Why did Japan make a gay romance about two children?

>>212988014 (OP)
Because this is love in its purest form

>>212988014 (OP)
It's called yaoi, or boys love for gaijin, chud

>>212988014 (OP)
deets pls

I don't watch gay shit

>>212989049
Is gay love more pure than hetero one?

>>212988014 (OP)
Not their first time

>>212988014 (OP)
Awesome, Nippon Banzai

for me, it's the teacher seeing the prozzie on the side

>>212988014 (OP)
Not Japanese, was made by zainichi Korean

>>212989995
a lot of the gay movies I've seen seem to be about how the relationships can never be. they always end up going off and marrying women, moving away, or just straight up dying

>>212988014 (OP)
Shoplifters was a much better film

>>212991912
>marrying women, moving away, or just straight up dying
And that is a good thing.

>>212991936
For me, its Nobody knows

>>212988014 (OP)
i tried watching this. found it to be incredibly boring and dumb

>>212989900
kino

>>212988014 (OP)
Unironically the better 2023 Toho monster movie

>>212995638
Its one of the more action packed Koreeda movies tho

>>212988014 (OP)
Same reason they made a movie about e-commerce scalpers. Because it made for a good story.

Because they have less homophobic schizo chuds that will shit their pants over gay people existing?

Homophobia is entirely alien to humanity other than the most evangelical brainwashed chuds

>>212997195
Iv been wanting to watch this most recent Kurosawa kino
>>212997279
Hating bottoms is a pretty universal human trait
The hate against tops however is a relatively recent christian phenomenon

>>212997279
>Homophobia is entirely alien to humanity other than the most evangelical brainwashed chuds

Is that why homosexual acceptance has only been a thing for the last 20 years?

>>212998044
>The hate against tops however is a relatively recent christian phenomenon
You can say that about a lot of things. Using your logic, hatred for pedophilia is also a recent christoid thing because ancient greeks, japanese and chinese were okay with it.

Also the Aztecs hated homosexuals (top and bottom) to the point where they would chop off your dick and shove a flaming stick up your asshole if you ever caught doing that.

>>212998277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan
Wasn't discriminated at all in Japan until Westernization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India
Wasn't discriminated at all in India until Islamophication/Westernification. + India has Hijra which were considered sacred beings close to God

"Homosexual acceptance" is just naturally what happens when you aren't controlled by Evangelicals and/or extremist Islam. And even in the USA, homosexual acceptance goes back 60 years (Illinois was the first US state to make homosexuality legal in 1962...of course gay people still existed even before that). Read a book

>>212998351
>has to cherry pick the most schizo and violent society possible as an example of a "pre-Christian homophobic society"
Way to prove the point. Aztecs also murdered toddlers to get the sun to come up. Homophobia is a mental illness.

>>212998564
Like I said, you can make the same argument for literally anything (pederasty, incest etc.)

>>212998564
Also
>In the Laws, Plato’s last book, the Athenian speaker says, “I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.”12 By its nature, lust is unbridled, irrational, and therefore destructive of what it is to be human. Giving in to it is therefore dehumanizing.
>Socrates saw that Kritias was sexually importuning the youth of whom Kritias was enamored, “wanting to deal with him in the manner of those who enjoy the body for sexual intercourse”. Socrates objected that “what he asks is not a good thing”. Socrates said that “Kritias was no better off than a pig if he wanted to scratch himself against Euthydemos as piglets do against stones.”
>Aristotle begins his Politics not with a single individual, but with a description of a man and a woman together in the family, without which the rest of society cannot exist. He says: “First of all, there must necessarily be a union or pairing of those who cannot exist without one another.” Later, he states that “husband and wife are alike essential parts of the family.”

Abrahamism probably contributed to the more extreme laws against it but anti homosexual ideas did predate it.

>>212998631
In republican roman army bottoms were literally stoned to death

>>212998810
You just massively shifted the goal post from claiming that "gay acceptance goes back only 20 years" (laughable claim) to........."uhh well yes it goes back to ancient days but bad stuff goes back to ancient days too!"
But nobody is claiming that "everything that goes back to ancient times is good". They are claiming that homophobia is alien to Japan/India, which it is.

>>212999089
>gay acceptance goes back only 20 years
As in the modern form of gay acceptance as we know it. Chinese emperors may have had the male equivalent of side chicks, but they still settled and married with women, and none of the societies you mentioned had any concept of "gay marriage" or "gay dads/moms"

>>212998969
So again you shift your claim from "homosexual acceptance only goes back 20 years" to "Aristotle says that men and women have babies!" (not an anti homosexual claim) and "Plato says that homosexuality comes from lust!" (which he only says because all the other Greeks are constantly having gay sex to where they stopped even thinking of straight sex as lustful and rather as a chore to have kids)

>>212999502
They also didn't have our modern form of marriage, but for example 2 ancient Roman emperors were in same sex unions and there have been countless functional "marriages" of same sex couples throughout history.

Lawsuits for legally recognized modern gay marriage started in the USA in the 1940s. So try 80 years even for that. Please, read a book. You don't know shit about gay history, you are trying to force your dumb bigotry on the past.

>>212999622
I'm sorry but I think we're both on different wavelengths here.
>Aristotle says that men and women have babies!" (not an anti homosexual claim)
You can interpret it as an anti gay marriage since it implies that a family can only be formed by the union between a man and a woman.
>Plato says that homosexuality comes from lust!" (which he only says because all the other Greeks are constantly having gay sex to where they stopped even thinking of straight sex as lustful and rather as a chore to have kids)
I think you're reaching here. He sees homosexuality as inherently lustful (or perverted) in a way heterosexual sex isn't.

Also, as for your arguments for ancient india being pro gay, I am not really religious so I don't know much about this but there is a sanskrit phrase that goes Vikriti Evam Prakriti: What seems unnatural, is natural

This is referred to as a gotcha when trying to prove acceptance of gays in pre Islamic/British India, but the thing is these were coined by the elites of the time. So you could argue that "What seems unnatural" implies that society at large viewed homosexuality as unnatural, and the "is also natural" is just this particular individual going against the public consensus.

>>212999867
>You don't know shit about gay history, you are trying to force your dumb bigotry on the past.
If I am, then you're doing the opposite; trying to pretend that people were waving rainbow flags with lisps and earrings until the "homophobic christians" came along.
>They also didn't have our modern form of marriage, but for example 2 ancient Roman emperors were in same sex unions and there have been countless functional "marriages" of same sex couples throughout history.

I'm not a historian, so I'll concede this argument. And maybe I'm shifting the goalposts here, buut you didn't address my previous statement about how this argument can be extended to pederasty, incest etc.

>>213000190
>You can interpret it as an anti gay marriage since it implies that a family can only be formed by the union between a man and a woman.
This is just a straightforward biological statement. "Family" as a sentimentalized term that has grown to even include "found families" (gay, straight or even platonic) is the more Christian sense, otherwise you default to "family" as "blood relatives".

>I think you're reaching here. He sees homosexuality as inherently lustful (or perverted) in a way heterosexual sex isn't.
And he sees it that way because he sees homosexual couples fucking and sucking constantly for fun all around him, vs heterosexual sex which was seen as a chore/duty to produce children. His ideal society was one entirely without any lust.

Yes, many of his beliefs were later adopted by Christians

>hese were coined by the elites of the time. So you could argue that "What seems unnatural" implies that society at large viewed homosexuality as unnatural
Elites are going to be the ones who are the most pressured by societal norms. Peasants don't have to give a fuck about moral codes outside of maybe their immediate family members and the laws given to them by the elites.

>>213000345
>If I am, then you're doing the opposite; trying to pretend that people were waving rainbow flags with lisps and earrings until the "homophobic christians" came along.
No, because I've read a book. Rainbow flags come from the 1970s, and make no sense in a society where homosexuality is already accepted. They are a symbol of acceptance against a society which otherwise persecutes and hates homosexuals. Customs around piercings (including claiming piercings are gay) vary. Ancient Persian men wore piercings though they didn't have homophobic schizo chuds screeching at them.

Lisps/gay voice in general? First discussed and studied in the West starting in the early 1900s and its usually treated as a product of 1900s gay men, but I am always surprised how many LGBT malesin Asia still have effeminate affectations (evolved separately?). Ultimately irrelevant THOUGH

> you didn't address my previous statement about how this argument can be extended to pederasty, incest etc.
Because its not relevant. You tried to say homosexual acceptance is modern, it isn't. Yes, the ancient world also had many bad things, including massacres, blood feuds, slavery, and incest. If you are a homophobe you will say homosexuality is one of those dark bad things of olden times and then Islam/Christianity brought civilization and wisdom to Rome and India and Japan. This is indeed the standard homophobic worldview. What you cannot claim is that gay acceptance is some recent fad unknown to all peoples until 2005, which is ridiculous, "historian" or no.

>>213001640
Listen, we're going in circles here. You claim that gay acceptance has been a thing for centuries. What I'm arguing is that the modern form of gay acceptance is a post 60s sexual liberation influenced ideal. Yeah sure gay people have always existed, just that gay marriage and adoption are relatively recent. Whatever, we'll never see eye to eye on this.

Assuming that you're someone who is pro homosexual acceptance whatever, are there any arguments for it that isn't just "people have always done it until those homophobic christians came along"

>>213001879
I am pro homosexual acceptance because you cannot stop gay people from existing and the continuing marginalization and persecution of LGBT people is far far more destructive to families, society and the individuals than the mild discomfort felt by homophobes.
Extreme homophobia is to see LGBT, including LGBT children, killed for the crime of just...making homophobes uncomfortable
Here is a man murdering his own 3 year old child for "being gay" (of course 3 year olds cannot be gay the same way they cannot be straight, but homophobes see any gender nonconforming behavior as evil and deviant and "gay")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ronnie_Paris

I dont want to see LGBT people murdered by the state or by their families. I don't want to see families broken apart. I don't want to see LGBT people impoverished and turning to prostitution (40% of all homeless teenagers are LGBT, with an average age of 13.5 for homeless transgender teenagers kicked out of their parents home and an average age of 14.4 gay/lesbian homeless teenagers kicked out of their parents home). I think all that stuff is evil as shit, and I hate the homophobes who want that to happen. And for what? To make Jesus happy? Chuds hate everything Jesus stood for, they just want an excuse to brutalize other people.

>>213002601
>you cannot stop gay people from existing
Yeah but there are lots of people we can't stop from existing but are shunned out of society (pedophiles for example). Pedophiles either act on their urges, or just choose to suppress their desires and live a chaste life. I'm not saying homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia, but where do you draw the line then?
>Here is a man murdering his own 3 year old child for "being gay"

Yeah I've hard about that story. It happened in the early 2000s somewhere in Florida. But the thing is, why are you blaming it on homophobia instead of just the guy being mentally unstable? If you do some further digging into the story, you'll find that the father was a piece of shit who has always been prone to violence, and his child has been taken away from custody several times. He was just psycho looking to harm people for any reason.

Here, lemme propose a hypothesis for you. Imagine a burglar broke into someone's house, he was clearly looking to steal something, but he had no weapons on him. The owner of the house, upon catching him, chain bound him and started torturing him and killing him via gruesome means (hacksawing his arm off). Here, would you say that the guy was just a plain psycho, or that his actions were influenced by the prejudice harbored towards burglars?

>>213003117
>where do you draw the line then?
I draw the line at unjust control, exploitation and abuse of other human beings

>why are you blaming it on homophobia instead of just the guy being mentally unstable?
Homophobes do believe in killing gay people, including children. There is a death penalty for homosexuality in homophobic-controlled countries, I can find examples of kids as young as 14 killed for being gay. The 3 year old is the most extreme psycho example, but how young would you murder an LGBT teenager or child? The fact that its even a question is beyond stupid and disgusting to me. You are the psycho who wants to execute people, to control them. Why are we accommodating you, instead of you getting over your own dumbass prejudice that makes zero sense to begin with? Why should gay kids get "shamed" for existing?

>magine a burglar broke into someone's house, he was clearly looking to steal something, but he had no weapons on him. The owner of the house, upon catching him, chain bound him and started torturing him and killing him via gruesome means (hacksawing his arm off). Here, would you say that the guy was just a plain psycho, or that his actions were influenced by the prejudice harbored towards burglars?
Probably he is a psycho looking for an "acceptable" target to funnel his violence and rage towards. For many people, thieves are one of those acceptable targets. For chuds its LGBT and religious/ethnic/racial minorities. For thief has to wrong you first, but for chuds the crime is merely existing.

>>213004056
>crime is merely existing
The thing is, I don't subscribe to the "just existing" argument because I see homosexuality as something that is related to behavior more than anything innate.
>I draw the line at unjust control, exploitation and abuse of other human beings
That's a vague statement, but I'll bite. Can't you extend the same logic to stuff like bigamy, polyandry, cousin incest, employee-boss relationships, cuckoldry, scat etc? Do you support all of the aforementioned stuff as well?

>>212988014 (OP)
I actually saw this in the theater and this guy in front of me got up and exasperatedly said "what the fuck this isn't about monsters or godzilla" and left

>>212989900
>the antagonist is an effeminate blond guy who crossdresses (and successfully)

>>213004281
Behavior which only harms are "makes you uncomfortable". Meanwhile homophobic behavior kills other innocent human beings, destroys families, communities, societies, cultures and basic morality. Which is worse? Making people uncomfortable, or executing children since they kissed someone of the same sex?

>Can't you extend the same logic to stuff like bigamy, polyandry, cousin incest, employee-boss relationships, cuckoldry, scat etc? Do you support all of the aforementioned stuff as well?
The entire objection to employee-boss relationships is that it is controlling. Same with teacher-18 yo students, jail guard-prisoner, etc.
Scat and any type of "open" relationship* (bigamy, polyandry, cuck) are disgusting but not interested in throwing people in prison for scat (which is going to be extremely rare since its so naturally disgusting) or open relationships.

However I do think that open relationships (bigamy, polyandry, cuck), when one partner has children, are obviously rife with issues of control. In cases of one man and multiple women, his own resources for his children are spread overly thin and it incentivizes murder of "competitor" children, only backwards societies allow this. One woman and multiple men? Having a child? Outright dangerous for children and the woman frankly. Barely done in any societies. My most illiberal position is that yes, take these kids away from that place, until the woman (or the father) can come to a safe/stable arrangement. Once you control for age, stepfathers are 6x more deadly than biological fathers, then imagine having 100 stepfathers. Its not safe.
if no kids are involved i don't care about said open relationships though.

>>213004862
You seem to be indulging in emotivism here, since you seem to be talking about "broken families more than the actual act of homosexual sodomy itself. Which makes it come across as though you don't think homosexuality is moral, but put up with it to avoid more "broken families" or whatever. Your reasons why the aforementioned relationships are immoral is because of the negative repercussions, but the thing is homosexuality isn't repercussion free either (STDs such as AIDs, high rates of drug abuse, high rates of non monogamy etc.
>Meanwhile homophobic behavior kills other innocent human beings, destroys families, communities, societies, cultures and basic morality
Like I said, I can throw the same argument back at you by pulling up suicide and drug abuse rates among practicing homosexuals.

Also, incest is (rightfully) taboo entire because it makes people icky. You can avoid deformed babies by using protection. As for the grooming/power dynamics argument, you can make the same argument against two orphans who grew up close to each other in the same orphanage dating each other. But I don't hear anyone saying "Orphans dating each other? That's sick!"

>>212998969
Then why did Aeschylus and Sophocles -- two of the most respected playwrights in Grecian antiquity, both deeply religious men, Aeschylus being a war hero -- why did both men write plays depicting Achilles as homosexually involved? (The Myrmidons and Achilles Erastai). Why did Socrates and Aristophanes attend the banquet of a homosexual man (Agathon) to celebrate his success in winning a literary competition? Why did the Athenians erect statues to celebrate Harmodius and Aristogeiton, whose entanglement -- according to Thucydides, Plato and others -- was erotic and romantic in nature? Why did Plutarch and Aeschines (and Christian writers like St. John Chrysostom) all say that the ancient lawmaker Solon put homosexuality in a privileged and revered position in Grecian society? Why did Socrates get a boner from Charmides? Why did Plato write so much about homosexuality (against but also for)? Why did Herodotus say that the Persians learned homosexuality from the Greeks? What about the Sacred Band of Thebes, a special battalion of homosexual lovers that up until their eventual defeat were considered invincible precisely because of their bond?
Both the historically illiterate wokies mindlessly memeing about Ancient Greece as some gay utopia AND the idiotic chuds that as a knee jerk reaction to that bark against every single instance of neutral or positive depiction of it as some kind of liberal modern fabrication are simply ignorant and display an aversion to nuance and complexity.

>>213005191
Like I said, I'm not a historian, so I could be wrong about this, but the Greeks had a completely different view of sexuality (which in and of itself is a relatively modern conception).
>For Socrates, the sight of beauty, as in a beautiful male youth, is not to be taken as something in itself, but as a reflection of divine Beauty and the ultimate Good toward which Eros directs the soul. In this sense, as Diotima said in the Symposium (207a), “Eros is of immortality.” Beauty awakens the soul to the desire for transcendent beauty. It is an error, therefore, to be diverted by the reflection in one’s search for the ultimate Good. Beauty stirs the soul, but it is philosophy, not physical gratification, that provides the means of perceiving and coming to know the Good. One cannot come to this knowledge if one is mired in the sensual, which blocks the vision of the ultimate reality. (In this latter sense Eros can be, as Apollonius of Rhodes called it, that “unspeakable evil thing”.)13

>As a consequence of this metaphysical view, Socrates saw the erotic attraction of a grown man (erastes) for a beautiful male youth (eromenos or paidika) within the perspective of the erotic drive for wisdom. This drive will be thwarted by a life of self-indulgence and can proceed only with a life of self-discipline. Therefore, the relationship between the erastes and the eromenos should be of the older man enlightening the younger one in philosophical education. This means that any physical touching by the older man of the younger must be in regards to the latter “as a son”, as Socrates puts it, and not further than that.

Basically, stuff that would be seen as gay and frankly borderline creepy was seen as educational by the Greeks.

>>213005179
>you seem to be talking about "broken families more than the actual act of homosexual sodomy itself.
One is a fruit of homophobia, and one is.....just a normal human behavior dating back to before we were even humans (considering gay sex is in actual animals). I believe homosexual sex is a morally neutral act, its not virtuous nor is it sinful

>homosexuality isn't repercussion free either (STDs such as AIDs, high rates of drug abuse, high rates of non monogamy etc.
Higher rates of non monogamy go along with regular channels of monogamy being barred for homosexuals as well as children being usually a non-issue unless you seek them out. STDs go along with non-monogamy though generally people are getting better about using protection since the AIDS epidemic, and AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Drugs goes along with being disproportionately young, impoverished and urbanized. None of this is helped by killing gay people, why even pretend like you care about "high rates of suicide" of a group that you hate anyway?

>Like I said, I can throw the same argument back at you by pulling up suicide
Suicide is entirely a product of rejection by society/family, the #1 prevention of LGBT suicide is accepting families.

>>213005179
Cousin marriage seemed the odd one out in your first list.
Cousin marriage was legal in every single state (and all 13 colonies before our independence) until the 19th century. Bans on cousin marriages were done purely for genetic reasons and not because of any "icky" factor. I don't have an ick reaction to cousin marriages (maybe a minor ick when I think of my own cousins because they do feel more like siblings, but not i the abstract of 2 cousins) and cousin sex is legal in my state and always has been. Its not common because again--these are your cousins and they feel more like siblings, so you dont want to have sex with them nor do you feel any attraction. No need to make it illegal, though like you said there might be cause to make sure both people are sterilized first so they dont end up having offspring together

This was the odd one on your list so I looked it up, it seems that while cousin marriages are common in South India and among Muslims, for North India Hindus there is a much larger taboo on them
>Cousin marriage is proscribed and seen as incest for Hindus in North India. In fact, it may even be unacceptable to marry within one's village or for two siblings to marry partners from the same village.[172] The northern kinship model prevails in the states of Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal.[173]

The fact that North Indian Hindus even have a tradition of trying to get people to marry outside their own villages suggest they "evolved" this as a protection against inbreeding before it was a danger even known to the modern Protestant West. (Catholics have laws against consanguinity directly inherited from the ancient Romans)

>>213005179
>>213005757
Also re: STIs, lesbians have LOWER rates of many STIs than straight women do. So if you want to appeal to AIDS as a reason why male homosexuality is bad, you should use that same appeal for why female heterosexuality is bad

>>212997279
>Homophobia is entirely alien to humanity other than the most evangelical brainwashed chuds
Wrong.
Native americans despised homosexuality.

>>213005468
Yes, very much so, each culture filters and interprets, justifies and builds upon the biological phenomena and urges in different ways, but those biological phenomena and urges at the base, namely here attraction of a minority of a human population to the same sex — are clearly a constant observed not only in other animal species even not in captivity, but also across human cultures across space AND time, and acting as though they share nothing in common would be tantamount to assert that each and every time it must be some kind of entirely socially constructed game conjured up out of thin air and coincidentally aligning with the same base pattern. Again, I'm not both-sidesing for the sake of it, all of the above shows that both carelessly applying our own categories to different cultures AND acting as if what we're talking about were somehow a different species is just asinine in that it does not look fairly at the observable data.

>>213005757
Okay, but the fact that there are higher chances of contracting STDs via sodomy is quite telling. If suppose a cure for cancer was discovered, would you condone smoking? I am sorry but I don't understand your defense of higher rates of anti monogamy. What do you mean by "regular channels of monogamy" being barred?

As for the you pinning the blame for suicide rates on homophobia, the thing is the suicide rates for homosexuals seem approximately similar across all western countries. So it's clearly not just homophobia, unless you wanna argue that Sweden and Amsterdam are crawling with beady eyed histerical evangelicals looking to lynch gays.

>>212997279
>Homophobia is entirely alien to humanity other than the most evangelical
Homophobia is a perfectly natural response considering faggotry is just fucking gross.

>>213005990
Lesbians are an interesting case, since on the surface it seems like the same thing as male homosexuality but for the other gender, but there might be more fundamental differences. But to address your point, lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world. They have higher risks for cervical cancers and hepatitis C

>>213006074
Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_South_America#Pre-colonial_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit#Historical_and_anthropological_accounts
(Two spirit is a modern Native American umbrella term to cover LGBT Indigenous people, every tribe had their own words obviously)
https://www.kqed.org/arts/13845330/5-two-spirit-heroes-who-paved-the-way-for-todays-native-lgbtq-community

>I have submitted substantial evidence that those Indian men who, both here and farther inland, are observed in the dress, clothing and character of women – there being two or three such in each village – pass as sodomites by profession. ... They are called joyas, and are held in great esteem.[61]

Obviously the term "Native Americans" covers THOUSANDS of different cultures and societies, and you can cherry pick schizo outliers I'm sure. But by and large, homophobia needed to be taught by Christian colonializers.

>>213006211
The homophobes who pretend to be sooo grossed out are generally repressors.

>>213006408
>The homophobes who pretend to be sooo grossed out are generally repressors.
Whatever helps you cope freak.

>>213004862
>>213004862
>scat (which is going to be extremely rare since its so naturally disgusting)
One more thing, and this is the most concrete one for me, the vast majority of people are heterosexual. Like 90% at the very least. And, even if they might support gay "rights" on to varying degrees, the fact of the matter is the vast majority of people are often repulsed by the actual act of homosexuality. Like 2 men playing tonsil hockey with each other would elicit a gag response from them. So the fact that the vast majority of people find it repulsive on a visceral level is quite telling isn't it?

>>213006209
>Okay, but the fact that there are higher chances of contracting STDs via sodomy is quite telling. If suppose a cure for cancer was discovered, would you condone smoking?
Seems a non-sequitur. You can ban anal sex between straight/gay couples, Greeks for example generally did frotting as their expression of sexuality between 2 men. you are right that gay men do more anal than straight people do. Lesbians do so even more rarely.

>What do you mean by "regular channels of monogamy" being barred?
In the USA, gay relationships were only fully legalized nationwide in 2003 (which is probably where you got that "20 years" number upthread from). Before that you had to live as plausibly deniable "roommates" or just get married to a woman and have sex with random men on the side to be sexually fulfilled. (Cruising culture). Or troon out which was its own thing. Integration with monogamous marriage was impossible to do until 2015.

I'd like a source on the suicide rates being the exact same across the West, that does not sound plausible.

>>213006408
Die of aids faggot. The repressors know better than to let go and disobey go

>>212997279
The Japanese have the right mentality regarding this. They treat homosexuality as a fetish. The west treating it has more than a kink is why everything is fucked.

>>213006599
>In the USA, gay relationships were only fully legalized nationwide in 2003 (which is probably where you got that "20 years" number upthread from). Before that you had to live as plausibly deniable "roommates" or just get married to a woman and have sex with random men on the side to be sexually fulfilled. (Cruising culture). Perhaps that's the reason. But I feel like there is an inherent component to homosexual relationships that makes them inherently less monogamous than heterosexual couples.
>If the legislature hopes to turn gays into faithful marriage partners, they must and will be disappointed by the reality of gay relationships. . . . Obviously, for many couples, living out their sexuality with other partners is an important factor in maintaining the partnership. . . . Positive legal regulation of homosexual unions would accommodate the desire for social integration at the political level, yet politicians cannot be offered a change of behavior in the form of decreased promiscuity.
Here's the source
https://www.gemeindehilfsbund.de/fileadmin/PDFs/Aktionen/dokument_a.pdf
(ctrl f Selbst der Protagonist and you'll find the quote)

My point is blaming everything on society can be used as a justification for anything. Like take, polygamy or incest for example. The fact that these relationships have a higher rates of depression, abuse and suicide is touted as a reason why they're "immoral" as we know it. But on the flip side, you can argue that the social stigma pushing these lifestyles to the underground is what makes them more likely to be abusive/manipulative etc since the victims might not seek out legal help fearing societal shunning
>I'd like a source on the suicide rates being the exact same across the West, that does not sound plausible.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-009-0177-3
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-244X-8-70

>>213007148
Perhaps that's the reason. But I feel like there is an inherent component to homosexual relationships that makes them inherently less monogamous than heterosexual couples.

Sorry, this part was supposted to be not greentexted

>>213006408
>Obviously the term "Native Americans" covers THOUSANDS of different cultures and societies, and you can cherry pick schizo
Just like how you did by chosing a concept that was limited to less than a dozens of cultures?
Mayans and aztecs both punished homosexuality and sodomy with death, the later in gruesome ways and neither were Christian.

>>213007305
Oh yeah I talked about that here>>212998351

Didn't they like, literally rip out their assholes with flaming spears or something like that?

>>213006839
Japanese people obviously do not "treat homosexuality as a fetish". Actual nonsense argument, do you think the film in OP was supposed to be considered a fetish or a kink film? Japanese media, both historically and in the present day, has no shortage of actual loving and committed gay couples. Far far more so than the West even

>>213007305
Aztecs was a schizo culture that loved murdering in general. Maya were less schizo than Aztecs (still murdered people) but were tolerant of non-penetrative homosexuality iirc

>>212997279
Homophobia is perfectly natural. The sense of being of interest for a gay man when you're not gay yourself is nauseous.

What is obviously cultural is the way it has been punished and repressed throughout history and culture.

>>213010832
>The sense of being of interest for a gay man when you're not gay yourself is nauseous.
Pathetic.