/logcabin/ - Right-Leaning Homosexual Males

inb4 you start denying free will to escape my logic

>>377

>why do you choose to engage in them?

Because I want to.

>Why not restrain them through your will?

Because I don't want to.

Because I'm a grown and responsible man and can share a healthy, valuable relationship with another man if I so deem it worthwhile.

As for le slippery slope (which does exist, mind you), see threads like >>124 and >>5.

The homosexual activities stem from a reversal of normal attraction for us. Rather than finding women attractive for any hormonal reasons, we instead are aroused by men.

There's supposedly developmental reasons we become homosexual which is part of why the finger test works so much of the time, so since this is a natural state we are in, there's not much reason to be upset by it.

Since it is something natural (a natural oddity), I don't really see an issue in engaging in homosexual relationships with other consenting adults.

The only thing restraining my urges would do is have me stuck living a celibate life, as I have never had any attraction to women and even attempting to has never worked.

On the matter of your image OP, I'm guessing you're concerned about the slippery slope as people strive to be accepting of everything. I think this is a bit exaggerated as few people are that comfortable with non-consensual sex or with transgendered nutjobs when they see what they're really engaging in and how they look. With gays, the sexual practices aren't dramatically different from kinky sex for straights.

With something like trannys, you have have individuals upset about the recognition of their own body for being what it is. If they don't get surgery, they get upset if someone is attracted to them for their genitalia as well as when they're not attracted to them for their genitalia. They're all over the place on that. They also feel popping pills for their entire life and having their genitals mutilated should be seen as perfectly normal. Yet few people actually ever see what the outcome of the genital mutilation actually looks like, so there's quite a few people that are ignorant enough to think it looks believable.

Gays exist in a relatively normal state where the main thing off about us is just that we find ourselves attracted to the same sex. Which has been conflated by the LGBTQP+WHATEVER crowd as reason to suggest all 'sexualities' need to be respected (rather than tolerated). There's even been a decent bit of conflating that's gone on with trannys and cross dressers. The latter has been an odd 'fun' thing people have done occasionally for a long while, which is odd, but it's hard to say someone is really harmed for wanting to wear some different clothes. But then it's been conflated with transgendered (people just group all trannys together), to suggest that people wanting to invert their penis are as normal as the guy that found it fun to dress as a woman occasionally.

>if free will exists, then aren't homosexual activities a choice?

Yes, as are heterosexual activities

> If they are a choice, why do you choose to engage in them? Why not restrain them through your will?

Why not? Having a monogamous and fairly private relationship with another adult male while using protection and making sure we are both tested beforehand is fine.

free will doesnt mean free of any constraints of reality. human sexuality regardless of what it is, is going to have some basis in biology. basically you could reverse all of these for heterosexual behavior and the answers would be the same.

but lets try it with something else. eating is a choice technically, there are consequences of not doing so but you can technically choose not to. you engage in them because biologically living things are driven to eat and generally don't like dying of starvation. again you can restrain your desire to eat but doing so is retarded.

so in general ill just reply:

1. even if activities are, so what?

2. why wouldnt i

3. there is no reason to do so

>>426

Why is drug addiction bad? Many people are born with a predisposition towards addiction. No reason to control narcotic intake, its fun guys!

>>432

It's a false equivalence to compare addiction to homosexuality. There is no safe addiction (it's in the word), but there's a safe way to be homosexual.

If free will exists, then isn't dying a choice?

That's not it yet. Scratch that.

If free will exists, then you chose to hate spiders and cauliflower, it's not something that repulse you, like gay sex, it's something you decided, voluntarily, to hate. The same way you chose to like or dislike a specific type of music. People don't really feel attraction to certain type of arts, they chose to like it. /s

>>497

(samefagging)

Unless you're playing the semantic game. In which case "yes, you chose to partake in gay sex", but also "no, you didn't chose to have an attraction toward people of the same sex". So you can decide not to have sex with anyone, while also being attracted to people. Like a straight dude wouldn't dare asking his crush out. He didn't chose to be attracted to her, but he can chose whether or not he risks his chance.

>>500

love =! sex

>>503

AIDSfag pls go, love and sex go hand in hand

>>500

> I'd probably anhero if I knew I had to live my whole life unloved and unloving.

It's not so bad. At my age it's probably best that I start making plans to be on my own. I recently purchased a pack of white socks with the sole intention of using them to masturbate into.

>>503

Of course sex doesn't equal love but 1. If you love someone and are attracted to them you're going to want to act on that passion and 2. OP said "homosexual activities" which I'm assuming means any and all homosexual contact or relationships at all.

>>389

>With something like trannys, you have have individuals upset about the recognition of their own body for being what it is.

FtM here. This is worded really strangely.

The nature of the disorder is a deep disconnect with your phenotypical sex. It's most likely caused by some sort of malformation of/damage to the brainstem. (Our biggest clue in this direction is that traumatic injury there can cause confusion of gender identity in people who were previously normal. Injury to the brainstem can also cause changes to sexual interests, including orientation, so the limbic system is probably heavily implicated in homosexuality as well.)

It's not just some sort of childish fit at the reality of our bodies, and your description doesn't really capture the body horror of having the condition.

>If they don't get surgery, they get upset if someone is attracted to them for their genitalia as well as when they're not attracted to them for their genitalia.

Can't speak for anyone else, but anyone finding me attractive is flattering. Their reasons for finding me attractive just might not be compatible.

>They also feel popping pills for their entire life and having their genitals mutilated should be seen as perfectly normal.

I would say that we would argue it's the only real available treatment - therapy does not cure us, and no available medication does either. SRS is what we have left.

I don't know that I've ever seen anyone argue for it being "normal." Most of us consider it a serious medical condition, which by default is not at all "normal." We're also an extremely tiny minority, which is also deviant by default (as is homosexuality, incidentally).

Anybody belonging to the crowd suggesting it's NOT a disorder probably also are the "socially constructed" crowd who think normalcy itself is somehow an oppressive affront to their existence.

>Yet few people actually ever see what the outcome of the genital mutilation actually looks like, so there's quite a few people that are ignorant enough to think it looks believable.

The cosmetic results of surgery are not exactly our fault.

>Which has been conflated by the LGBTQP+WHATEVER

I agree this conflation is not working out. I think it originally grew out of lumping together everyone who is despised for behaving in a way that is considered to be outside what is acceptable for their gender.

But it's also not working out for US at all to be grouped with people on the basis of how they fuck when that means the loss of public sympathy for the disorder. And in the amount of time I've been living as a trans person, what little sympathy I saw people give us definitely seems to have eroded.

A medical condition like GID shouldn't be grouped with the "gay agenda." It's not working for cis gays, and it's not working for us, if it ever did.

>>550

>FtM here.

>/logcabin/ - no trannies allowed

>>551

It's probably a joke. Girls are an unlikely encounter in this neck of the woods. But just in case it's a real tranny, feel free to mock and ridicule her.

>>500

>Whats the point in living if you can't love or make love with someone you love?

That's another can of worms on its own.

The point I'm making is purely semantic, and is only relevant if you want to shoehorn the term “choice” somewhere in the equation. I did that because OP is being purposely unclear. If the term “homosexual activities” only means “sex”, then yeah technically whether you have sex or not is a choice. However OP has a broader meaning to “homosexual activities”, implying that you can chose who you want to love (which is demonstrably wrong: you can choose to eat some food you dislike, but you cannot choose to enjoy it. Sure, you may pretend, but that's merely a facade, not an actual change in how you feel about it).

Similarly: if free will exists, then isn't homophobia a choice? If it is a choice, why do you choose to be hate gays? Why not restrain your disgust for someone else's sexual preferences through your will?

If you accept that it is a choice, then we can start an endless battle over what is morally right and wrong, and how authoritarian society should be (geez, I wonder if a polfag could be behind that post?)

The same way I don't recognize homosexuality as a choice, I do not recognize homophobia as a choice; while you can fool people around about how you feel, you cannot fool yourself

There are plenty of closeted gays who will marry because of social pressure, and force themselves into a relationship with someone they don't feel attracted to (spoiler: it usually ends badly). And there are also tons of people who will never get into a relationship with the person they love for various reasons: “cannot afford to blow my cover”, “that person is already engaged”, “this person is gay and I'm straight”, etc.

>>551

Oh, don't clutch your pearls, Percy. I just popped over from /pol/ to see what you guys were about. I've read your catalog now, so I'll be on my way.

Do look into what I said about the brainstem, though. I posted to say I agree with you that GID and homosexuality should not be lumped together, but you aren't going to get far with the argument that homosexuality is actually less deviant.

You're going into the oven with me, fool.