Serious LGBT Discussion

[Pomniman]

To contribute my own frustrations to the LGBT community, I simultaneously hate that the members lambast detractors who point out the openly sexually explicit aspects of LGBT culture, whilst the members also do nothing on their end to improve their image of not being obsessed with sex.

I was googling the LGBT Community Center in Manhattan since I used to stay for long periods of time in Greenwich Village in the 90's-early 2000's. Back then it was called the Gay & Lesbian Community Center but I digress. It's listed on the NYC LGBT Historical Sites project page because it was one of the first community centers of its kind ever established.

Well on the website they have a small slideshow with only a few photographs showcasing such a historical site throughout its 50-year existence, and this is the two out of the ten images they focus so heavily on:

Disgusting globohomo wall art of an orgy. Classy.

I know LGBT culture has historically been pretty racy but it was kept within a subculture you had to be on the lookout for. I don't think the community realizes how in becoming more mainstream and wanting to teach others about accepting their brethren, they need to leave the raciness for adult venues and not flaunt it in public spaces. This community center allows kids to access it btw. It makes them look like sexpests and it's embarrassing to be associated with it. They need to quit acting like a bunch of stereotypes and get their shit together.

I don't know why you'd be surprised by any of this if you've spent more than 5 seconds around them in new york of all places which is a 24/7 freakshow circus even if you discount all alphabet soup-kin. Faggots have never been normal and if anything the vast majority of them think everyone else is too much of a prude. All the "we wanna be left alone man" shit was just meant to pull the wool over normie eyes.

 

[Space Police]

I know LGBT culture has historically been pretty racy but it was kept within a subculture you had to be on the lookout for. I don't think the community realizes how in becoming more mainstream and wanting to teach others about accepting their brethren, they need to leave the raciness for adult venues and not flaunt it in public spaces.

It went mainstream because of straggots invading gay spaces, either because they think it's some cool subculture that will shock their white-bread working class normie parents or because they want to normalize sexual deviancy and will foot the bill for it. We didn't reach acceptance by showing drag queens and other fetish stuff to children. We reached acceptance by showing adults that gay people are as normal, uneventful, and boring as straight people. That strategy worked, but now that's down the toilet, and we're back to where people thought gay men are inherently flaming degenerates and that it was a slippery slope all because of heterosexuals calling themselves queer or gay because they like to watch sissy porn and cross dress.

 

[California Newt]

LGBT people will never have a reason to support the USA conservatives.

Maybe they think there are bigger fish to fry than people affirming whatever makes their dick hard. Maybe they don't want infinity Indians, arabs and guatemalans.

Maybe they don't want to vote for the child transition and open leftist terrorism party

But maybe by "LGBT" you mean insufferable self-obsessed mentally ill people and not guys who fell down the wrong porn rabbithole.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

Maybe they think there are bigger fish to fry than people affirming whatever makes their dick hard. Maybe they don't want infinity Indians, arabs and guatemalans.

What conservative party where in the world has stopped infinity immigration? Please, tell me so I can vote for them. UK's conservatives only increased immigration of Asians while reducing EU immigration. Similarly, the choice in the US is between Indian and South American immigration. Poland's conservatives chose Central Asian immigration and Ukrainian refugees over the Africans. Australia was flooded by East Asians during the LNC. Ironically, I heard immigrating there became harder under its left wing government from 2022 on. It doesn't matter who you vote for in terms of immigration, all parties want it but have preferences for different ethnic groups.

Maybe they don't want to vote for the child transition and open leftist terrorism party

It's only UK's conservatives who have taken any steps to curtail the transgender movement. Other Western right wing parties accept the narrative and will not touch the holy cow of leftism. US' fiery but peaceful protests also started under Trump's presidency. I am sure however that voting harder for right wing parties will stop leftist terrorism next time.

But maybe by "LGBT" you mean insufferable self-obsessed mentally ill people and not guys who fell down the wrong porn rabbithole.

Porn cannot turn you gay so stop using it as a scapegoat. It's bad, but it won't turn you into a homosexual unless you're already a mentally ill fag.

Edit: The reason why I'm saying that the LGBT only have a reason to vote for left wing parties is that those delivered them gay marriage. That's a tangible reward for voting to those people while right wing parties can only make vague promises that they never deliver on.

 

[Caddo Cobgang]

Nasty Faggots are targeting children, I fully support instituting the Death Penalty for Pedophiles, the shit they do to children is in the same-tier of crime as Murder.

 

[Capper Mizellus]

It went mainstream because of straggots invading gay spaces, either because they think it's some cool subculture that will shock their white-bread working class normie parents or because they want to normalize sexual deviancy and will foot the bill for it. We didn't reach acceptance by showing drag queens and other fetish stuff to children. We reached acceptance by showing adults that gay people are as normal, uneventful, and boring as straight people. That strategy worked, but now that's down the toilet, and we're back to where people thought gay men are inherently flaming degenerates and that it was a slippery slope all because of heterosexuals calling themselves queer or gay because they like to watch sissy porn and cross dress.

'Straggots' - I like that one, I think I'm going to steal it.

I somewhat disagree with you. Yes the AGPs and spicy straights have dragged the whole group down, but the hedonistic subculture already existed for the gays. Sure, a bunch of them saw what was happening with AIDS or had friends die of it and noped out of the culture or kept a wide berth. Others just got older and too tired for the party lifestyle. But it was still there, and it provided the scafolding upon which everything else was built.

I think the main line of contention here on the farms is whether gay rights was purely a trojan horse for paedophilia or was coopted by paedos, genderists etc. I get why people here think it's one or the other - either you're a fag who hates fag shit and doesn't want to be associated with them, or you've watched how the LGBTABDCEFG+-%÷&$ movement has 'progressed' over the past 10 years and any benefit of the doubt has been flushed down the toilet like a shit-stained condom. Some of you will no doubt disregard anything I say as paedo 5th columnist propaganda. This isn't a degence but an analysis.

There has always been latent tensions between revolutionaries and assimilationists is found in all the 20th century Western civil rights movements - pious southern black churchgoers vs black power Marxists, women who wanted to earn more money and some employment protections vs bra-burning man-haters, etc. There are also a lot of people who are along for the ride but whose motives are more petty than societal reform or revolution - DEI grifters, sexual hedonists, bored suburbanites, spicy straights, etc. The reason these movements spiral out of control is that the assimilationists leave as soon as they've achieved whatever legislative goal they were campaigning for, leaving the radicals and the opportunists to steer the ship. Some of the first group turn against the movement later on, decrying the excesses of the movement, but never quite taking responsibility for leaving in the hands of the crazies. Others just distance themselves and pretend it's nothing to do with them anymore. But try as they might, they'll never be able to dodge responsibility in the eyes of the general public. Nor can they ever draw a neat line between their bit of the movement and the radical rest. It's not a conscious deception to the rest of the world as much as it's a self-deception to avoid the blackpill.

 

[Capper Mizellus]

Can't edit my post so adding this here:

One thing I should have mentioned is that these groups obviously have a lot of crossover and people moving between each, e.g. student radical turned neolib, or student radical turned corrupt idpol-focused politician. But I still think they are distinct in that due to everyone having different ideas of when 'progress' has gone far enough, everyone will tend toward 1 of the 3 over the others to some degree. Slacktivists for example will never commit to a side or take a stand for themselves. Rich libs with more than 2 brain cells will never like antifa, no matter their corporate branding.

 

[California Newt]

@Overachiever

Even if the candidate doesn't follow their promises, the fact that someone who makes those promises can get elected is a massive spiritual victory that has very real impact.

If you're not American you don't know what it was like here before Trump won in 2016. The idea that you could directly oppose and reverse any prog tendency meaningfully, rather than just slow it down, was completely anathema. It was assumed to be impossible, and anyone advocating it was supposed to be unelectable.

Trump made those promises and won. Not only that, but his court killed Roe v. Wade. That's a spear right through the gut of the American left, and a reversal of a half-century of prog psychological warfare against the American population. No, it's actually  not "inevitable" that the future only has to follow one diseased and anti-human philosophy: people just need to be empowered to let themselves imagine something else.

I can have conversations with a lot of regular people today that would have been impossible ten years ago—imageboards notwithstanding—in my part of the country. I don't just mean politics, either: there's a giant spike in various kinds of religious conversions going on right now. The canary has left the coal-mine; the old ship is sinking and the rats are jumping. I'm not even a Trump guy, but he proves that an election can matter.

Can an election save the country? No, it's beyond over (at least under the current regime). What it can do, though, is move the Overton window enough for sane and newly-sane people to be able to speak openly and form real-world connections with one another, which we're probably all going to need in the very near future.

it won't turn you into a homosexual unless you're already a mentally ill fag.

Unfalsifiable groomspeak (not that that's your intention). You know this how? What makes this fetish so special?

It went mainstream because of straggots invading gay spaces, either because they think it's some cool subculture that will shock their white-bread working class normie parents or because they want to normalize sexual deviancy and will foot the bill for it.

It went mainstream because NGOs and institutions engaged in social engineering made it go mainstream.

 

[Ewan McGregor]

Porn cannot turn you gay so stop using it as a scapegoat. It's bad, but it won't turn you into a homosexual unless you're already a mentally ill fag.

I gave you a Disagree sticker just because of this tidbit on an otherwise brilliant post

 

[The Repeated Meme]

After taking some time to figure out a possible solution to my current problems, I realized that stepping back from this thread and seeking professional help for my abuse and trauma would be the most important and beneficial thing for me. I want to get to a place where my homosexual thoughts go away or are at least lessened, but I know that prioritizing my mental health is much more important than dealing with my sexual orientation.

I want to thank everyone in this thread who spent the past few days giving me advice, whether you were on the pro-gay side or the anti-gay side. It gave me a lot to think about and I’m glad that people on this forum were willing to assist me with my issues, but I know that it would be more appropriate to receive assistance from a professional rather than getting it from strangers on a forum like this. I do want to apologize for sperging out and saying anything that anyone deemed irrational or retarded, I’m truly just not in a good headspace regarding my orientation and said some shit I know I didn’t mean. I regret coming off so abrasive and dismissive to @Omori Boy and @Lightsaber Dildo even if I don’t see eye to eye with you both when it comes to homosexuality, but want to thank you both regardless for giving me grace as I was acting out.

Best wishes to you all whether you’re a faggot or a hetero. Peace.

You're making the right choice. If I may add my two cents here, I think if you're attracted to men you should embrace that rather than battling with yourself over it (as long as you stay safe). By the way, it's been almost a month since this post, how you are doing now?

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

I want to add my redarted tidbit in this gay thread too.

What conservative party where in the world has stopped infinity immigration? Please, tell me so I can vote for them. UK's conservatives only increased immigration of Asians while reducing EU immigration. Similarly, the choice in the US is between Indian and South American immigration. Poland's conservatives chose Central Asian immigration and Ukrainian refugees over the Africans. Australia was flooded by East Asians during the LNC. Ironically, I heard immigrating there became harder under its left wing government from 2022 on. It doesn't matter who you vote for in terms of immigration, all parties want it but have preferences for different ethnic groups.

This is a hole that many people fall into on both sides, due to their radical stupidity. Immigration is unstoppable at this point, but it may be limited and directed to whatever extent and it's only the conservative powers that have any potential to make a stand in this issue. Liberals have gone full on retard on this.

It's only UK's conservatives who have taken any steps to curtail the transgender movement. Other Western right wing parties accept the narrative and will not touch the holy cow of leftism.

Yet.

US' fiery but peaceful protests also started under Trump's presidency. I am sure however that voting harder for right wing parties will stop leftist terrorism next time.

Matter of fact it will, where conservatism will settle, cause the protests were mainly in shitfuck asshole liberal hives, not the redneck Bible belt gun free zones. And never think the political pendulum does not swing. The more radical the times, the harder it swings and at this point shit is getting crazy. Nobody can predict what will happen in the next 10 years.

Porn cannot turn you gay so stop using it as a scapegoat. It's bad, but it won't turn you into a homosexual unless you're already a mentally ill fag.

Most people on the internet are metaly ill fags, but many of them have the fucking decency not to jack off to furry hentai child pornography 6 times a day. Your issue is pure semantics. Porn may not transform a naturally straight guy into a gay, but it can bring others to cross the line toward faggotry, which they may've avoided if porn wasn't available on fucking Netflix these days.

Edit: The reason why I'm saying that the LGBT only have a reason to vote for left wing parties is that those delivered them gay marriage. That's a tangible reward for voting to those people while right wing parties can only make vague promises that they never deliver on.

Will the LGBTFGTS take responsibility and, Heaven forbid, any action against the other radical leftist shit like mass migration, child molestation, troon rampages and communism, or do they have too many balls over their eyes to see that gay marriage was objectively not fucking worth it?

 

[California Newt]

Gay marriage and abortion are pushed for the same reason. Both divorce the normative use of sex and romance from life-production.

Putting gay and straight marriage on equal legal footing solidifies the already-present-from-the-sexual-revolution premise that marriage is at the core just a ritualized declaration that you've reached the apex of "love", with continuing the line being an optional tertiary concern at best.

It also implies that the "romantic" bonds between men and women are basically the same as between men and men, which is totally insane to anybody who understands the basic differences between how men and women engage with each other and the world. Men engage  with men, whereas women engage through men.

The man imprints the world into himself through struggle with it, whereas the woman receives him—as an imprinted image of the world—into herself and reproduces a new world-as-man. Mishima argued that men are more creative than women because men can't get pregnant, and while he was gay and killed himself I have to agree with him here. Men want the world in the way that a woman wants a man.

Men engage one another at the margins of their abilities—in competition and collaboration, which are both creative pursuits by which they auto-impress the world's fingerprint. This is why men are more likely to be impressed (not necessarily in a gay way, but that too) if you're super muscular; women appreciate strength—and other masculine virtues—in a more vague, low-resultion, and relative way: they care about "better" and "stronger", but not exactly how many pounds you squat.

This is also why there's such a thing as "girl inches": the ladies are by and large not pulling out the ruler. Gay stuff between men still operates within the masculine mode of marginal engagement—it doesn't matter if you're after the perfect coom or the perfect game of golf: it's all the same machinery under the hood of the car.

The point is that these are two almost totally incompatible modes of engagement: confusing them not only retards men and women's understanding of one another, but also robs women of their purpose and men of their destiny.

As things are now, women are told that they're "liberated". Because women can only exist in a world defined by men's agency, however—through the physical defense of territory and the physical enforcement of laws—women can only believe themselves to be "liberated" by looking at men as automatons who enforce order out of deference to social obligation (preferably as mandated by women), rather than as an expression of masculine will. This neuters those men who comply in the minds of those women—those men become unattractive.

Operating under the frustrated impulse to reproduce the world-as-man, these women invent substitutes by attempting to auto-gestate the masculine in their own persons—at first through bulldyke physiogomy, political lesbianism, and lots of swearing, and then ultimately through their collective metamorphosis into pooner abominations.

The men, meanwhile, become impotently hypersexual—hypersexuality serving as a surrogate potency in place of the authentic exercise of the will, such exercise being prohibited by the regime. Who's better at impotent male hypersexuality than gays?

The purpose is to neuter the population mentally, physically, and spiritually. It's not a coincidence that the tabula rasa "women and men are exactly the same" phase of feminism was roughly contemporaneous with the gay movement. You can bet that the financiers don't operate this way, unless they're drinking their own poison.

It has nothing to do with any kind of benefit for "gay people".

 

[Mountain Gorilla]

The LGBT community got a huge boost of popularity in the mid 2010s. I think a lot of this was RuPaul's Drag Race and gay culture becoming so popular among straight women, but there were other factors as well.

Once LGBT went mainstream the LGBT community went on a huge power trip. In my opinion, this power trip is part of the reason why general attitudes about the LGBT community are changing, especially among younger people. The tranny movement in particular killed any momentum the LGBT community had.

Trannies, unlike a good chunk of gay people, are almost always mentally ill sex pests. Beyond this though, I think that the tranny movement killed LGBT traction because the root of the philosophy being pushed by the tranny sympathizers is inherently inconsistent with Western values.

I also think that the philosophical root of the tranny movement is completely antithetical with the philosophical root of the gay rights movements, which is why I think that there are a lot of people who support gay rights but do not support the tranny movement.

To me, the root of the gay rights movement is "leave me alone". So long as sex is between two consenting adults, other people should not have the right to determine what you do behind the closed doors of your own house. You also should not be allowed to physically assault people for who they have sex with nor close opportunities off from people because of who they have sex with. Maybe some people disagree with the second part, but I think that the general idea is widely accepted. The gay marriage thing is a more complicated debate, but generally a lot of people agree that a homosexual couple should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple - whether they should both be called marriage is usually the the bigger tie-up as far as I have seen.

Even for people who do not support gay people per say, American values of freedom etc. make it difficult for those people to justify explicitly removing rights from gay people because of their sexuality.

Some gay people are obnoxious and demand that everyone verbally accept them, etc. That is annoying, but people are generally still willing to support gay rights when gay rights means not withholding things from people because they are gay. Also note that Christian views on homosexuality verged very quickly into a form of -- not enforcing per say, but socially punishing -- thoughtcrime, where it is considered a sin to have certain thoughts about people of the same sex.

I think that this was a big reason why gay rights won over the fundamentalist Christians back in the day. Fundamentalists wanted everyone to adhere to their philosophy, which more actively sought to withhold rights from gay people. Some people will argue with this wording, but, I think that the general point was that Christians were trying to push their worldview (religion) into other peoples lives and thoughts. And many people were trying to push their Christian-rooted philosophies into the legal realm as well.

Now enter the trannies, who, like the Fundamentalist Christians, are also demanding everyone adhere to their philosophies. Trannies are free to dress however they want, and if they find a group of people who are willing to use their preferred pronouns, all the power to them. But that is not enough for the tranny, who demands punishment (usually pushing for legal punishment) for people not agreeing with their philosophy. More extreme tranny activists push even more so into the thought crime realm, where you are socially punished if a tranny even perceives you of committing the thought crime of not accepting that they are the gender that they say they are.

The tranny philosophy is not "leave me alone", but instead "all must adhere to my philosophy", which is just not compatible with Western values (in fact, it is almost antithetical to them).

I think a lot of people recognize this on some level, which is why this is the issue that they are pushing back against. Except it is manifesting as them pushing back on LGBT rights generally because the tranny cause is so tightly linked to the LGBT community now.

The LGBT needs to ditch the trannies and move back to pushing normal, business class gays (who have pretty much opted out of the movement at this point because they hate dealing with the mentally ill people who run things like Pride etc).

LGBT accepting trannies is not an issue inherently. The issue is that they push the tranny philosophy. If "tranny" was someone who dressed as the opposite sex and preferred people using certain pronouns while accepting that they are still ultimately the sex that they were born as, then people who not have nearly as big of an issue with trannies.

The reason that business class gays are not the face being pushed is because the mentally ill are so tied to leadership positions in the community (and usually use this to grift). Successful business class gays do not constantly rely on their gayness because they are competent at things. Thus they gain less from leveraging the fact that they are gay, thus they are not as inclined to taking up leadership positions that are closely tied with the LGBT community label.

 

[Ewan McGregor]

RuPaul's Drag Race

Curse him. May he burn in boiling sperm.

 

[California Newt]

@Mountain Gorilla

I think you're right about the general attitude that a lot of Americans have, but here are some issues I have with it:

If you'd discourage a man from attending to intrusive thoughts of murdering his own family, and not also discourage him from dwelling on gay (or related) thoughts that might pop into his head, then that difference in approach is purely because you have a different understanding of the definition of what's "harmful"—it has nothing to do with "freedom" or "liberty".

You say that trannies are sex pests "unlike a good chunk of gay people"—you couldn't even bring yourself to write "unlike  most gay people". I don't care about preserving the "rights" of this unicorn "business class" poopdick. Nobody in their right mind, in a sane world, should ever be in the position of having to think about this for more than two seconds. Assault is already illegal. You should absolutely lose opportunities where being a sex weirdo would be a problem or indication of a bad fit.

I'm wording that harshly not out of personal antipathy towards them, but to keep in mind what it is that we're actually talking about: let's not get too abstract, detached, or desensitized—we're talking about some of the most vile and pointless shit any two or more people can do together.

American values of freedom had absolutely no problem denying "rights" to people based on sexuality prior to 2015, when the Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the country against its will—it couldn't even win a referendum in 2008 California, which was and is unequivocally the gayest place on Earth. Why should groups that aren't the same have the same rights and privileges?

The question shouldn't be whether or not excluding gays from the rights married straight people have is mean or "un-American". The question should be about how it's possible for a human being to sincerely and honestly advocate for something so fundamentally death-coded, fraternally incestuous, and anti-human.

---

That's all pretty negative stuff, so for a pallette cleanser I'll say that on the positive side I think we're making real leaps and bounds towards solving the problems that led to gay acceptance in the first place—or, more accurately, the problems that made it possible for that stuff to gain a foothold when it was pushed.

Deviant sexuality has given people an aesthetic vocabulary to describe their feelings towards one another as participants in various creative processes; they understand these processes mainly through bizarre sexual analogies.

That vocabulary can be tweaked and recontextualized into an athletic rather than sexual context, as long as you also add life-force. Everything is tension, release, and generation. That removes spiritual/psychological dependence on sexuality and reduces it to a purely physical habit/addiction.

There's good stuff coming

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

Who's better at impotent male hypersexuality than gays

Socially-awkward shut-ins who are raised on easily-accessible hardcore pornography, aka about half of Gen Z and probably even more of Gen Alpha.

Men engage  with men, whereas women engage through men.

The man imprints the world into himself through struggle with it, whereas the woman receives him—as an imprinted image of the world—into herself and reproduces a new world-as-man. Mishima argued that men are more creative than women because men can't get pregnant, and while he was gay and killed himself I have to agree with him here

I don’t understand what any of this means. What do you mean that women “engage through men”? What is the correlation between pregnancy and lack of creativity?

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

Disgusting globohomo wall art of an orgy. Classy.

Imagine spending 10s of thousands of dollars for this mural that looks like is drawn by edgy 12 year old who just learned to draw penises . How is this even noteworthy ?????

Socially-awkward shut-ins who are raised on easily-accessible hardcore pornography, aka about half of Gen Z and probably even more of Gen Alpha.

So trannies

 

[Billy Bob Dick]

There is no such thing as homosexual love, only homosexual lust.

two dudes buttfucking is unhinged depravity, even the fags engaging in it know it is

 

[Ewan McGregor]

two dudes buttfucking is unhinged depravity, even the fags engaging in it know it is

Meh, it's not wholesome but it's an arrangement.

It comes off as OK considering what a lot of people is up to.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

even the fags engaging in it know it is

So how would you know this without being a fag?