Personally I think it's wrong, in the same way that sleeping with a woman outside of marriage is wrong, or smoking cigarettes, but since it's not you imposing something wrong on someone else, like say you beating someone up randomly, it's a personal decision that you should get to make
this is the only respectable position of people who are against homosexuality on religious grounds
Post automatically merged:

what do you mean by that? like in cases of infertility?
techncially, any time where people have sex knowing the woman wont be pregnant, that can be due to her natural monthly cycle or infertility or using condoms or whatever.

are you one of these condoms = evil peeps?
 
We never do anything else for pleasure
We don't drink alcohol
Play video games
Smoke cigarettes
Gamble
Fuck multiple women/men
Etc.
And I imagine if we did do any of that, Ryo would also protest against all of that since he hates anything that's unnatural and "just done for pleasure"
Except we don't smoke cigarettes, drink or play videogames just for pleasure, the pleasure associated with these things is associated towards a specific end (usually to relieve the mind)

as long as the pleasure fufills one end without violating another, it is licit

video games relieves the mind, without violating any other natural end

having gay sex might relieve you, but it is violating a natural end of the genitalia which are ordered towards heterosexual-reproductive ones, not homosexual-sterile ones
Post automatically merged:

God is in the closet :kayneshrug:

Blocked clown
 
Except we don't smoke cigarettes, drink or play videogames just for pleasure, the pleasure associated with these things is associated towards a specific end (usually to relieve the mind)

as long as the pleasure fufills one end without violating another, it is licit

video games relieves the mind, without violating any other natural end

having gay sex might relieve you, but it is violating a natural end of the genitalia which are ordered towards heterosexual-reproductive ones, not homosexual-sterile ones
Post automatically merged:



Blocked clown
so you won't ban smoking cigarettes which can fuck your lungs beyond repair but you'd ban homosexuality for being a "violation of the natural use of genitalia"?
Again why is it that we can even have gay sex in the first place without any repercussions?
If it were that bad for us surely our bodies would reject having something in our ass like that lol. Just like our bodies are conditioned to resist heat by sweating for example
 
i literally said appealing to nature is fallacious, and presented an EVEN IF IT WAS NOT scenario.
It's not an appeal to nature, you are using the definition of nature as = in the wild, I am using it in the teleological/philosophical sense where it is a synonym for essence

So you basically mean it as "common", because thats exactly how you explain it, despite disagreeing with the other guy saying it means "common". interesting, to say the least.
i don't mean it as "common"

the nature of a thing is it's essence, this includes
-it's essential qualities that define what it is
-the final ends that it is directed towards

to the degree that the final end of a thing is approximated entails it's being good, so for example the final end of our eyeballs is to see, if they see well they are good eyeballs

the end of our reproductive organs are reproductive ends, so them committing inherently sterile actions like gay sex is a failure in it achieving it's end, making it unnatural and thus evil
 
asexuality is definitely less immoral than homosexuality, lol. Bad comparison really

it's still not good and still a dysfunction, but the actions it would tend towards (celibacy) are 100% less perverted and less grievous than the actions a homosexual inclination would tend towards
it goes against the nature of human sexuality, your criteria for something being evil.

so thats not a bad comparison, thats a fitting comparison.
 
so you won't ban smoking cigarettes which can fuck your lungs beyond repair but you'd ban homosexuality for being a "violation of the natural use of genitalia"?
cigarettes can fuck up your lungs, i wasn't saying cigarettes are good, but if your point is that videogames or cigarettes are an unnatural form of pleasure because they don't have any purpose is wrong because they are a pleasure with a purpose, to relieve the mind
 
We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions ; but we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favor the development of slavishness.



We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.

Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now.




Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense.



Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favor the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?





The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes.




We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth --- the rulers, the employers, the leaders --- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men --- the ruled, the exploited, the led --- from becoming still worse than they are.




There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, "unpractical men."



.


A quote from Are We Good Enough, about the problem with wanting the state to regulate the masses in that way
 
Again why is it that we can even have gay sex in the first place without any repercussions?
If it were that bad for us surely our bodies would reject having something in our ass like that lol. Just like our bodies are conditioned to resist heat by sweating for example
again, if it is unnatural = bad

just like incest is bad, even in cases where it's between consenting adults and no health issues arise
 
young earth creationist, basically flat earth level reality denial, and apparently roughly 18% of americans believe this shit. . . .
Post automatically merged:

not sure why you are bringing God into this?

anyway, God does not "create" any aberrations within nature.

Allowing defects to spring up inside creation =/= creating them, and it also doesn't entail endorsing humans acting upon said defects (like willingly acting on a homosexual or any other unnatural inclination)
oh so you belong to some weird denomination? which one?
Post automatically merged:

but pen spinning goes against the nature of the pen, so that has to be evil.
 
Fun fact: the U.S. government considered creating a bomb that would turn enemies gay, making them sexually attracted to each other during a fucking war and create confusion.

This idea was scrapped as being ludicrous. The fact that some even thought that homosexuality can be manufactured and transferred is stupid and hilarious.
LMAOOOOOO I forgot about that.
That sounds like a dumb joke which makes it being real 10x more funny.
cigarettes can fuck up your lungs, i wasn't saying cigarettes are good, but if your point is that videogames or cigarettes are an unnatural form of pleasure because they don't have any purpose is wrong because they are a pleasure with a purpose, to relieve the mind
Close to getting the point
 
"it's also linked to pleasure, not reproduction"

LOL what the fuck is that pleasure for

does the body feel sexual pleasure just for it's own sake or is that pleasure (like all pleasures) ordered towards something beyond itself?
:13_Punches::nicagesmile:
the body definitely feels the pleasure even without reproduction, and i have outlined some of the cases for this already.

and quite literally the female orgasm is not necessary for reproduction at all
 
no, that is a contradiction

why would a name reflect a gender? doesn't this imply gender has some biological or social genus?

actually, any external behavior changes associated with gender dysphoria contradict it. If transgender advocates were logically consistent, they would affirm one's gender but discourage changing names, changing their clothing, etc.
not biological, but definitely social. we distinguish between male and female names. (not all names can strictly be placed in this category though)

and no, if changing the name, clothing and whatnot is the only way to help with the gender dysphoria they are feeling.
Post automatically merged:

>is called "gender affirming care"
>changes their sexual biology

transgenderism is such a fucking contradiction, why the fuck would changing your sex affirm your gender identity if sex isn't gender
:milaugh::milaugh::milaugh:
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES are caused by your sex, if changing your PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES brings your gender into alignment, this means sex = gender
no one is changing sex. its literally biologically impossible. gender affirming care seeks to alter the appearance, not change anyones sex. if it could do that, whoever created it would get a nobel prize for sure.
 
Top