queers will still exist under the hardest money possible đ¤¨
Discussion
Only without State sponsorship.
Do you believe homosexuals are lesser humans?
All humans are humans. All sinners.
Ahh the political answer đ§
Homosexuality and other deviance is wrong and those engaging in wrongdoing are wrong.
Is someone 'better' when they don't engage in homosexuality? Certainly on that metric alone.
Value preferences tend to run in pacts. Family men who work hard to provide tend to find fashionable faggotry to be an ugly thing.
Anyone who is attuned to the microexpressions and other things like the blanking and such would realise that many of the behaviours of these perverts have a lot in common with the behaviour of cultists.
The delerious joy in the sickness is one of the most characteristic, and so visible with homosexuality that it gets the label "gay".
I believe they are victims of an organised, very large network of pedophiles. Pride is classic example of "cope" if you ask me. Like how cult drones are "proud" of wearing the colours prescribed by their gang. And they pick rainbows because that's the emblem of the failure to wipe out that network a long time ago.
Also I just want to add that I have had a lot to do with them over the years. I played at being a rent boy for a while, but I most certainly was not lured into it. I'm just curious and I also had no idea how else to work around the problem of what the school system did to my ambition to study computer science, and I had a girl ... it was a nasty business.
But the point being that I'm not saying this as someone who hasn't had intimate contact with the culture as well as having observed the marks of it all around, the toilets in the city parks, various other signs of creepy things that I learned later were creepy for a reason.
I also was the son of a man who had been molested, almost certainly, by an aunty and possibly a teenage child of friends of the family, who showed an inordinate interest in my preteen father, and he did some creepy things to my sister as well. I saw signs of it in my primary school, I have to admit actually I was drawn towards all this because of my having had contact with it within my family.
Most of the heteros who play champion for the culture really don't understand what they are talking about.
I sincerely doubt it. It's an imprinting failure, usually caused by older, basically pedophiles. IMO. I saw this creepy stuff lurking in the corners and in certain places for years. Public toilets were notorious for this.
If it was genetic, then it should die out, but it doesn't, and you can't blame that on "keeping up appearances". And it's not hard to notice the outsized social stature of homos either. Because perversion is a big thing behind closed doors. ever heard of Jeffrey Epstein? Who do you think his clients were?
𤨠how do you explain homosexuality existing throughout all of recorded history? Because the money has never been hard enough? đ¤Ł
Question is why it matters? Are we only signified by our genital preferences like animals?
Genitals have a function aside from being highly sensitive to touch. Several functions.
I see I have not muted this bot yet. Or has the human controller started using it as well?
mute it. Itâs a waste of your time
Whats the word, Loki? Want to touch my bar or whats the false cored insinuation about?
Several? Well, as a black belt in the field, happy to teach you my flawless technique.
Then tell me, does it disgust your deviant mind for a man and a woman touching and pleasuring each other you deviant rodent fuck?!
I donât go extinct you deviant asd
Shut the fuck up.
What happened you ass?
No retort going McCain?
Good in? How chyna? 
lol, recorded history. All 3000 years of it. That's conclusive!
3000 years is not large enough sample size for statistical significance? Or itâs just inconvenient that it doesnât fit your bias?
There will always be deviants until the end of times.
I know people have been awaiting it for 2000 years but I strongly believe there are ample signs that it will happen before 2030. Thus all the ruling class buying bunkers and shit. They know that a Great Flood sized disaster is coming very soon and think they are going to escape it.
Iâm lost, what exactly are you claiming will happen before 2030?
Yup, until Jesus and his Father come back to finish the job.
Sin has existed for all of human history but that doesn't make it good.
There is a nonzero chance your grandchild turns out homosexual. No matter how controlling or âperfectâ you think the environment is.
Will you still live them the same as your hetero offspring?
Sin, as in errors, have been around for the entire time this universe has been in existence :D doesn't have any relevance to the subject whether or not it is normal.
The irony is that it's always been abnormal until this massive campaign this last 20 years to make it normal.
These wishy washy "oh, it's normal" folk don't even realise that normalising the abnormal is literally the definition of evil.
*your definition of evil
Under this framework, physically handicapped people are âthe definition of evilâ?
Instant follow
Do you agree that âabnormal is evilâ? Approaching you in good faith with curiosity
So I wouldnât say strictly speaking abnormal is evil.
But In this context homosexuality has historically been outside the norm because the population generally followed natural law in regarding sex. In that sex is for procreation. Making a deviation from the natural law abnormal.
Even if homosexuality becomes completely normal which it basically has, it wouldnât have any bearing on its deviation from natural law and therefore itâs morality.
Itâs homosexuality evil? Well itâs a sin, and sin meaning to miss the mark. There are many reasons this sin is destructive to society and to individuals. Are the fruits of this particular sin evil, most definitely. Are the people committing the sin evil? That depends but on the person. Weâre all sinners but to what degree, how much disorder do our sins produce?
Sin is from the latin meaning "without" or "lacking". It is used to refer to a debt as well as a flaw.
One of the central principles that you learn from the most famous game theory problem that Satoshi talked about being solved by cryptographic signatures, the Byzantine Generals Problem, for which more than a few things have been named "Byzantine Fault Tolerant" or BFT.
The key insight of this theory is basically that malice and error are impossible to distinguish between without discovering the intent of the individuals making the erroneous acts.
In simple terms, everyone makes mistakes, but evil people do things that would be considered mistakes, and they aim to promote others making mistakes as well.
This is why I say that trying to normalise the abnormal is literally the definition of evil. Evil means spreading errors, deliberately, in order to profit from them.
Those who merely tolerate the errors, are patsies, victims, cultists, and other variants of fool.
It is still not ok to tolerate errors even if it is true that oneself also commits errors. It is a worse error than direct errors because it enables evil.
Such an excellent distinction.
For both of you, the same question that Laser never answered (I misspelled *love as live tbf):
There is a nonzero probability your children or grandchildren grow up to be confidently homosexual and never look back. No matter what sort of âperfectâ or controlled environment you tried to raise them in. Will/would you honestly love them the same as you would heterosexual offspring?
In short yes.
To love is to will the good of the other. - St. Thomas Aquinas.
Would I be willing his good to accept or promote his sin, that is separating him from God and causing disorder for him personally (physically, spiritually, mentally). Obviously not.
Same with any sin my kids would choose to partake in.
>Would I be willing his good to accept or promote his sin, that is separating him from God and causing disorder for him personally (physically, spiritually, mentally). Obviously not.
This is confusing me, no matter how many times I read it. Is Aquinasâ definition of love very similar to the definition you developed from the life youâve lived so far?
You would love your offspring, but you would obviously not accept his sin? Or did I get that wrong?
Yes, that correct.
I canât condone an action that is harmful to anyone that I truly love.
Does that make sense?
To you other question about my experience. Yes, the people who truly love me try to correct me when they see im traveling into a dead end, even if itâs hard to discuss or seems to me to be unkind. The people who donât would just not say anything, or accept my errors.
Yes.
How about the scenario that someoneâs father not accepting them for who they are is more harmful than your subjective âcausing disorderâ?
When you say accepting them, you mean accepting their lifestyle choices?
The biggest lie thatâs been promoted on the topic is that this is âwho you areâ, âthis is your identityâ. Itâs so insidious. It would be like saying to an alcoholic âthis is who you areâ, if people donât accept your alcoholism they donât accept you.
But It would be the job of the father to handle it with grace and love, but to firm on this position for the sake of his son.
The son also has a roll to play, if he believes the lie above, then heâs almost guaranteed to distance himself from his father.
The damage here is not being caused by the father if he handles it with grace and love.
I can tell you cannot fathom what a homosexual is and have never communicated with one in depth. Alcoholism is comparable to homosexuality? WOW, you have no clue.
Maybe if you attempted to understand them with compassion, empathy, and long form communication instead of writing them off with scripture and quotesâŚ
What is âthe lie aboveâ you referenced?
Lol I have two younger brothers who are gay. This is the approach I take with them, I love them very much and we have great relationships. I canât condone their lifestyle though, but I can love them because they are much more than where they like to sick their dick.
Thatâs redeeming news. Iâm glad you can love them no matter who they love.
Bro this is what Iâm talking about. This is the lie, which you have swallowed.
They are people first made in the image of God. They arenât homosexuals that happen to be people. They are people who have chosen to sin a particular way, no different than me.
Please clarify what this lie is?
The lie promulgated by state sponsored propaganda is that they are somehow âborn this wayâ or âthis is just who they areâ. So we just need to âjust love them for who they areâ, which really means be accepting of their lifestyle.
There is no heritable genetic component to homosexuality.
They want you to use the mental framework you have for race and overlay homosexuality.
I agree there is zero traceable, correlative, heritable component.
It sounds like youâre implying a false binary. The âlifestyleâ can arrive from non-heritable mechanisms. I believe a combination of entropy and environment can result in homosexuality. With no clear weighting/ratio recipe. I do think that environment-influences can EASILY get evil and manipulative. Example being Targetâs child swimwear stunt this past June.
Yes, there is a choice that happens in the individual but there are varying degrees of the amount of free will exercised in that choice depending external influences.
Side point: There is a weird idea that once you decide to be gay you can never not be gay. Makes zero sense.
Something to keep in mind is that having a proclivity or desire is not the same as acting on those desires. Being homosexual is not a sin. Acting on those desires is whatâs consideres a sin. Any christian can love (will the good) of a homosexual while also encouraging them not to act on their desires
Thanks for making this point. Homosexuality being genetically heritable trait is a psyop to get normies on board. The normie canât stop to think about how that would actually work.