Fuck, I'll go even further... I wish there were fags everywhere because that would mean ALL the pussy for me.

It's completely illogical to believe, "Well, my son was born with his brain on the outside of his skull, but at least he's not a cocksucker! Atta boy!" Some people have their priorities wrong.

I am a militant libertarian. Not everything that does not (apparently) harm me, needs to be tolerated. I think further than that, especially taking into consideration how this marxist gender agenda is ALREADY affecting my "heterosexual" (I would say normal) life and family prospects and long term stability.

[BrewDog]

(03-12-2017 04:13 PM)McCarthy Wrote:  

I am a militant libertarian. Not everything that does not (apparently) harm me, needs to be tolerated. I think further than that, especially taking into consideration how this marxist gender agenda is ALREADY affecting my "heterosexual" (I would say normal) life and family prospects and long term stability.

I think that's quite a differing view of libertarianism than the one I've experienced. Normally a libertarian just wishes to be left alone and gives others the same freedom to live their own lives as they please as long as they don't infringe upon others.

I tried to think of a time where a gay or lesbian harmed me somehow, and I simply can't. I don't like to see two men kiss in public, but it doesn't harm me in any fashion. I don't want to see fat people kissing either, but I haven't developed a hatred for fat people just because I think it's displeasing to see them make out. Nor would I lobby my government to crack down on them.

Hatred for strangers is a worthless emotion. No homo has ever been adversely affected by your dislike for them. It only affects you personally to seethe and stew in anger about people you don't even know.

The only people that are dangerous to my well being, freedoms, and enjoyment of my life are the people that continually interfere with those things (government). Because I'm a steadfast libertarian that believes in true liberty, I understand that it's important to let others live their own lives freely, too, even if I don't agree with their choices. If we give our government the power to infringe upon certain groups of people, then it won't be long before the government will assert the power to control all of us. And that's the real danger to my enjoyment of my quality of living. Not two men kissing.

On the upside, more homos = more hot bitches for Brewdog.

[McCarthy]

(03-12-2017 05:56 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 04:13 PM)McCarthy Wrote:  

I am a militant libertarian. Not everything that does not (apparently) harm me, needs to be tolerated. I think further than that, especially taking into consideration how this marxist gender agenda is ALREADY affecting my "heterosexual" (I would say normal) life and family prospects and long term stability.

I think that's quite a differing view of libertarianism than the one I've experienced. Normally a libertarian just wishes to be left alone and gives others the same freedom to live their own lives as they please as long as they don't infringe upon others.

I tried to think of a time where a gay or lesbian harmed me somehow, and I simply can't. I don't like to see two men kiss in public, but it doesn't harm me in any fashion. I don't want to see fat people kissing either, but I haven't developed a hatred for fat people just because I think it's displeasing to see them make out. Nor would I lobby my government to crack down on them.

Hatred for strangers is a worthless emotion. No homo has ever been adversely affected by your dislike for them. It only affects you personally to seethe and stew in anger about people you don't even know.

The only people that are dangerous to my well being, freedoms, and enjoyment of my life are the people that continually interfere with those things (government). Because I'm a steadfast libertarian that believes in true liberty, I understand that it's important to let others live their own lives freely, too, even if I don't agree with their choices. If we give our government the power to infringe upon certain groups of people, then it won't be long before the government will assert the power to control all of us. And that's the real danger to my enjoyment of my quality of living. Not two men kissing.

On the upside, more homos = more hot bitches for Brewdog.

You reason like a woman. You will be stepped on. But no pussy to offer from your part. That’s why we men think differently.

By the way, more gay-gender agenda = fatter women + more "lesbians" = less hot bitches for Brewdog. I don’t know if you have ever thought about that.
Enjoy your "hot bitches"!
http://www.returnofkings.com/114644/27-a...f-feminism

[infowarrior1]

(03-12-2017 05:51 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:51 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Sodomy was equivalent in previous generations to pedophile/rapist/Hitler/baby eating devil etc.

Oral sex was once considered deviant as well, want to go back to sex through a hole in the sheet?
[/quote]

An observation and hypothesis based on that observation.


Giving up oral sex is fine. Since the gains in morality and healthy femininity far outweighs it.

As for sex through a hole in the sheet it almost never happened in the context of marriage.

[McCarthy]

(03-12-2017 06:08 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 05:51 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 11:51 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Sodomy was equivalent in previous generations to pedophile/rapist/Hitler/baby eating devil etc.

Oral sex was once considered deviant as well, want to go back to sex through a hole in the sheet?

Giving up oral sex is fine. Since the gains in morality and healthy femininity far outweighs it.

As for sex through a hole in the sheet it almost never happened in the context of marriage.
[/quote]

Actually, this recent trend on anal is due to (Jewish gay) porn. But hey, let them be gay, they do "no harm" on us!

[BrewDog]

(03-12-2017 06:07 PM)McCarthy Wrote:  

You reason like a woman. You will be stepped on. But no pussy to offer from your part. That’s why we men think differently.

[infowarrior1]

Quote:

A common argument for homo acceptance is the following: “Why do you care how two gays live or whether they want to get married?” Because their lifestyle is spreading a virus that can kill people who aren’t gay. Society should rightfully accept that homosexual men are the bringers of death, a sort of grim reaper wrapped up in fuzzy progressive packaging.

http://www.returnofkings.com/39739/male-...lth-threat

[911]

Great handle McCarthy, way to rehabilitate a figure that is arguably the most unfairly maligned American senator of all time.

[McCarthy]

(03-12-2017 09:09 PM)911 Wrote:  

Great handle McCarthy, way to rehabilitate a figure that is arguably the most unfairly maligned American senator of all time.

Appreciated. 60 years later, we are now with campuses and Hollywood plenty of pro-gay communists.
For those who want to know more:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/212053/s...rvey-klehr

[Nowak]

The whole Milo drama and his compulsions as well as that of George Takei have definitely Red Pilled me much more than before on homosexuality, especially male homosexuality. I agree with the system or model here in Eastern Europe. We don't throw gays off buildings like under Sharia but people need to self regulate. Homosexuality ,even if its natural is a compulsion. Just like pedophilia and other weird fetishes people have had since mankind walked this planet. Anything harmful for society and the family needs to be shunned and shamed.

If I had a gay son I'd be more worried about personality deficits and issues that are highly correlated with homosexuality rather than just being gay in itself.

I'd educate him on the real world and do my best to instill positive low time preference behavior

[crispytaco]

I have a huge "family in law" and many years ago I noticed one of the kids around 6 years old liked all the things girls usually like at that time, unlike his brothers. I thought "this kid might be gay". It turns out I was right. However he has been a very good student, intelligent, with good maners, loves his family and he is starting his own business living a totally successful life.

I have a daughter that looks very straigth, but if turns out she is gay, I would be dissapointed about not having grand children, but she will have my support and guide so she can have a successfull and happy life. I know couple gays that never had family support and are now crack addicts cross-dressed, while others that received care and guidance, while still have the same sexual preference, they are now successful people (2 doctors, 1 engineer, 1 pro athlete, 3 business owners).

So summarizing, parenthood is not about accepting or not. There is a responsability to rise the child in the right direction, dammit

[Lunostrelki]

As long as his reproductive organs are functioning, I'd expect my son to get married and have kids. If he does not work towards this then he will receive a proportionately smaller portion of my time and money.

[Thrill Jackson]

I would accept him.

But as far as accepting him wearing short shorts, makeup, lipgloss, thats a different story...

Also, I still expect him to have kids. If he has to adopt so be it, but we are keeping this family tree alive damn it.

[BelyyTigr]

Actually, this would be one of my worst nightmares.

Homosexuality is an illness caused by endocrine disruptors, pyschological trauma and the endless brainwashing propaganda of the Establishment and their puppets. Its also entirely treatable.

I would prime him (or her, re dykes) against propaganda on TV and especially in schools.
Perhaps one method would be to take him to Auchwitz or someone to explain that even tho governments look "respectable", they are capable of pure evil, like some individuals. And capable of brainwashing others into evil. Hopefully that would make my child guarded against sickness being indoctrinated into him/her.

Homosexuals are just 5% of the British population, but account for nearly 25% of reported sexual assaults. God knows how many more go unreported! I have known of many male homosoexuals who engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards children. But I've only known of such behaviour heterosexually once.

I would consider homosexual relationships a betrayal of my family and a huge personal insult. Female recreational bisexuality is ok, but NOT lesbian relationships. Male homosexuality is just outright creepy.

I'd pay for mental health treatment for a homosexual. And also toxin treatment re endocrine disruptors.
But other than that I would treat them the same as a paedophile or weirdo that goes round on his hands and knees with a gimp mask and doglead.

I would do everything I could to cure them. Including breaking off contact, and telling them the truth that our sicko media covers up.

[stugatz]

Accept, no. Tolerate, probably. Our relationship would be strained and I doubt we'd talk much, though.

[Jameson Ranger]

Thats a tough one... at first glance i wanna say, "Sure, be gay kid. Have fun." Imagine myself cracking the occasional gay joke at his expense and leaving him to be happy. Then the mind wanders. What if he's "super gay." Now, I'm fully aware of how stupid that sounds, but you know what i mean. Super lispy, flamboyant and spending every minute being loud (not just audibly). Pushing the limits when my straight friends come by. Watching them have legitimate bloodline grandchildren. Becoming the butt of the occasional gay joke I'd have been throwing out... and the answer becomes absolutely not. Not in this house.

[Uruz]

(04-01-2017 09:34 PM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  

I would accept him.

But as far as accepting him wearing short shorts, makeup, lipgloss, thats a different story...

Also, I still expect him to have kids. If he has to adopt so be it, but we are keeping this family tree alive damn it.

I don't know what is worse, to accept him or to except faggot to "father" fucking children. I am surprised that this shit is even legal. Just make another son, it should not be that hard, just people talk shit.

I don't understand reasoning of most people above, its quite clear that most would accept a faggot but would not accept a faggot that wants to cut his dick of. Too liberal and the worst part is that you guys don't even know about it.

[scorpion]

From an atheistic-evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality can be considered nothing but a severe dysfunction, regardless of whether its causes are primarily genetic or the result of exposure to childhood sexual abuse or some sort of pathogen. The invariable result is an organism that is much, much less likely to procreate than its normal, heterosexual peers. Homosexuality therefore has no rational defense from intellectually honest atheist-evolutionists, all of whom should agree that homosexuality should be highly discouraged and limited, being a highly maladaptive evolutionary trait that serves to remove otherwise healthy individuals from the gene pool.

From a religious standpoint, homosexuality is seen as an abomination, being a perversion of the natural created order that pairs male and female through marriage for the purpose of procreation and family formation, which is the basis of all human society. Homosexuality is essentially then a form of rebellion against God at the most fundamental level, a rejection of one's very being (transgenderism is very similar in this regard). The homosexual flouts his nose at natural order and goes in the opposite direction, against God, against all traditional social norms and against the foundation of society itself (the family). Homosexuality therefore being a state of obvious rebellion and declared war with God, from the religious perspective men have no obligation to accept homosexuality, and indeed should oppose it vociferously.

From a practical standpoint, homosexuality is a menace to public health. Homosexuals are not only promiscuous to a degree that normal, heterosexual people (even experienced players) would find shocking, but their particular sexual proclivities leave them highly susceptible to acquiring and spreading contagious diseases. Homosexuals are essentially walking petri dishes for new disease incubation. These diseases and infections then get passed into the normal population over time. Homosexuals also molest children at an alarming rate, and a huge percentage of homosexuals themselves admit to being preyed upon as children, the experience of which likely warped their sexuality as adults. Given these facts, the practical man should have little patience for the promotion of homosexuality in his society.

There is no reasonable defense of homosexuality from any perspective. The libertarian "live and let live" nonsense might hold true if homosexuals were holed up in underground caves on the other side of the world, but newsflash, they aren't. In fact, they have an enormously outsized and influential presence in popular culture and actively work to mainstream and normalize their dangerous, degenerate lifestyles and actively encourage children to "experiment" with their sexuality and thus become homosexuals themselves. You can't leave them alone because they won't leave you and your children alone. It's not a question of letting people have sex with who they want because it doesn't impact you. It's a question of whether you will sit idly by as your society is slowly given over to sexual degenerates who have an active and stated interest in turning your children into homosexuals through brainwashing, molestation or drug-fueled "experimentation" as part of a nihilistic, hedonistic, atheistic lifestyle in which traditional values hold no influence.

Men have no moral obligation to accept homosexuality. Being against it does not make one a bad person, nor does it means that you must personally hate homosexual people. It simply means that you refuse to approve of their toxic, anti-social, degenerate behavior, and that you will actively seek to limit their ability to spread their poisonous lifestyle to impressionable children.

[eskimobobseal]

Homosexuality is an utterly disgusting, degenerate lifestyle. It is rebellion against God and His natural order and it is totally deviant. The Bible says in Romans 1 that faggots have been given over to a reprobate mind, to do that which is not convenient. It also says they are full of all unrighteousness. God gave them up, and when you look at their proclivity to molest children you understand why. If a man is willing to have anal sex with another man he's willing to have sex with just about anything, and that includes children.

So I would absolutely not "accept" a gay son just like I wouldn't accept a sexual predator son. He'd be excommunicated from the family.

[911]

(03-12-2017 05:53 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(03-11-2017 09:31 PM)911 Wrote:  

Pedophilia/child abuse rates among homosexuals are much higher.

Quote:

The 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality3 account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/0...xuality-2/

http://mobile.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

Even if those stats were legit (which they are not) by your logic men have higher rates or rape and violent assault than women, does that make men evil and to be reviled?

People object to these sources mainly because their findings are controversial, when in fact their research is far less biased that that of people like Kinsey, who is the biggest name in the field of sex research despite being a complete fraud.

You wouldn't be able to publish any academic work which would show that homosexuals have higher sexual abuse rates, regardless of how scientifically rigorous that research is.

As to your main point, the balance isn't as skewed towards men as commonly believed. When you factor in psychological abuse and other matters stemming from the fact that women have the upper hand in legal terms, men are more often than not the victims here.

As well, increase in abusive relationships is endemic to homosexuality, due to the transgressive nature of this behavior. Even gay sources like The Advocate acknowledge the fact that homosexuals have higher rates of sexual abuse:

The National Violence Against Women survey found that 21.5 percent of men and 35.4 percent of women living with a same-sex partner experienced intimate-partner physical violence in their lifetimes, compared with 7.1 percent and 20.4 percent for men and women, respectively, with a history of only opposite-sex cohabitation. Transgender respondents had an incidence of 34.6 percent over a lifetime according to a Massachusetts survey.

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04...lgbt-issue

[Travel Museums]

As a player take solace that your gay son's online game will be legendary compared to yours. His lay count likely surpassing yours before his 21st birthday.

[Kid Twist]

(04-05-2017 01:04 PM)Travel Museums Wrote:  

As a player take solace that your gay son's online game will be legendary compared to yours. His lay count likely surpassing yours before his 21st birthday.

[Geomann180]

(04-05-2017 01:04 PM)Travel Museums Wrote:  

As a player take solace that your gay son's online game will be legendary compared to yours. His lay count likely surpassing yours before his 21st birthday.

You sir, have your priorities wholly out of order if you think that.

G