Homosexuality and the danger of parasitical thoughts. - A schizo rambling

Am I losing it, or does this somewhat make sense?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 21.7%

  • No

    Votes: 7 10.1%

  • ???

    Votes: 14 20.3%

  • I HATE THE ANTICHRIST!

    Votes: 33 47.8%
  • Total voters
    69
Just A Butt said:
do you think the globohomo agenda would benefit from putin nuking the western world, and if so how?
Click to expand...
I don't believe globohomo is that far reaching. I think Putin is a man with all of the power one man could ever desire and he'll use it in a death knell if he wants to.

This is off-topic anyways.

I'll leave OP to answer the globohomo question as well because I'm not quite schizo enough to believe globohomo is directly propagating the homosexual and trans agenda.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Just A Butt
Michael Pemulis said:
I really do think that any lifestyle that isn't ultimately directed towards creating and raising the next generation is unnatural and unhealthy. If you are aware of your own mortality, making children and passing on your influence so you can "live on" in future generations is truly the only way to cope. You would have to be a very fucked up person to be able to be satisfied just pleasure-seeking while the days and years count down to oblivion.

That's not to say that I think we should push this through policy, or even rudeness and intolerance, but it's something to be aware of.
Click to expand...
I like how the only alternative to raising children is to become a hedonist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holiday of no return and LikeRivenIRL
One thing I would just chuck in

The modern concept of "Being" homosexual as a lifelong character aspect is while not novel, there are a few cultures where this existed in some (not always healthy) way, it's not the predominant take.

Historically, men did take male partners sometimes. There's more references than you'd think in western antiquitys version of everyday correspondence to picking up a cute slave boy in the market. The same guys who did this however were not infrequently men who would take female concubines and partners just as frequently. There were times it was even noted that it might be wiser for a wealthy young man to stick to the boys so he didn't end up with any unexpected "surprises" he might not want.

Now, obviously age was a factor here and something we should take a very dim view on. What I'm trying to get at is that just like then people did have a "phase", not infrequently they moved on out of it, or sometimes even into it later in life.

A lot of the people who identify as gay may not always do so. They don't get much airtime, but I have known men in their thirties pivot and suddenly take an interest in women as well. Not always, but it does happen.

The same way some girls eventually take the piercings out and stop dyeing their hair black, some people will stop putting things in their bum if they ever did.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Swein Forkbeard, Coco Coir, LikeRivenIRL and 2 others
Queen Elizabeth II said:
One thing I would just chuck in

The modern concept of "Being" homosexual as a lifelong character aspect is while not novel, there are a few cultures where this existed in some (not always healthy) way, it's not the predominant take.

Historically, men did take male partners sometimes. There's more references than you'd think in western antiquitys version of everyday correspondence to picking up a cute slave boy in the market. The same guys who did this however were not infrequently men who would take female concubines and partners just as frequently. There were times it was even noted that it might be wiser for a wealthy young man to stick to the boys so he didn't end up with any unexpected "surprises" he might not want.

Now, obviously age was a factor here and something we should take a very dim view on. What I'm trying to get at is that just like then people did have a "phase", not infrequently they moved on out of it, or sometimes even into it later in life.

A lot of the people who identify as gay may not always do so. They don't get much airtime, but I have known men in their thirties pivot and suddenly take an interest in women as well. Not always, but it does happen.

The same way some girls eventually take the piercings out and stop dyeing their hair black, some people will stop putting things in their bum if they ever did.
Click to expand...
I think is a bad point to glorify history on. A lot of creepy shit went on back in the bronze age, I think many of these guys were diddled by temple priests. It happened so fucking often that they had to give them a healthier outlet for their molested homosexuality in adulthood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duckbutter&toejamsandwich and Osmosis Jones
Osmosis Jones said:
I can promise you that transgenderism and gay "culture" at large would not exist at all without mass media propagation.
Click to expand...
And you are already wrong since gay culture existed well before the media started being on their side
Osmosis Jones said:
I do think that if a child sees homosexuality championed over heterosexuality repeatedly through their formative years, it's going to become very confusing when they start puberty and develop attractions. They may wonder why they have no attraction to the same gender the same way a gay person may come to question why they don't feel anything for the opposite. I don't think any of us grew up wondering why we aren't gay in the slightest.
Click to expand...
For once I know no hetero that has deaply wondered (more than a passimg thought) why they weren't gay, while almost any gay person grew up wondering why they weren't hetero, and you imply that it is normal that gay people do that, while it isn't for heteros based only on the norm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holiday of no return
"The user doth protest too much, methinks."

Homosexuality and Transgenderism were always a thing in humanity. Like any propaganda, you teach your kids to think for themselves and not focus on it. Both political factions are cult following fags.

No different than the 80s and 90s with propaganda to kids, drugs were "bad," and abstinence was "good." It was such a joke.



The only difference today is there is a spotlight on homosexuality for some reason I don't understand. Homosexuality today, Jesus tomorrow, much like a sine wave of propaganda.

I snip some interesting things to consider when looking through human history.

"The youth should not accept money from the man, nor was he supposed to enjoy the act of penetration. Once the youth reached adulthood and recognition as a citizen, the relationship was supposed to lose its sexual side. "

"Roman tolerance for homosexuality paralleled earlier Greek attitudes: "

"Even Charlemagne did not legislate against homosexuality, despite the fact that he was greatly upset when he discovered that some of the monks in his kingdom were practicing it."

"Late medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas who brings homosexuality into the notoriety."


"Ming dynasty, wrote extensively about a part of society in which it was normal for married men to also take male lovers. "

"Same-sex relationships were not uncommon during the pre-Meiji period inJapan between monks and students, and apprentices and teachers in the Samurai class."


"Same-sex relations were celebrated in Moche pottery (AD 15–800)"



"Māori carvings celebrated same-sex and multiple relationships (Te Awekotuku 2003)."






The Muxes (pronounced mu-shay), a recognized third gender among the Zapotec people in Oaxaca

 
  • Dislike
  • Informative
Reactions: Holiday of no return and topsikrets
you know like that time hitler got half of his balls exploded
 
Michael Pemulis said:
I think is a bad point to glorify history on. A lot of creepy shit went on back in the bronze age, I think many of these guys were diddled by temple priests. It happened so fucking often that they had to give them a healthier outlet for their molested homosexuality in adulthood.
Click to expand...
... do you think giving your kids to the religious class in a young age was somehow a constant in history?
 
Kickster said:
... do you think giving your kids to the religious class in a young age was somehow a constant in history?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "constant". It definitely happened at various times. We're talking about an era that had literal child sacrifice, so this wouldn't have been seen as a big deal by comparison.
ViolentDiarrhetic said:
No, I just question the veracity of those conclusions.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, what's your question?
 
Just A Butt said:
answer mine first, damnit
Click to expand...
Next time you should actually quote my post, otherwise I assume it's a 'so random xD' statement and ignore it.

If you get your balls blown off and can no longer have any children, you simply are different. No rhetoric can change that, you got dealt a different hand. That being said, you don't have to abandon the next generation altogether. Like I said, you can help others raise their children. You'll just never have the same psychological profile about it. It's something you can take or leave, and other people will be aware of this.

I grew up with some childless people acting as 'social' aunts and uncles, I value them a lot and acknowledge that they can be caring and charitable. But they're still different.

Edit: And for the nukes, I never said a word about 'globohomo'. I'm not an alt-right retard.
 
Makes me lol how easily everyone will be up in arms about Troon propaganda but as soon as you suggest homosexuality is the other side of the same coin, all hell breaks loose. If your Chinese little girl cartoons didn't have so many fag characters you'd all be on board.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KelpieSelkie, Goth Commie, Ser Prize and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back