Being a traditionalist and homophobic is self-contradictory

**bvnny** · 12-01-2021, 04:00 AM

Simply because the concept of gender (as it's understood nowadays) and sexual orientation are modernist concepts, engaging in any type of discourse against homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexualism, bisexuality, or any other sexual orientations/genders out there presupposes the existence of such things in the first place... for one to really follow a traditionalist logic to be against sexual deviation, that person should speak against palpable things instead of abstract concepts, showing opposition to sodomy (the act of anal gay sex) instead of sodomites (the people that commit sodomy), to a man using female clothing instead of transsexualism, and so on and so on.

Controlling semantics one can control the world, stop using a modernist vocabulary when opposing modernist things, otherwise, you're just showing, with your discourse, that you're in accordance with modernism and all the shit that emerged with it.

**~~Perunovsin~~** · 12-01-2021, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by bvnny

Simply because the concept of gender (as it's understood nowadays) and sexual orientation are modernist concepts, engaging in any type of discourse against homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexualism, bisexuality, or any other sexual orientations/genders out there presupposes the existence of such things in the first place... for one to really follow a traditionalist logic to be against sexual deviation, that person should speak against palpable things instead of abstract concepts, showing opposition to sodomy (the act of anal gay sex) instead of sodomites (the people that commit sodomy), to a man using female clothing instead of transsexualism, and so on and so on.

Controlling semantics one can control the world, stop using a modernist vocabulary when opposing modernist things, otherwise, you're just showing, with your discourse, that you're in accordance with modernism and all the shit that emerged with it.

Ok, virgin seer

**Mortimer** · 12-01-2021, 04:02 AM

I agree, but most people are brainwashed, they believe in thos concepts, when it is just made up psychological concepts, psychology is a science, and they use that science or narrative, but it is pseudo-science to me. A gender identity is actually a psychological concept, and New York officially recognises 31 genders.

**Richmondbread** · 12-01-2021, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by bvnny

Simply because the concept of gender (as it's understood nowadays) and sexual orientation are modernist concepts, engaging in any type of discourse against homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexualism, bisexuality, or any other sexual orientations/genders out there presupposes the existence of such things in the first place... for one to really follow a traditionalist logic to be against sexual deviation, that person should speak against palpable things instead of abstract concepts, showing opposition to sodomy (the act of anal gay sex) instead of sodomites (the people that commit sodomy), to a man using female clothing instead of transsexualism, and so on and so on.

Controlling semantics one can control the world, stop using a modernist vocabulary when opposing modernist things, otherwise, you're just showing, with your discourse, that you're in accordance with modernism and all the shit that emerged with it.

Well, "homophobic" is a made up term to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with the militant LGBTQ XYZ agenda. If you are homophobic you are said to be that if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, which I believe it is . I have a Biblical world view.The Bible says God created us male and female. What other purpose would there be other than for procreation?

**bvnny** · 12-01-2021, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Perunovsin

Ok, virgin seer

lol

**Mortimer** · 12-01-2021, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Richmondbread

Well, "homophobic" is a made up term to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with the militant LGBTQ XYZ agenda. If you are homophobic you are said to be that if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, which I believe it is . I have a Biblical world view.The Bible says God created us male and female. What other purpose would there be other than for procreation?

Romans 1 explains the Biblical view on what sodomy is, and switching male and female etc. where it comes from, from disobedience to God, and having changed God to other worships.

**bvnny** · 12-01-2021, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Richmondbread

Well, "homophobic" is a made up term to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with the militant LGBTQ XYZ agenda. If you are homophobic you are said to be that if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, which I believe it is . I have a Biblical world view.
The Bible says God created us male and female. What other purpose would there be other than for procreation?

The thing is that both "homophobic" and "homosexual" are both modernist terminologies, such as "LGBTQIA+" or its variants... since "homophobia" and "homosexuality" are necessarily interconnected, being a homophobic presupposes the recognition of homosexuality, that's my whole point.

Using modernist terminology leads you to self-contradict yourself, and actually perceive human sexuality in a different way, in comparison to the way our ancestors used to perceive it.

Mitryejd · 12-01-2021, 08:06 AM

for one to really follow a traditionalist logic to be against sexual deviation, that person should speak against palpable things instead of abstract concepts, showing opposition to sodomy (the act of anal gay sex) instead of sodomites (the people that commit sodomy), to a man using female clothing instead of transsexualism

Actually which one is abstract and palpable here?
sodomy is abstract of course. sodomites are palpable.
but If I'm gonna against sodomy instead of sodomites, that means I'm against the abstract, yet not the palpable.

Are you arguing that it is a more traditionalist or modernist thing to oppose palpable rather than the abstract? it's all relative no dominant side.

**WhatsGoingOnBigGuy** · 12-01-2021, 08:18 AM

read the bible retard

**bvnny** · 12-01-2021, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mitryejd

Actually which one is abstract and palpable here?
sodomy is abstract of course. sodomites are palpable.
but If I'm gonna against sodomy instead of sodomites, that means I'm against the abstract, yet not the palpable.

Are you arguing that it is a more traditionalist or modernist thing to oppose palpable rather than the abstract? it's all relative no dominant side.

Sodomy is the palpable here, like, it's an act that we can point to and condemn, for sodomites to exist there has to be sodomy, since a sodomite is defined as "someone who engages in sodomy".

You can go down a strange rabbit hole and say that everything is abstract, including people and actions, but the thing is that condemning an act is still more palpable than condemning a random social construct with no basis on actual empirical things or human actions, but just the psyché.