The only arguments I can find right now are either religious or focused on the welfare of children. Why is it wrong (outside of religion) for homosexuals if they're not allowed to acquire children in any way?
What's the non-religious argument against homosexuality?
Xavier Davis
Other urls found in this thread:
socialmatter.net
youtu.be
twitter.com
William White
Evan Nelson
also: relations between parents serve as template for future interactions.
if you dont see what is wrong with 2 faggots/lesbos havning kids, you shouldnt have them either.
a kid is not a pet puppy or a lizard.
you whine about rights to have a kid
>but you never think of the kid's rights
Levi Anderson
Impossible to have mannerbunds or broship under homosexual fud.
Islamic men can kiss as greetings because faggotry is kept in the closet and to a minimum. They inb4 male camaraderie which is basis for getting anything done.
socialmatter.net
>Which brings us to one more reason, alongside disease, sterility and effeminacy, that traditional social norms the world over are necessarily and correctly opposed to open homosexuality: the more homosexuals there are in a society, and the more open they are about their homosexuality, the less warm male heterosexuals can be towards each other, and the weaker the social bonds between male heterosexuals will be, and the weaker the social fabric of the society itself will be, as society is necessarily founded upon the Mannerbund between a society’s male heterosexuals who honor, uphold and propagate the society’s values.
>Open homosexuals represent a signalling hazard for male heterosexuals. A male heterosexual who needs to signal appreciation, affection or love of a male heterosexual friend also needs to be sure that his signal will not be interpreted as a sexual advance—either by the intended recipient of the signal or by others. Homosexuals may be interested in signalling homosexuality, but male heterosexuals certainly are not.
>The more open homosexuals there are in a society, the less certain a male heterosexual can be that a gesture of masculine camaraderie won’t be interpreted as a sexual advance.
Luke Evans
It is unwholesome. Meaning, it has no benefit, but rather is simply indulgence in their craving and partiality.
In other words, hedonism. Perversion. This is an opportunity cost. There are wholesome ways of being that one cannot engage with when they are a homosexual.
Luke Martinez
It destroys family values and promotes and incentives deubachery. Because that's all there is to faggotry. Unrestrained, dangerous, degenerate sex. If you want to know about the problems with a licentious society make another thread
Kevin Campbell
Jace Roberts
That's a dead link, do you have one that leads somewhere?
I can't read a lot of the sources for these, do you have a copy of this (or know where I can find a copy of this) that has clearer text?
Blake Parker
What is its evolutionary function?
Under what context does a being exist in which their biology does not let them feel attraction to the being of the complimentary reproductive organ
Dylan Rogers
>What's the non-religious argument against homosexuality?
Its gay