All fornicators are fags
#1
Gay marriage doesn't really surprise me much because most men were spiritually gay before it happened anyway. That's why there isn't much opposition to it -- because most "conservative" men, even are spiritual fags. 44% do anal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...time%20(1).

At the point where you're putting your penis in another person's butthole, who cares if it's a girl or a twink? It's gross, serves no reproductive purpose, and disgusts God no matter who you're doing it with. 

"Straight" men are also hypersexual like fags now. 64% get to have hookups and probably 99% would if they could https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Coll..._263047058

Tinder is just straight Grinder. Again, at the point where you're having sex for "fun", with plastic on your dick, with no intention of ever seeing the other person again, do you think God cares at that point whether you're doing it with a man or a woman? No, you are spiritually a fag all the same. 

The only sex before marriage that is not totally faggy is sex with the hopes of getting married and having children later. In this sexual marketplace, a man must perform for a spiritually gay woman if he hopes to marry and impregnate her later. Only religious girls don't demand sex before marriage. So even though it's technically fornication, sex with a serious girlfriend you hope to marry isn't totally faggy. Hookups with random women are, and so are degenerate sex acts with women. 

I'm writing this because a lot of these spiritual fags seem to think they are somehow different from gays, when they are not. The only difference between them and Gaetan Dugas is that straight fags happened to be born with normal sex CNN weights. The real paradigm is not, given you are an onanistic, porn addicted, hyper-sexual fornicating pervert, do you prefer women or something else -- rather it's whether you have enough spiritual integrity to not be an onanist in the first place. Trannyism, homosex, fornication, pedo, beastiality, rape -- all these things are fruit of the same tree, the tree of onanism.
#2
Wanted to second OP here. I'm personally gen X and have already had one kid finish college, so I might be too old to really "get" today's youth, but from what I've read online and observed while interacting with my oldest's friends, there really is very little resistance to degeneracy anymore. These so-called "incels" get attacked left and right, but besides the few normal marriages you see, they're the only young men I can have any respect for. Even then, many still practice onanist degeneracy through their computer or animes.
#3
There is nothing abnormal or wrong about humans desiring or enjoying sex. This is like a Nu-Christian rooshian talking point that sounds Super Badass but doesn't say anything outside of the Overton window and takes the blame off of things like feminism, dysgenics, age of consent laws, etc., really just shames young white men so that they are inclined to join your cult.

"A girl sucked you off? Don't you know that's LITERALLY sodomy? You're just like a sodomi-oops I mean you ARE a sodomite. Yup, getting a blowjob or having sex before marriage is the same as getting fucked in the ass by a man. I have A WIFE. Aren't you jealous??? Please REPENT and subscribe to the Beartaria gumroad. It will make you feel better about yourself and make you feel more badass if you SHAME OTHER MEN for doing that and worse things, so join my community!"
#4
(10-26-2022, 07:17 PM)BillyONare Wrote: There is nothing abnormal or wrong about humans desiring or enjoying sex. This is like a Nu-Christian rooshian talking point that sounds Super Badass but doesn't say anything outside of the Overton window and takes the blame off of things like feminism, dysgenics, age of consent laws, etc., really just shames young white men so that they are inclined to join your cult.

"A girl sucked you off? Don't you know that's LITERALLY sodomy? You're just like a sodomi-oops I mean you ARE a sodomite. Yup, getting a blowjob or having sex before marriage is the same as getting fucked in the ass by a man. I have A WIFE. Aren't you jealous??? Please REPENT and subscribe to the Beartaria gumroad. It will make you feel better about yourself and make you feel more badass if you SHAME OTHER MEN for doing that and worse things, so join my community!"

Laughed aloud at this post. Excellent work fellow patriot.
#5
I will agree that men who don't want to reproduce are pretty fagoty. Seems to be a millennial thing. Not sure how common this is.
#6
(10-26-2022, 07:17 PM)BillyONare Wrote: There is nothing abnormal or wrong about humans desiring or enjoying sex. This is like a Nu-Christian rooshian talking point that sounds Super Badass but doesn't say anything outside of the Overton window and takes the blame off of things like feminism, dysgenics, age of consent laws, etc., really just shames young white men so that they are inclined to join your cult.

"A girl sucked you off? Don't you know that's LITERALLY sodomy? You're just like a sodomi-oops I mean you ARE a sodomite. Yup, getting a blowjob or having sex before marriage is the same as getting fucked in the ass by a man. I have A WIFE. Aren't you jealous??? Please REPENT and subscribe to the Beartaria gumroad. It will make you feel better about yourself and make you feel more badass if you SHAME OTHER MEN for doing that and worse things, so join my community!"

Roosh isn't here, meds.
#7
The predictor of something is not the same as that thing (grades are a predictor of intelligence, when you equate grades to intelligence you defeat the point). Two things that correlate with each other are, in fact, not the same thing. I don't like the provocativeness (and maybe dishonesty) of the OP.
#8
You can go ahead and recommend against fornication, but if Aidan Maclear, BAP, Heartiste, or Jim are very offensive or “evil” or “coomers” or “pedophiles” to you, then you have gone too far into pharisy.
#9
(10-27-2022, 12:09 PM)BillyONare Wrote: You can go ahead and recommend against fornication, but if Aidan Maclear, BAP, Heartiste, or Jim are very offensive or “evil” or “coomers” or “pedophiles” to you, then you have gone too far into pharisy.

It's only going to be the start.

There aren't any sacred cows online with regards to people. There's no need to pledge parasocial allegiance to people, and it's perfectly fine to recognize them as promoting certain evil things. There's no issue. The issue with Twitter traditionalists isn't that they're too prudish and no-fun it's because they're not prudish and not no-fun enough. If that's Pharisaism then so be it, we should be as Pharisees.

Basically, if disliking X, Y, Z ecelebs for having a tendency to promote bad things A, B, and C means that that person is a Pharisee; then what can someone conclude from that. The other options are to become a Zealot and die in a crushed revolt, or be a Sadducee and be an orbiting puppet, or what...
#10
Good post, OP. 

Billy, the pharisees' false piety stood in contrast to the spirit of Christ's commandments. He was very clear on the subject of fornication and adultery, so don't invoke his enemies if you have no piety of your own. If you aren't a Christian then pick a different reference.

Generally speaking, there is no conflict between traditional sexual mores and attacking feminism. I have seen this bizarre idea promoted around the sphere but it's a false dichotomy conjured out of thin air by the promiscuous right to excuse their/our own participation in sexual liberation while shirking the blame for it just like any woman.

Yeah, BAP and Heartiste and guys like that are never going to conquer degeneracy and impose their will on it. They don't even impose will over their own impulses. PUA/fuck prosties is an opportunistic coping strategy for enjoying female sexual liberation without challenging it on more than a rhetorical level. There's nothing vital about spewing into another dumb slut on birth control who would just abort your offspring anyway, and whatever thrill comes of that is a fleeting illusion. Sex only has vital merit when it produces heirs, at which point you're going to want to own their mother so they can be raised properly, and eventually you'll also need leverage to help them maximize their own reproductive potential unto the next generation. Fuck fast/die alone is a strategy for niggers and mice; if you recognize that you're part of a deeper bloodline which you have a duty to strengthen, then you'll want the sexual laws given by tradition for that very purpose.

Logically, the fact that women and minorities are broadly incapable of higher-level thought and tend to behave on a level barely above that of beasts when not controlled, entails that there's only one other place within which discipline can originate. Agency begins with internalization of responsibility and the willingness to bear the cost of fixing the problem, not for irredeemable fags and whores but at least for yourself and your own family. If you curse degeneracy yet continue whoremongering, who do you think is coming to rescue you from modernity?
#11
@holebear Prudishness is leftism. Prudishness is a societal pyramid scheme where you attack the reputation's of other white gentlemen over increasingly ridiculous things as they expend more and more energy conforming to your ridiculous rules. This is a negative sum game. We are against leftism.

@Guest I agree with what you say that is not a strawman of the mentioned figures and me. You and OP are taking very reasonable things and turning it into wild hyperbole and strawmen.

Also we have it on good authority that the word "fornication" only applied to women for obvious reasons. Beware people who use gender-neutral language. It is a feminist payload.
#12
(10-27-2022, 07:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: @holebear Prudishness is leftism. Prudishness is a societal pyramid scheme where you attack the reputation's of other white gentlemen over increasingly ridiculous things as they expend more and more energy conforming to your ridiculous rules. This is a negative sum game. We are against leftism.

@Guest I agree with what you say that is not a strawman of the mentioned figures and me. You and OP are taking very reasonable things and turning it into wild hyperbole and strawmen.

Also we have it on good authority that the word "fornication" only applied to women for obvious reasons. Beware people who use gender-neutral language. It is a feminist payload.

Prudishness is leftism? Why. Squinting at communist nofuns and traditional societies and saying 'see! these are the same! they don't want us to do sex how i want to!' is a very, very tenuous way of going about things. Don't beg the question.

I also imagine that, let's say and assume that 'fornication' being only applied to women is true, then I imagine you also say the same about 'virgin'? Meaning that we should also stop using 'virgin' as a descriptor for men. And none of it matters because you know what people mean anyway. They mean casual sex &c.
#13
Everyone knows what you mean by those words. But what does the Bible mean by those words?
#14
(10-27-2022, 07:50 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Everyone knows what you mean by those words. But what does the Bible mean by those words?

The Church is fairly clear about these things, and if you don't want to cite Catholic (or Orthodox sources), then sure, read what the Tannaim taught it as. And if you don't want them because Joos, then whatever, I can leave you to torture the text so you can justify something else.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcqwbqVXgAEjlkx.png

Guest was basically right wrt "Billy, the pharisees' false piety stood in contrast to the spirit of Christ's commandments. He was very clear on the subject of fornication and adultery, so don't invoke his enemies if you have no piety of your own. If you aren't a Christian then pick a different reference."
Sure, you can point a finger and say how smarmy it sounds. A sensible person could read some smarminess into this; but it's not really wrong. If you deny him, then it seems you would also have to the grounds you stand on. Tacking post-it notes to things isn't very helpful.

Namely since like in that smuggy I linked, there really isn't a difference in practice between this what leftists do with torturing texts until it says David and Jonathan were gay and so on.

We are against leftists, aren't we?

"They only used this word for women so there's no men to be beholden to sexual restraint." (Among other things that people on 'our side' use as prooftexts to try to support other spicy conclusions)
"Actually this word about Sodom didn't mean faggotry, it meant uhhhh not being hospitable" or something.

Remembering the curryacker felix/scythmyth trying to use Biblical prooftexts (Exactly 'But what does the Bible say?') in much the same way to try to discredit Catholicism while posturing as a Puritan meanwhile he of course his only interest was to tear down the entire edifice of Christianity by attacking its most preeminent identification per synecdoche.
#15
Nothing against restraint. It's just annoying to hear that "having premarital sex with a girl is LITERALLY the same as getting your fudge packed" and "Jesus EQUALLY was against both men and women having premarital sex and it's equally bad". I find it funny that your analogy of me torturing text is "well you are saying sodomy means something different than faggotry", but that's exactly what OP said. There's more to Christianity than slave morality. If there isn't then I'm not a Christian, but I think that Christians are basically on the side of Good and I want to interpret Christianity as accurately and charitably as possible.

Quote:they don't want us to do sex how i want to!'

I want to kidnap a fair virgin in the dead of night, take her back to my lair, ravish her, and make her bear my children. Maybe there will be some marriage ritual when I'm having a sentimental moment.
#16
(10-27-2022, 08:23 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Nothing against restraint. It's just annoying to hear that "having premarital sex with a girl is LITERALLY the same as getting your fudge packed" and "Jesus EQUALLY was against both men and women having premarital sex and it's equally bad". I find it funny that your analogy of me torturing text is "well you are saying sodomy means something different than faggotry", but that's exactly what OP said. There's more to Christianity than slave morality. If there isn't then I'm not a Christian, but I think that Christians are basically on the side of Good and I want to interpret Christianity as accurately and charitably as possible.

Quote:they don't want us to do sex how i want to!'

I want to kidnap a fair virgin in the dead of night, take her back to my lair, ravish her, and make her bear my children. Maybe there will be some marriage ritual when I'm having a sentimental moment.

They're not 'LITERALLY' the same obviously. And it probably comes not so infrequently from a place of coping [although this is a dangerous way to think because then soon enough you accuse everyone who dares to cross you wrt sexual morality as a 'coping prude tradcath'].
The issue is that it'd be fornication (per CCC paragraph 2353, or if there's non-Catholics, there are the relevant verses regarding Onanism), and that it usually involves coitus interruptus, condoms, or other contraceptives (including for example, abortifacients); those are all different things, and things like oral or especially anal involvement as OP stated are obviously sodomy.
I think who people say 'LITERALLY', which I haven't seen all that much, if they're not insecure, then are just overexaggerating to be polemical.

"There's more to Christianity than slave morality. If there isn't then I'm not a Christian, but I think that Christians are basically on the side of Good and I want to interpret Christianity as accurately and charitably as possible."
So you posit that kind of Hessaphonic language, 'slave morality', and then you walk it back and try to be conciliatory so no one notices you gritting your teeth with regards to what Christianity and Christians actually ostensbly believe and want and subjugating your faith to some other arbitrating criterion ('If X, then I'm not Christian').
I mean let's swap out 'slave morality' with 'love'™ and see how it reads; do you see the problem? There's no real need to interpret Christianity 'charitably', because being accurate and correct is charity.

I hope this doesn't come off as smarmy or overtly Judaic but this is just how it is.

Also, I mean I doubt that's ever going to happen with regards to taking away a fair virgin, so whatever; but that would not be so good to do!

I guess was reading and responding to a dfferent part of the OP
#17
Andrew Sullivan, arguably the public interlexual most associated with the push for gay mawidge in the 25-odd years before Obergefell, said the exact same thing in his 2003 article in The New Republic entitled "We Are All Sodomites Now." The article was published three months before the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that state laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional with their decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

Of course, Sullivan had the opposite opinion regarding the desirability of sodomy as OP does. After a long examination of the biblical and otherwise historical roots of proscriptions against sodomy (any non-procreative sex), he asks:

Quote:...on what rational grounds is sodomy actually immoral? Or to put it more starkly: Why is it wrong?

The fundamental answer is that it is unnatural. It violates the purpose of human sexuality, which is designed to foster procreation. And at some level, that argument surely makes some sense. There is something unique and miraculous about the connection between male-female sex and the creation of new life. Its connection to a marital structure in which that new life can be nurtured, protected and elevated is also one that is obviously vital to defend. In all this, Catholic doctrine affirms something life-giving and important: the nexus between sex, marriage and family. As a symbol of what sexuality can be about, indeed what it is ultimately about, this linkage makes moral and theological sense. It also makes social sense. The data is overwhelming about how better adjusted children are when they grow up in stable, nurturing traditional homes. It makes all the sense in the world for a society to find a way to celebrate and protect this arrangement, if for nothing else, the benefit of the next generation.

He then asks how heterosexuals who want to have non-procreative sex but stop homos from butt piracy square the logical circle:

Quote:Aware of the crudeness of the Thomist position, today’s “natural law” theorists, in a new twist, have dropped Aquinas’s insistence on procreation as the sole criterion by which sexual interaction can be morally judged. They now argue not from what appears to be in nature, as understood by contemporary or even medieval science, but what they posit as the “natural good” of marriage. The point of sexual activity, they now assert, is not just procreation, but the unitive experience of marriage itself—the permanent bodily fusion of two human beings of the opposite sex. The actual desires or sexual orientations of human beings, these theorists now argue, are not morally relevant. Sex is about the natural good of marriage; and all human beings must adhere to that natural good or disavow sexual activity altogether.

So sex is no longer about reproduction, and nothing else. It’s about marriage, and nothing else. “The union of the reproductive organs of husband and wife really unites them biologically,” theologian John Finnis argues. They become maritally, biologically one, and if they put any barriers between them in their sexual acts—condoms, for example—they are violating that biological unity, and destroying their marriage. Moroever because marriage changes the very identity of a person, non-procreative sex leads to the human being’s spiritual and moral disintegration. Such sexual expression is a self-contradiction.

Notice how this new form of natural law, while trying to avoid reducing human beings to mere reproduction factories, nevertheless ends up exactly where we began. Even in a marriage, let alone outside of it, oral or anal or contracepted or mutually masturbatory sex is still immoral. Whereas in earlier natural law, marriage seemed to be a regrettable but necessary way to restrain the evil of sexual desire, the new natural law places marriage front and center and sees procreative sex as the critical and positive practice that makes marriage real.

This new doctrine is, however, amended yet again in the Amicus brief filed on behalf of the Christian right group, the Family Research Council, in the upcoming Lawrence vs Texas case. In Texas, the fundamentalist defenders of criminalizing same-sex sodomy face what might seem an insurmountable obstacle. They have long claimed that sodomy is wrong, whoever practises it—heterosexuals and homosexuals. But the Texas law only polices sodomy when practised by homosexuals. One might imagine that a principled fundamentalist would find this troubling: because it sanctions the far more common practise of heterosexual sodomy, while criminalizing the same practice for a tiny minority. But the new natural lawyers find a way to justify this. The Catholic authors of the brief, Robert P. George and Gerard Bradley, write the following: “The critical difference upon which the legal distinction rests is not the raw physical behavior but the relationships: same sex deviate acts can never occur within marriage, during an engagement to marry, or within any relationship that could ever lead to marriage. Physically similar sexual acts between married persons are constitutionally protected. Physically similar acts between unmarried persons of different sexes occur within relationships which Texas may wish to encourage, either as valuable in themselves, or because they could mature into marriages, or both.” So sodomy is not only now legally tolerable within heterosexual marriage, it is even tolerable outside marriage, as long as the practitioners are heterosexual and can therefore be regarded as engaging in a relationship—if only a one-night stand—that could conceivably one day lead toward marriage. George and Bradley even go so far as to say that such non-marital sodomitic relationships between heterosexuals could even be deemed by civil authorities as “valuable in themselves.” This defense of pre-marital sex from some of the most orthodox Catholics on the planet! George and Bradley then provide an additional practical reason for enforcing sodomy statutes against gays but not against straights: “Texas could reasonably conclude that criminal prosecution is too blunt a tool with which to distinguish along the spectrum of opposite-sex relationships, all potentially marital and many verging on or preparing for the strictly marital. Not wishing to intrude upon, damage, and perhaps destroy valued and incipiently marital relationships, Texas could reasonably decide to leave all these opposite-sex relationships undisturbed by the criminal law.”

In other words, criminalizing sodomy as such, without taking into consideration the relationship in which such sodomy takes place, or how such sodomy could one day lead to marriage, is too crude a legal framework. It would also be impossible to enforce. Imagine a police force required to make sure that every act of teenage oral sex is monitored and criminalized; or a legal structure where every time an unmarried couple uses a condom, the neighbors could call the cops. It’s simply impractical. But because there are far fewer homosexuals, and they are more identifiable, the law can be used to punish them and them alone. And because their relationships can never be marital, and therefore are of no social use, there’s no social cost incurred when cops “intrude upon, damage, and perhaps destroy” such relationships.

The same reasoning occurs within the new natural law’s theology as well. Here again, sodomy is officially forbidden. but when you look more closely, you see that it is only effectively forbidden to gays. What, for example, if a marriage cannot naturally or biologically conform to the demands of non-sodomitic sex? What if a spouse is infertile, or if one spouse is post-menopausal? You might think these would sadly remain outside the possibility of marriage as the good defined by the new theologians, alongside homosexuality. But no. In these cases, non-procreative sex is still okay as long as it conforms to the model in type. In other words, as long as the couple is mimicking procreative sex, they’re ok. Even if they have no intention of being procreative, it’s ok...

As a simple empirical matter, we are all sodomites now,

You can deride his pro-sodomy argument as immoral, sophistic, and even Talmudic, but he is obviously completely correct that the "fornicators" you deride indeed do want to have their sodomy cake and make sure homos can't eat it.
#18
(10-27-2022, 10:10 PM)Pregabalin Wrote: Andrew Sullivan, arguably the public interlexual most associated with the push for gay mawidge in the 25-odd years before Obergefell, said the exact same thing in his 2003 article in The New Republic entitled "We Are All Sodomites Now." The article was published three months before the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that state laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional with their decision in Lawrence v. Texas....You can deride his pro-sodomy argument as immoral, sophistic, and even Talmudic, but he is obviously completely correct that the "fornicators" you deride indeed do want to have their sodomy cake and make sure homos can't eat it.

True, and I will even go one step further and laugh at the idea of a pozzed sodomite obsessively arguing about sexual morality from a Catholic pov. 

With regards to the general topic, I think it's good to call out the way in which sexual culture has changed over the decades, but I dislike going overboard and calling this 'faggotry.' There is no such thing as a 'spiritual fag,' there's no such thing as 'spiritual' ANYTHING. This is low iq schizobabble talk where you try to apply a random negatively-valanced concept onto another act we (correctly) find to be negative in nature. If we're going to argue from a naturalist, Christian perspective, it's fine to simply say promiscuous sex, really any sex outside the confines of marriage and for the express purpose of procreation, is 'unnatural' because the direct purpose of sex is procreation. Sex for the sake of pleasure, while maybe immoral, is not homosexual in nature. @BillyONare is right to point out how retarded it sounds when you say getting a blowjob from a woman makes you a 'faggot' or is somehow a gay act. The tinder/grindr connection is interesting, but even the dating app problem is more accurately just a case of a reversal of who is in the dominant position now in the sexual marketplace. Instead of women going out of their way to impress men, we have the opposite.
#19
(10-27-2022, 11:04 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: True, and I will even go one step further and laugh at the idea of a pozzed sodomite obsessively arguing about sexual morality from a Catholic pov. 

With regards to the general topic, I think it's good to call out the way in which sexual culture has changed over the decades, but I dislike going overboard and calling this 'faggotry.' There is no such thing as a 'spiritual fag,' there's no such thing as 'spiritual' ANYTHING. This is low iq schizobabble talk where you try to apply a random negatively-valanced concept onto another act we (correctly) find to be negative in nature. If we're going to argue from a naturalist, Christian perspective, it's fine to simply say promiscuous sex, really any sex outside the confines of marriage and for the express purpose of procreation, is 'unnatural' because the direct purpose of sex is procreation. Sex for the sake of pleasure, while maybe immoral, is not homosexual in nature. @BillyONare is right to point out how retarded it sounds when you say getting a blowjob from a woman makes you a 'faggot' or is somehow a gay act. The tinder/grindr connection is interesting, but even the dating app problem is more accurately just a case of a reversal of who is in the dominant position now in the sexual marketplace. Instead of women going out of their way to impress men, we have the opposite.

Lol, true, I was going to mention Sullivan’s status (double enter-ndre?) in my brief description of him but got distracted.

You’re right though that the idea of “spiritual faggot” is silly, since, as even Sullivan notes, the lack of procreative potential in gaysex is not really why societies disdain homos.

The negative externalities of the sexual revolution on heteros really are conceptually oversimplified by calling straight promiscuity “faggotry.” Even the LGBTQ larping of hetero zoomers (mostly girls) is not really about homosexuality.
#20
(10-26-2022, 11:50 AM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote: Tinder is just straight Grinder. Again, at the point where you're having sex for "fun", with plastic on your dick, with no intention of ever seeing the other person again, do you think God cares at that point whether you're doing it with a man or a woman? No, you are spiritually a fag all the same. 

> Admits to using condoms
> Accuses others of faggotry

Hmmm...



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)