>muslims love trannies

You assume random shit out of air and make conclusions. What are you, some jew?

Why would you want to cure gays?

If you cure all fags, what about the people who would want to fuck them?

They would be cured, because I cured all gays.

But there is a difference between feminine gays and masculine """gays""" and bisexuals.

You would need two completly seperate cures.

You probably already failed at curing them, because you just see them as "fags" and not with different mindsets.

So what?

What's your point?

You think gays can be cured, but you didn't even know that.

You are not a scientist. You don't know anything about what makes someone experience same sex attraction. Hell most straight guys experience that, that's where the trap stuff comes from.

Gays are more likely being born the more brothers they have, because the womb of the mother becomes after every male birth more adept at supressing testosterone.

Same sex Attraction has existed for thousand of years and it was never cured and often not even seen as a mental illness. In fact in Ancient Rome masculine "gays" and straights were basically synonymous, because they all still would be having wives and as long as you only dominantly fucked another guy it would be perfectly straight. In fact it would just be excused as you being too masculine.

You know fucking nothing about any of this.

I do. Lots of propaganda and trends, like it is now turning lots of straight people into gays, dykes and trannies.

Yet, not most homosexual people now were heterosexual and just got brainwashed by jews.
Before the second half of the XX century, the gay propaganda among the nations and just big circles of people very rare. Some gays before were really born that way: having mental dysfunctions that would prevent them from reproducing, but that's definetely more rare than "conversed" gays.
As for gay propaganda: for example, we had lots of it in the Ancient Greece, with religious and social ties for it. Most likely one of the reasons why Greece lost to Rome.

For first, these gays still breeded. For second, saying that a person that was a part of gay sexual intercourse is straight is just retarded.
For third, earlier in the history people had lots of stupid assumptions and strange information. Of course, most traditions were fine and logically explained. And most of these made sure than the people now will not die and will leave life after themselves. Don't think that Ancient Rome was an exclusion.

And, if homosexuality was good and natural, then explain me these points:
0. Unprotected straight sex makes healthy creatures give new life. Homosexual sex doesn't, it is more likely to do the opposite.
1. During a homosexual intercourse, the partners are most likely to damage each other's penises and rectums.
2. Human's rectum is always dirty. Putting a penis inside is a sure way to get infections, for both sides of the intercourse.
3. Unlike the vagina, rectum always instinctively tightens when something goes in it from outside. Destroying the instinct to tighten it is as unnatural as it could get.
4. If gay people are not worse than straight and are at least as good as them, then why the nature wants them to extinct in such a way?

What is objectively good in homosexuality? You can't breed, you are most likely get diseases… These are some of already listed cons. So where are the pros of it? Is it only to sate strange lust? Like an animal, that does not control itself? That's natural, but degenerative.

I don't think those words exist with any meaning in evolutionary terms.
Fags have been around for longer then 'the gay agenda' so they are arising through some means.
Considering that we still don't know what drives sexuality as there appears to be no straight or gay gene then it suggests that its brain wiring (and brain wiring isn't represented in the genome either) which is something thats not understood at all.

So for now we are stuck with the gays.

uhh try again fan of the gays

something that a cuck, faggot or a kike would say

Don't forget about about the Ancient Greeks & the Spartans - they were notirous boy-lovers as well.

...

This isn't new information, these sub humans are inherently degenerate. The whole false notion of them being prudes is just pushed to attract an image of them being th bastions of moral code, when in reality they're ravenous heathens.

Men, women, who cares?

If you find yourself on the wrong side of my erect penis, it's your own fault.

aaaayyyy lmao

Don't confuse wiring connections with potential.
Clearly brain size and the brain cell is represented in genes but how your neurons connect together is not.

look it up

You didn't post any sources either and I never saved any of them, because I don't intend to waste too mch of my time on arguing about sexuality with some homophobic fun-loving Holla Forumsacks.

Greece didn't lose to Rome. They won the cultural victory. The upper class of Rome was so in love with Greek Culture they often couldn't even speak Latin. The plebs spoke Latin. Fun fact: Ceasar was part of "greek loving hippie movement" during his time and BTFO the conservatards who hated Greek culture.

Before the second half of the XX century, the gay propaganda among the nations and just big circles of people very rare. Some gays before were really born that way: having mental dysfunctions that would prevent them from reproducing, but that's definetely more rare than "conversed" gays.

At least you still acknowledge begrudgingly that there are Gays who would have been gay without "jew propaganda". Christ, try that with anyone outside 4chan and Holla Forums, user.

Okay tell me more about gay propaganda. How does it work? And how is it so tempting?

this is my thread, what would you recommend I do then?

That's how they thought back then though. Straight just meant masuline, dominant. That's why they hated fags, because they were feminine and submissive. They only hated that kind of homosexuality, because the other kind wasn'tt even recognized as homosexuality.

What? It's not a stupid assumption. Both are just arbitrary definitions. I actually think the ancient one makes more sense and is grounded in reality.
The modern definition we just used is only 200 years old and invented by jewish psychologists.

How does the penis get damaged in this? It doesn't, because if it would it wouldn't be pleasurable and almost no one would do it.

I can see where you are coming from with the rectum, but that's more about some subset of fetishists using ever bigger and longer dildos to destroy their asshole.

The vagina isn't sterile either. Also you can easily clean it by douching or whatever it's called.

How do you explain the immense pleasure when your prostate is orgasming from analsex? That's just a natural reaction.

Nature is pretty good at keeping making gay people. Look at bisexuals and look up my earlier example about testosterone in the mother's womb.

Wrong, you can breed. Only a tiny minority of sex in the West actually produces a baby. Most sexual experiences are a bonding experience and because it's pleasureable.
People do it to keep each other happy.

no, nothing about the act makes it more likely to get diseases

I just listed some pros.

Yup. Their definition of sexuality really makes more sense.
Many such cases! Sad!

Funny you mention straight Germanic barbarians, because they often made other men give them a blowjob as a sign of domination over them. This happened among the Vikings too.

Well the rectum doesn't have the reinforced double wall of the vagina.

While nothing really in the human body is 100% sterile the vagina does have self cleaning process to try and keep the invaders down. Douching can actually be detrimental to the vagina because of this. The rectum does not clean itself in fact damage to the rectum wall can lead to septicemia where damage to the vaginal wall does not.

evolution sucks, its a shitty designer.

Seems so. The cause isn't really well known though, the womb thing is one theory and I'm not sure how strong that is.

Wrong. No only are you exposing yourself to e.coli because of the thinner rectum walls and anus you are more likely to cause tearing exposing yourself directly to the bloodstream making unprotected anal sex _VERY_ risky.

Good way to make me very uninterested to continue this discussion.

I still would like to know how your penis gets damaged when you put in a man's ass.
Does it get the gay?

I'm not the Holla Forumsack user.

If I didn't respond to your points its because I didn't have any issue with them.

Are you sure? Because if you were ever to become a politican, I could produce some very interesting facts about what you agree with. :^)

Ok. What I got:
Being younger child doesn't neccesarily makes you gay, you are just less responsive to women.
psypost.org/2016/05/study-prenatal-testosterone-exposure-mens-agreeableness-toward-women-42504

Vagina has self-cleaning processes; acid in it that fights off most of the bacteria; it is easier to clean, and it may naturaly contain only the remains of blood and bacteria.
Rectum's "dirt" are: parasites, parasitic worms, bacteria, feces (feces getting in your body that is not gut is worse than some bacteria). Also, the ways to deeply clean the rectum are unnatural: find a source of water with strong and focused pressure or find a resin vacuum water injector or put something inside…

Probably the skin getting torn from the head while penis is moving in a sore tight place with feces, and getting squeezed by sphincter? And all sore because there are no natural ways for rectum to be wet and slippery for insertions?

Male's ejaculatory ducts lie within the prostate gland. It is a coincidence that the prostate could be stimulated via rectum.

Nature is also skilled at keeping making diseases for people, genetical and other. And creating dysfunctional people.

What are there, hidden wombs in male guts?
You would think that people get a lots of sex so the minority of females getting pregnant is enough for white population to grow, and not to die yet you would make a mistake. Because the heterosexual part (probably not the biggest now) of all couples don't want children, have lots of contraceptives and want sex for fun, white population is dying.
Also, if you would look up and see the population rises in west nations - these are population rises from migrations.

Yeah, getting rectum and penis torn while all being covering in bacteries and feces is completely safe and won't get you anything bad.

I see this as a sign from them that anyone gay is inferior to straight. And they make people gay (not understanding they become gay themselves, well, shit, they are barbarians).

By the way don't think that one user is that user, don't even look for the same people here. It's an user imageboatd.

...

I don't know, user. Ancient People managed just fine. And have you heard of bareback gay porn? That's a thing, they actually go raw into the ass with their pee pee.

Also gay people don't have sex when the bottom has feces in his butt. And I want to see some source about the skin getting torn, because that doesn't sound pleasureable at all. Also it doesn't make sense, because it's only the bottom that has a high infection rate with STDs if you don't use a condom. If you really ripped your skin then topping another ass would be the more infectous than being a bottom.

doesn't fucking matter, it's there and it's natural to respond to stimulation with pleasure

you can't just use the "natural" argument in yoru favour and then dismiss it as "coincidence" later

It's fine dude, no one forces you to sit on a dick.

You can just fast and drink a lot I heard. And eat lots of fiber.

Are gay people eunuchs and can't father kids?

Also, if you would look up and see the population rises in west nations - these are population rises from migrations.

How is that a reply to this:

I don't get it.

stop spreading fake news

also I think I struck a nerve here, didn't I? You didn't respond to a lot of my claims, because you simply can't, but you don't want to adjust your worldview.

1. There is no gay in that example. The Germanics weren't gay for sexually dominating other people. They were in fact straight as fuck.

2. They weren't barbarians. They people that conquered Rome were Christians. They had the same armour as the Romans and other technology.

I was writing about the anal sex in a "natural" way, without "unnatural" preparations.
Maybe because the Ancients were doing said "unnatural" preparations? They culture and knowledge were "most likely" advanced enough for this.
To be honest I don't know much about it.
Probably because they are "trained" and get preparations before the act, just like any other porn actor/actress?

How 'bout things like bug bites than have poison that makes you to scratch these bite marks, for you to feel pleasure and release, and for the skin irritations that would spread further to get scratched more, making you forget about the bug that bitten you?
Or how about people that fap everyday for a few times, having pleasure, but wasting time, energy, resources and degrading?
How about people that after sea storms get isolated on boats for weeks, and, being parched, follow their instincts to save themselves and seek pleasure in drinking water, drink salt water, get parched even more and die?
The natural primal urges are not always good for human. Far from always.

Nature is far from perfect and is somewhat retarded. Of course there would be exceptions to her relative perfection, just like that getting something into rectum and having it poke far and hard to one of your organs through the rectum walls and inner tissues would get you weird reactions.

You can't father kids if no one gives birth to them.

Some of them are dead-ends of the discussion and/or just subjective thoughts. It's not like I want to get every part of your post and argue with it.

Choose one.

Ok. Their culture was still far from perfect.

They're all sourced, literally every one of those is sourced.

Missed this one

Because of white people now doing sex mostly for fun, and major part of them are not doing straight sex with releasing semen into the vagina without protection, the white population is decreasing, as the quantity of births is getting lesser than the quantity of deaths in white population.
Is going extinct because of own will is natural for species, user?

Also:

I would not say that cleaning rectum with water that goes through digestive system will make rectum sterile and free of parasites and fully free of feces.
Also, that would mean that someone is willingly consumes big amounts of products, amounts that would not give him any good (except for anal intercourse that is still needs to be proven to be natural in this discussion for the sake of homosexuality). Even if such consuming is being time from time, that's still unnatural, because it is done willingly.

Mate, even the "cavemen" were advanced enough for a lot of stuff, you'd be surprised.

I mean except cleaning what other preperation can they possibly do? I can't think of anything.

It's the opposite for me. I am fine with slight amount of pain and if you don't scratch it the pain remains the same. You add new pain sensations to it when you scratch and it makes it overall more painful and a longer experience.

The problem is that they are doing it alone and not fapping with their friends or having sex with someone:

youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

it is known, because if you watch this video just think of fapping & porn as the drugs

They would die anyway, because they must be incredibly desperate. It's like stripping yourself naked in a blizzard so you die quicker.

I am not satisfied with your examples.

Weird reactions, yes. Like Mr hands and his horse lover. Mr Hand's reaction was death.

Good thing that gays are all human males then with the ability to produce semen.

I do that though and you deeply insult me by not doing that.

Now respond to the jewish professor passage!

I am sorry, but this is how it worked. And they would have laughed or killed you for calling them gay. It's like the cuck calling the bull a sissy, while he is raw fucking his wife. The bull would either laugh at the absurdity or just kill the cuck.

Those are dangerous masculine, macho men, user, you should be careful what you say to them.

Is there such a thing as a perfect culture even?

Okay, but you didn't respond to how I found some positive of gay sex, a pro argument.
Why didn't you respond to it that way?

In the past we ate a shit ton of fiber, user. And drinking water was very important.

I'm sure all the homosexual cavemen didn't left any genetical heritage, if you get where to I'm leading again. strange advances in (basic) science that get you stuff, but that stuff is of questionable usability; that stuff for some people replaces breeding

I'm not a pro at all, but I can assume:
1. they have experience in anal
2. they stretched their rectums long before
3. they use lubrication
4. they warmed up and stretched their rectums before filming porn
Some of these just can't even relate a bit to the term "natural".

Ok, what's for you that's for you, but I wrote abour average example for average human in a normal, natural situation.

I'd say because of the urges they get too crazy and stupid to be even desperate, and start drinking sea water.

Ok, and having pleasure from alchol and drugs is good, then? In a way like you described prostate stimulation:

And you don't want to give your own to my statement "The natural primal urges are not always good for human. Far from always." for counterargument?

Or like homosexual anal sex (that I was describing in "getting something into rectum and having it poke far and hard to one of your organs through the rectum walls and inner tissues would get you weird reactions", the "something" is the penis; the "one of organs" is the prostate).

It's kind of useless when you are gay and you don't put your male organ into female organ and leave the semen here (of course you could leave your sperm in the sperm bank or somewhere else where it will not spoil and/or die, but that's unnatural as hell);
or when you are bisexual, and, if you (from my point of view and from POV of my previous arguments, that "if" is very sure to exist) have got diseases, infections and/or AIDs from (very most likely homosexual) sex, when give your semen to the woman, that woman has extremely high chances of getting these diseases, your child gets more chances to have diseases if he will be born (and, if woman got diseases, she's likely to either cease some of the efficiency of her body's functions, or overall body function (i.e. death), and that will be hard to give birth).

And what is your point here?

What exactly? This?:
Homosexual sex is a dangerous and questionable way to give and receive happiness. There are lots of other ways to do the latter two, especially non-sexual.

Something more close to perfection, without things like hypocrise or strange loopholes in definitions and valuations.

When "people" didn't had meat n' other non-plant tissues in their diet, they probably had little knowledge to know what to do and how to prepare to anal.
Drinking shit-ton of water (quantity that would make you shit water and clear the rectum) could give you hyponatremia.

Oh they totally did, user. Because we are not talking about 100% exclusive homosexuality here.
Again, literally only you are talking about this.

most of that is just past experience with the body

I was thinking more immideate preperation.

we were talking about bareback sex, user, rememeber?

That is stupid. So you are saying they aren't desperate, but only because of the pleasent feeling of water running down their throat they kill themselves by drinking sea water, but are otherwise not really that desperate in such a life-threatening situation?

So you watched the video? Surprised me too. But prostate simulation is a lof safer than drinking alcohol, user. Better do that instead of drinking too much.

Of course you can find exceptions, especially today, because the homo sapiens didn't adapt to the technology we have now. Or food abundance where our taste for sweet things is biting us in the ass.

But given that your statement is vague anyway "not always good", there is really nothing to conclude from that. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.

the sex act itself doesn't create diseases, it's just about the company you fucked, that's the thing

not all homosexuals and bisexuals have diseases or will get these diseases

Dunno, just be careful, user. Not every gay man is feminine.

No, that is no the everything I said, you really like corrupting my arguments, don't you? Please stop being so dishonest. Especially since I said something very important before that:

People do it to keep each other happy.

Homosexual sex is perfectly safe. As safe and pleasureable as straight sex. And it doesn't matter if gf or bf, you are still bonding with the person you are having sex with.