Fuck off White genocide supporting communist.
Your drivel results in real world harm.
>If someone is born a homosexual most likely they have had too many past lives as one gender and carry that energy into their current life.
>IT’s truly not their fault.
Their fault is CONTINUING the BEHAVIOUR of a homosexual, not being one. And that is entirely in their control.
As a sentient human being, there is no one else that one can blame for one's own CHOICES except oneself.
Being gay (same sex attracted) may not always be a choice, indulging it is.
"born that way/have no choice" the same excuses fatties use for their overeating. Both are exact analogues of each other (both can be a result of in in-utero hormonal interactions during development, AND reactions to later life trauma). Both REMAIN choices despite having biological underpinnings. Welcome to being sentient.
>Why do you care?
I watched what happens to society when homosexuality escapes from being shunned as a wrong, bad and illegitimate choice.
The health of the whole, outweighs some individuals pursuit of degenerate & hedonistic sexual pleasure.
Homosexuals should be banned from all positions of influence over others, and authority. They do not, as a group, demonstrate the orientation, or decision making capabilities conducive to group cohesion, prosperity & survival.
Watch the "Mouse Utopia Experiments". Too much (out of alignment behaviour) eventually pulls down the whole.
Sustainability. Nature. Evolution. The pattern of the universe, or alternatively "God's plan", as if God exists and created the universe it must operate according to his desired principles.
Ancient wisdom. Conservatism. Tradition.
That which lasts, has been tested by evolution for FITNESS. Sustainability.
That which works, AND that which does not further evolution (God always wins).
That which does not lead to good outcomes will not be seen to be sustained across millennia and many testing circumstances.
Traditional taboos against homosexuality served the needs of the continuity of the group.
Where homosexuality enjoyed more welcome, it was because it suited the particular customs of that particular group. i.e. certain Islamic societies taking young boys as wealthier men could monopolise MULTIPLE women.
Where society is a "free for all" it does not last. Repeated in history. Collapse follows.
So you can have homosexuality consigned to a certain place, with customs within the society that suit its maintenance, or have it shunned in a society where it does not.
Our cannon as White people, is for it to be shunned, and homosexuals NOT afforded a welcome and equal place.
Homosexuals are not equivalent to heterosexuals, they are lesser. Embrace of a homosexual as an equal is embracing anti-natalism as equal to natalism. But this is wrong and in error. See sustainability.
It is nothing personal. It is just homosexuals are very bad for other people. They fail the first hurdle of deserving to be welcomed by society.. being a positive asset to it.
Prohibitions about nudity are about firming the pathway to advancement.
If we remain preoccupied with bodily distractions we can't get "high" enough to align with the progress the universe demands (and so end up replaced by those that can).
There are multiple reasons less advanced societies & peoples tended to be less clothed.
Take Africans as an example against Europeans and Chinese.
Sex+nudity+instant gratification approach vs build something.
Accept that whist nudity is natural, getting past it, for advanced species, may be too.
Keeping certain things hidden (speaking metaphorically), allows a deeper inner life.
>You creating a scenario that makes clothes a "requirement", doesn't make it a "requirement" in general.
>Also there are other ways than clothes available to keep warm.
Something does not have to be a "requirement" to become an enforced societal standard, it just has to have utility.
There are multiple levels of utility in having a clothes society, and people avoiding nudity, that works to the benefit of society.
That which has utility will tend to be enforced as a norm, and become a long-standing norm. That which does not, will not.
Clothes did not have the utility in primitive tropic cultures, they had elsewhere. Each established the norms that provided utility for their situations. But in terms of the overall utility between examples, at least in terms of development, the clothing norm had greatest utility.
>In the vast swath of the American Bible Belt, public nudity is a heinous crime, worse even than cussing in public.
And this likely seems ridiculous to you. But to understand the BENEFITS of it, you would have to look at research and comparative analysis of societies that established different norms and their development, with I think an overwhelming argument that these "innovations' served development and did not retard it.
"its just clothes" compare to how "we just want to be free to love who we want" led to transgenderism being pushed on kids.
The mores of society do not exist in isolation, they INTERCONNECT with all other mores and facets of society.
Our societies are COMPLEX, when you change one thread, by pulling it, you alter its equilibrium and by necessity begin pulling at other threads, without ability to consciously see what other threads you are unravelling (due to the complexity and unpredictability of response to novel stimuli in complex systems).
Remember "what we've been doing" is typified by "what has worked". Altering that is an experiment.
How has the West been doing by the way since it began pulling a few strings (after millennia of consistent approach)?
Have the changes made altered our sustainability? our trajectory of a people?
Funny that isn't it. Almost like our own traditions might have actually been based around something like our health and prosperity, not mere bigotry for bigotry's sake.
What has been time tested… works.
A tradition is the epitome of something time tested.