Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › In Praise of Homosexuality
This topic contains 94 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by 
Elric Greenstone 4 years, 2 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Key Master
Well I did.
Youre ignoring the original topic- praising homosexuals.
They constitute 2% of the population and over 50% of those infected with aids.
This topic was about “praising homosexuals”.
I dont. For obvious reasons.
Men who choose to suck c~~~, arent going their own way. And I wont be praising them, or CH or Snake.
Both of those posters have proven to be unstable.
Neither of them apologize or take any accountability for their actions.
Actually, Snake did recently. Which was refreshing, But not CH.
CH will not and can not adress anything Ive posted because it proves his ideology is false. Homosexuality is a perversion of nature, and homosexuals are MUCH more likely to be infected with HIV.
Homosexuality is a perversion.
Homosexuality is proven to be more of a diseased ridden lifestyle than hetrosexuality.
CH is “praising homosexuality” as MGTOW. They are nothing of the sort.
Resident cynic.
As said before:
Whether one contracts a disease is none of my concern; one’s decision to engage in an act, weighing the risks, rewards, and opportunity costs, is ultimately one’s own and I respect one’s autonomy.
Next time, read what I wrote.
Oh, Im sorry-
Would you actually like to discuss the facts as laid out in this discussion?
You know- the CDC report on homosexuals comprising 2% of the population but over 50% of those infected with HIV?
Care to discuss?…
Ya, you dont CARE if anyone gets HIV.
This is precisely why I dont “praise” homosexuals…
2% of the population yet over 50% of those infected with HIV.
I suppose I “care”, and wont be PRAISING homosexuals for their disease infested contributions to society.
You, on the other hand, have no CONCERN if people get diseases.
So glad you clarified that for us…
No care. No concern. Ignorant and indecisive.
Thanks for the clarity!
Resident cynic.
By reversing the post, we see I was right to grace AncientBulls~~~ with his new name:
You’re ignoring the original topic- praising heterosexuals.
They constitute 98% of the population and over 99% of those who spawn bastards.
This topic was about “praising heterosexuals”.
I don’t. For obvious reasons.
Men who choose to lick c~~~, aren’t going their own way. And I wont be praising them, or AB or P.
Both of those posters have proven to be unstable.
Neither of them apologize or take any accountability for their actions.
Actually, AB is somewhat amusing. Which was refreshing, But not P.
AB will not and can not address anything I’ve posted because it proves his ideology is false. Heterosexuality is a perversion of nature, and heterosexuals are MUCH more likely to be infected with bastards.
Heterosexuality is a perversion.
Heterosexuality is proven to be more of a bastard ridden lifestyle than homosexuality.
AB is “praising heterosexuality ” as MGTOW. They are nothing of the sort.I am no more concerned with who spawns bastards than I am with one who contracts HIV because frankly, it is not my problem, or anyone else’s than the one who conducts his affairs according to his wishes. Also, it is just a bit mean-spirited to denigrate someone because they got sick, especially if the disease in question is no longer the end of all things:
Is there a cure for HIV?
Though there is no cure yet, HIV has transformed from a death sentence to a manageable illness. Major steps have been taken against the virus in the last 30 years even as we look to achieve a complete cure for HIV.
If that is the case in India, then surely it is the case in the rich western countries. AncientBulls~~~’s fixation with this disease is hilarious; in the first post of this thread, he started harping on it as if it were the 1980s all over again.
Is it wrong of me to want to steer this thread back toward the topic?
I don’t morally agree with homosexuality – I believe it’s against nature and God, and is a perversion by any definition of sex – but other men disagree, and indulge it. I don’t think they should be persecuted for that, but don’t ask me to agree with it. And I won’t praise them, either, but you can if you want.
Re Keymaster’s first comment: I noticed a while back how much feminists (in particular) hate gay men. In fact, they are homophobic – they FEAR gay men. Mad, considering how disproportionately lesbian they are, no? But the proof lies, among other things, in their art (stretching the term, of course…) Feminist art (I did a search to find some but I must be getting my memories mixed up as I couldn’t find the specific films I was looking for and things like Fury Road came up, God help us) regularly has, not just an evil white male or two as the villain, but a gay male. It’s a though they are saying to women, “don’t trust them! Ditch that gay best friend!” (If women do have gay friends or is that a myth?)
The reason, of course that they FEAR the gay male, is that a gay man is one who can find his deepest needs, intimacies and fulfillments in the company of other men. They may like women, associate with women, but they don’t NEED women.
And neither do we.
Feminist hatred of gays will get worse as more trannies proclaim that they know, “just what it’s like to oppressed like a woman!” – that’s already got the radical fems foaming at the gullet – and as more gay male couples use their above-average disposable income to rent wombs for their petrie-dish children. Courts are deciding in their favour, it seems, when things go wrong, because those silly lasses signed a contract, and some courts dare to uphold them.
Millions of miles of railway was not laid by homosexuals, and until such a day arrives where praise of heterosexual men is put in the forefront for consideration, the concept of praising gays is enough to make me chuckle and up-chuck my lunch simultaneously. No disrespect to CH or anyone else. I won’t even disrespect the gays. When me and my penis are worshipped for merely having one, then I might share that sentiment.
Well said Mycocaine!
Well I did. And it’s a FACT that 14 and 15 year old girls all across the world are willingly having sex with men in their 30s and up. There is absolutely nothing perverted about it. Sex doesn’t happen unless females WANT it to.
When I was nearly 33 I was called a “pedophile” by a close female cow-worker (also my age) because I walked into a theatre with a barely 19 year old girl on my arm. Except I wasn’t! Because the geographical age of consent was 18. I’m not a pedophile and that’s a FACT. Because the law says so. She was a jealous f~~~ing bitch.
They want older guys just like older men want younger girls. . But this society thinks it has become so sophisticated and advanced that nature no longer applies. Well it does and it can’t be changed. Then they can’t understand why there’s a unending stream of older dudes going to jail for trying to shack up with younger women.
The law here was 14 and was fine through the entire 20th century and into the 21st until presumably jealous t~~~’s (who hate men) decided to mess with it. We all know they’d put the limit way up if they could get away with it. Anything to deprive men of any pleasure in this life.
Now preteens are a different story, that would be pedophile and bad.
Anonymous3Well I did. And it’s a FACT that 14 and 15 year old girls all across the world are willingly having sex with men in their 30s and up. There is absolutely nothing perverted about it. Sex doesn’t happen unless females WANT it to.
When I was nearly 33 I was called a “pedophile” by a close female cow-worker (also my age) because I walked into a theatre with a barely 19 year old girl on my arm. Except I wasn’t! Because the geographical age of consent was 18. I’m not a pedophile and that’s a FACT. Because the law says so. She was a jealous f~~~ing bitch.
They want older guys just like older men want younger girls. . But this society thinks it has become so sophisticated and advanced that nature no longer applies. Well it does and it can’t be changed. Then they can’t understand why there’s a unending stream of older dudes going to jail for trying to shack up with younger women.
The law here was 14 and was fine through the entire 20th century and into the 21st until presumably jealous t~~~’s (who hate men) decided to mess with it. We all know they’d put the limit way up if they could get away with it. Anything to deprive men of any pleasure in this life.
Now preteens are a different story, that would be pedophile and bad.
From what I read it was more a capitalist invention, wealthier capitalists wanted to keep men away from younger women, so that they could have access to said women themselves or perhaps feminists to kill off the family. I guess there are different theories.
I am with KM on there are certain ages, and 16 makes more sense. 16 was the age I read it mostly was prior to deep into the Industrial revolution. But also it’s still 16 or 17 in many US states, it’s just that Hollywood was 18 and they used movies to manipulate society.
But even in Hollywood, if you watch classic movies, you’ll see a lot of 15 year olds and they are scripted to have sex too. I used to watch some old classic movies on Turner, some are good movies, I think better than the current drivel at any rate.
I am with KM on there are certain ages, and 16 makes more sense. 16 was the age I read it mostly was prior to deep into the Industrial revolution. But also it’s still 16 or 17 in many US states, it’s just that Hollywood was 18 and they used movies to manipulate society.
Yeah I wouldn’t do anything with anyone under 16. But some of them girls in my high school days were real stunners at just 15, peaking at about 18-19.
I am disgusted at how many of so many so-called MGTOWS are so violently opposed to our gay brethren who are truly least affected by female manipulation. An important study sheds light on these homophobes.
A group of men who identified as straight were asked about there reaction to homophobic statements. They were then exposed to gay pornography while hooked up to a penile plethysmograph -a measure of male arousal so accurate it is accepted in courts of law to detect sex offenders,
The results showed that men who were the most homophobic were the ones that were most aroused by gay pornaography, despite what they claimed. Homophobes are in the most fear and denial of their secret gay fantasies. Beware of what your homophobic statements say about you,I can’t really seem homosexuals as predecessors to MGTOW. For one thing, the word ‘predecessor’ means “a thing that has been followed or replaced by another.” Homosexuality has not been replaced and no MGTOW is trying to emulate what a homosexual generally does or believes in. You’re pointing out similarities, but the motivations are entirely different. A homosexual wants to follow his natural (or learned) impulses and be excepted by society. A MGTOW wants to ignore his natural impulses and be left alone by society.
It’s well documented that the US Government is based on Roman law. In that view, we are the predecessors of the romans. I can’t imagine a MGTOW looks over at his gay neighbor and thinks “I want to be like that guy”.
Regarding women and gays, I think they tend to play both sides. On one hand they may like a gay friend since they share feminine thoughts and emotions with women, but yet do not represent competition. Of course if the gay friend is in a relationship, then there is some bit of competition. On the other hand, a woman will call a straight man gay as means of challenging his manhood and manipulate him into doing her bidding.
I don’t think women are really bothered too much by gay men’s ‘immunity’ to their manipulation. For one thing, they are not. Just as they can manipulate their girlfriends, they can still manipulate a gay man on some level. And it’s only 2% of the population. There is a much larger percentage of the population that doesn’t have enough resources to be useful. I’d bet there’s an even larger percentage of men who have resources and are MGTOW, a much bigger problem for them.
Ok. Then do it.
I am disgusted at how many of so many so-called MGTOWS are so violently opposed to our gay brethren who are truly least affected by female manipulation. An important study sheds light on these homophobes.
A group of men who identified as straight were asked about there reaction to homophobic statements. They were then exposed to gay pornography while hooked up to a penile plethysmograph -a measure of male arousal so accurate it is accepted in courts of law to detect sex offenders,
The results showed that men who were the most homophobic were the ones that were most aroused by gay pornaography, despite what they claimed. Homophobes are in the most fear and denial of their secret gay fantasies. Beware of what your homophobic statements say about you,Violently opposed? I didn’t see any threats of violence. And your study doesn’t really say much in my opinion. Although the spectrum of what people believe, a large portion would say they are against homosexual acts, not homosexual emotions or physical reactions. In the same way people may not have a problem with noticing an attractive woman, but don’t act upon it.
And the idea that homophobes secretly have gay fantasies? I’m sure there’s some out there, and there are probably some that are turned on by the taboo nature of it. I’m not going to assume that every person who’s strongly anti-gay is a closet homosexual.
As an aside, if true that a persons physical reaction to sexual stimulation can be used as evidence that that person committed a sexual crime…we’re in trouble as a country. Last I checked, thinking about or wanting to commit a crime is not a crime.
Ok. Then do it.
As an aside, if true that a persons physical reaction to sexual stimulation can be used as evidence that that person committed a sexual crime…we’re in trouble as a country. Last I checked, thinking about or wanting to commit a crime is not a crime.
Who the heck is talking about crimes? My reference to the fact that penile plethysmograph evidence was good enough to be accepted in a court of law was meant to show the accuracy of this method to determine sexual orientation. A person’s sexual orientation is best defined by what stimulus sexualy arouses them. The study shows that homophobia in men is strongly correlated with closeted gay desires, whether they claim they act on them or not, despite their denial. Cypher seems to have touched a nerve among some homophobes here.
You stated that the test was used to detect sex offenders, which is a crime as I understand it. Now you’re stating that it’s used in courts to determine sexual orientation. Were you saying that if a person does/doesn’t get aroused by child porn (as example) then that is prove that he/she did/did not commit a sexual offense? And I don’t see what a person’s sexual orientation has to do with committing a sexual offense. It’s not like a straight man can’t have gay sex, or a lesbian can’t enjoy straight sex. I really don’t even see what getting an erection has to do with anything legal whatsoever.
I’m sure you’re getting your facts from somewhere though. Just seems messed up to me.
I don’t care for the accusation that homophobes are closet gays. It’s an attempt to undermine their argument and point of view. It doesn’t do anything. I’d rather take their arguments as they and accept or reject them on their own merits.
Ok. Then do it.
You stated that the test was used to detect sex offenders, which is a crime as I understand it. Now you’re stating that it’s used in courts to determine sexual orientation. Were you saying that if a person does/doesn’t get aroused by child porn (as example) then that is prove that he/she did/did not commit a sexual offense? And I don’t see what a person’s sexual orientation has to do with committing a sexual offense. It’s not like a straight man can’t have gay sex, or a lesbian can’t enjoy straight sex. I really don’t even see what getting an erection has to do with anything legal whatsoever.
I’m sure you’re getting your facts from somewhere though. Just seems messed up to me.
I don’t care for the accusation that homophobes are closet gays. It’s an attempt to undermine their argument and point of view. It doesn’t do anything. I’d rather take their arguments as they and accept or reject them on their own merits.
[/quote
The test is an accurate determination of what someone’s sexual orientation is and is therefore used as an accurate measure to determine whether a child molester is still a pedophile by sexual orientation and a threat to society. The key point is that this an accepted accurate measure of one’s sexual orientation. The result is indisputable that that this shows that that there is a strong correlation between homophobia and closeted homosexuality. The strong reaction to Cypher’s post reminds me of the line in Shakespeare, “Methinks the lady doth protests too much”
This does not mean that every single homophobe is really gay. Some may be just ignorant and misinformed about the “gay threat” and use dubious biased sources to support their position.so-called MGTOWS
Someone’s support or disgust of homosexuality does not affect how much of a mgtow they are.
penile plethysmograph -a measure of male arousal so accurate it is accepted in courts of law
The law is also the thing that divorce rapes men and calls it justice, so lets not assume just because the court uses this plethysmograph thing that it is an accurate machine and that these “homophobes” are secretly homosexual. Let’s use a little common sense. You feel strongly enough about defending gays to post about it. Does that mean you secretely hate them and have fantasies about beating them or something? No, that is silly.
———————————————-
I wasn’t going to pick a side, but since the thread has already gone to s~~~, I might as well do so. I’m with AncientWisdom because we can all say what we want about homosexuality, but it is absolutely a perversion. It is not normal and what is normal is usually healthy. Penis + Vagina = natural combo. I don’t hate gay people but praising them, especially when they already get plenty of it from others, is wrong.. As two adults, what they do with/between each other is none of my business.
The law is also the thing that divorce rapes men and calls it justice, so lets not assume just because the court uses this plethysmograph thing that it is an accurate machine and that these “homophobes” are secretly homosexual. Let’s use a little common sense. You feel strongly enough about defending gays to post about it. Does that mean you secretely hate them and have fantasies about beating them or something? No, that is silly.
So you maintain that getting a erection is not a good indicator of being turned on. Show a little common sense yourself. If you have seen a study that shows men who defend gay rights “secretly hate them and have fantasies about beating them or something? ” I’d like to see it. Who said anything about beating -please stay on topic and refrain from being inflammatory.
Homosexuals were our predecessors in MGTOW, and as such respect ought to be shown.
These are my predecessors.
So basically, you’re saying a person’s motivation will invalidate their arguments on an issue. Homophobes who may be closet gay (or not) should be ignored. They obviously have a vested interested. Does that mean we should ignore gays who want equal rights, because they have a vested interest as well?
Ok. Then do it.
narwhalParticipant 264
So basically, you’re saying a person’s motivation will invalidate their arguments on an issue. Homophobes who may be closet gay (or not) should be ignored. They obviously have a vested interested. Does that mean we should ignore gays who want equal rights, because they have a vested interest as well?I am saying nothing of the kind. When someone’s arguments do not hold water it makes sense that their positions should be held up to scrutiny and examined according to their biases. Look, if someone has prejudices because of their irrational or untested religious beliefs, that is their business. However if one tries to denigrate a whole group of members of our MGTOW brotherhood with totally unjustified and unscientific statements they only work against our goals. Aren’t there enough feminist and manginas to undermine us without us giving them ammunition to turn us against ourselves by making us seem like a bunch of ignorant homophobes with no respect for real scientific facts.
Narwhal, I can see that you are at least trying to argue this issue sensibly, I only ask that you look at the facts with an open mind.narwhalParticipant 264
So basically, you’re saying a person’s motivation will invalidate their arguments on an issue. Homophobes who may be closet gay (or not) should be ignored. They obviously have a vested interested. Does that mean we should ignore gays who want equal rights, because they have a vested interest as well?I am saying nothing of the kind. When someone’s arguments do not hold water it makes sense that their positions should be held up to scrutiny and examined according to their biases. Look, if someone has prejudices because of their irrational or untested religious beliefs, that is their business. However if one tries to denigrate a whole group of members of our MGTOW brotherhood with totally unjustified and unscientific statements they only work against our goals. Aren’t there enough feminist and manginas to undermine us without us giving them ammunition to turn us against ourselves by making us seem like a bunch of ignorant homophobes with no respect for real scientific facts.
Narwhal, I can see that you are at least trying to argue this issue sensibly, I only ask that you look at the facts with an open mind.I am not saying arguments shouldn’t be knocked down when they don’t hold water. I’m saying that whether the argument holds water should be tested without looking at bias. Bias is irrelevant.
And I haven’t said I agree with you or not. I have not attempted to verify any of the facts presented because I don’t care. I personally don’t want homosexually to be more socially accepted because I like my world the way it is, and I don’t want the world my kids grow up in to be more feminine then it already is. I do think that a gay person is better off not having a gay relationship, but I have nothing to back that up other then personal experience (of gay friends, not me). Biblically speaking, homsexuality is mentioned along with sex outside of marriage. So I’m a hypocrite too. So that’s my bias, throw it out the window.
What I think works is for government to get out of marriage altogether. Create a framework for contracts between 2 (or more) people for non-business purposes, with flexible and pre-stated conditions of the contract and distribution of assets at termination. Then society can hash out homosexuality and all the other equal rights and morality issues tied to marriage. No body wins. People will have to deal with the world not being their own version utopia, and others will realize that calling someone a bigot won’t always get you want you want.
Ok. Then do it.
Who the heck is talking about crimes? My reference to the fact that penile plethysmograph evidence was good enough to be accepted in a court of law was meant to show the accuracy of this method to determine sexual orientation. A person’s sexual orientation is best defined by what stimulus sexualy arouses them. The study shows that homophobia in men is strongly correlated with closeted gay desires, whether they claim they act on them or not, despite their denial. Cypher seems to have touched a nerve among some homophobes here.
Indeed, and I play those nerves like a xylophone. They claim that homosexuality is allegedly unnatural, yet when I advocate other natural things, such as not putting people in cages for activities of mutual consent, then they show their true colours. Thus they speak with forked tongue. I do not count such people as MGTOW as they never went their own way, rather, they merely switched masters.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
