Serious LGBT Discussion

[Real Gay Autist]

I liked the his first answer on the first page where he talked about sexuality as a form of "creation", rather then something we discover. It resonates with me because it's goes against the notion that people have to discover what they want. I find that way of thinking could give people more sense of agency.

Yeah, that was also kinda interesting. What surprised me was that a lot of the stuff he says there reads quite antithetically to parts of the modern Queer Theory-influenced consciousness: e.g.

• "it is important, first, to have the possibility-and the right-to choose your own sexuality"
  So can I choose to be straight by attending conversion therapy? Or is that the wrong choice?
• "I am not at all sure that the best form of literary creations by gay people is gay novels ... we can create something that will have a certain relationship to gayness. But it must not be a translation of gayness in the field of music or painting or what have you, for I do not think this can happen."
  This is at odds with much of the contemporary creative industry (poetry and visual art are great examples), which is based now around self-representation through identity politics. Much of the work is only about the marginalized identities which adorn the person who created it. Art has always been an interesting vessel for empathizing with different people/perspectives and of course people create fuelled by their own experiences; representation of your own identity is, however, fast becoming seen as art's only legitimate goal, it seems to me.

But given the article that was posted, I am somewhat disgusted that I linked the article.

Nah, don't be. As I said, I'd been around this stuff for a decade before I heard about the pedophilia link a few months back. People don't know about it and anyone who talks about it, even other leftists, is shut down (see below video). Once I was secure enough in myself I realized this stuff was bullshitty for the reasons I discussed above, but I didn't know about its intellectual heritage. Quite insidious. Definitely a redpill moment for me, as I say. I know a lot of people who are heavily invested in this stuff IRL (as in have dissertations, journal articles, books, etc. based around these ideas) and I really want to talk with them about it but I'm worried I'll be ostracized.

Spoiler: Derrick Jensen - Queer Theory Jeopardy

 

[Noir drag freak]

Yeah, that was also kinda interesting. What surprised me was that a lot of the stuff he says there reads quite antithetically to parts of the modern Queer Theory-influenced consciousness: e.g

• "I am not at all sure that the best form of literary creations by gay people is gay novels ... we can create something that will have a certain relationship to gayness. But it must not be a translation of gayness in the field of music or painting or what have you, for I do not think this can happen."
  This is at odds with much of the contemporary creative industry (poetry and visual art are great examples), which is based now around self-representation through identity politics. Much of the work is only about the marginalized identities which adorn the person who created it. Art has always been an interesting vessel for empathizing with different people/perspectives and of course people create fuelled by their own experiences; representation of your own identity is, however, fast becoming seen as art's only legitimate goal, it seems to me.

I have conflicted feelings about idenity-based novels. On one hand, they can be interesting if the identity is an undercurrent that leads to a large theme that links to the universal human experience. Or something of a character study that examines one's relationship with the world. As long as, the identity or group isn't portrayed in a one-dimensional matter and it isn't self-pitying .

• "it is important, first, to have the possibility-and the right-to choose your own sexuality"
  So can I choose to be straight by attending conversion therapy? Or is that the wrong choice?

It sounds somewhat empowering and somewhat scary, doesn't it? I like the idea because it sounds so empowering. Like you don't have to be this thing, you can choose another. But feelings and sex is not rational. Like mention, it takes years to be a real heterosexual. But at the same time, I have the perception that queer theory likes word games. Like "what makes someone a homosexual? Acts or Feelings?". So it leaves at square one again, imo.

Nah, don't be. As I said, I'd been around this stuff for a decade before I heard about the pedophilia link a few months back. People don't know about it and anyone who talks about it, even other leftists, is shut down (see below video). Once I was secure enough in myself I realized this stuff was bullshitty for the reasons I discussed above, but I didn't know about its intellectual heritage. Quite insidious. Definitely a redpill moment for me, as I say. I know a lot of people who are heavily invested in this stuff IRL (as in have dissertations, journal articles, books, etc. based around these ideas) and I really want to talk with them about it but I'm worried I'll be ostracized.

Tbh, I was aware that homosexuals used to go to MENA countries, because of their tolerance for pederasty or situational homosexuality. But I never really thought about it. :/

 

[Auntie Fester]

Most trans people and their allies are some of the most narcissistic, ostentatious and decadent people you'll ever have the misfortune to meet.

The LGB aspect of the community, while far from perfect, at least stems from accepting attractions to the same-sex, which really doesn't bother me. Trans rights activists demand you reject ontological reality for the sake of appeasing mentally unstable, frothing at the mouth lunatics who don't even have a grasp on who they actually are, let alone anyone else. I would feel bad for trans people, if they weren't trying to co-opt the rest of society into believing these delusions. The "trans allies" are perhaps even worse, people who see easy answers in encouraging body mutilation, psychological/physiological incongruence and all sorts of fuckery that screws with the people they claim to care for most of all in the long run, as well as the knock-on effect on society, all because it's seen as "tolerant" in the here and now.

The day LGB separates from the T will be a huge boon for the former, and in many ways, it's already starting. Fuck these over-privileged shitstains who think pseudo-intellectual mental gymnastics give them the ability to lord over everyone else's freedom of expression. "Trans rights" are trans privileges over others.

 

[Bonesjones]

I liked the his first answer on the first page where he talked about sexuality as a form of "creation", rather then something we discover. It resonates with me because it's goes against the notion that people have to discover what they want. I find that way of thinking could give people more sense of agency. I also like what he said about friendship as well. But given the article that was posted, I am somewhat disgusted that I linked the article.

He talks about sexuality as creation because he was a child rapist. You can create sexuality within a child and make them gay through molestation.

 

[Randall Fragg]

Can you elaborate on what you find interesting about it? Some of the stuff he said about friendship was interesting, I thought, but not really very illuminating.



Right. I just have an aversion to this kind of postmodernist stuff on the way it's written alone, before you even get to what it's saying (a lot of the time it isn't saying much anyway). The French postmodernist 'intellectuals' are the worst for this. I actually think Foucault is one of the least-worst of his ilk (especially when you compare him to Derrida, Lacan, etc.) in this respect. When I was younger I felt super-pressured to read and understand all of it, until I realized that most of the people who claimed to have read and understand it were doing so out of pretension and a similar pressure to claim that they have read and understood it. The way that it's written (FWIW I usually read it in French) is elitist IMO. Like so many (pseudo)marxists, they wax lyrical all day about the revolution, the proletariat, etc. but then proceed to write in language so inaccessible, convoluted and specialized that it can only be understood (if they really understand it at all) by people who have gone to grad school for a humanities subject and thoroughly indoctrinated into this way of thinking. And, of course, you're not allowed to really disagree. There's a lot out there on the cult-like aspect of postmodernism but for me, it's the hypocrisy which gets me.



Oh yeah, plus, the whole pedophilia thing. That uncommonground article definitely came as a total shock to me; it's a bit rough in parts but it totally redpilled me. As someone who's been around this stuff on the daily for the last decade, I had never heard of this.

Based on your other posts, I think you'd find that an interesting rabbit hole to go down, @Noir drag freak . I'd be curious to hear what you think.

Maybe I’m just too much of a smoothbrain to understand it, but most philosophy comes off to me as people deliberately writing as obtusely as possible to seem like they’re making more profound points then they really are.
Kind of like a bunch of vastly more successful Jake Alleys.

 

[Noir drag freak]

He talks about sexuality as creation because he was a child rapist. You can create sexuality within a child and make them gay through molestation.

I mean before the creation of homosexual and heterosexual, it seems like men would sleep with anyone under the right conditions.

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

I just have an aversion to this kind of postmodernist stuff on the way it's written alone, before you even get to what it's saying (a lot of the time it isn't saying much anyway). The French postmodernist 'intellectuals' are the worst for this. I actually think Foucault is one of the least-worst of his ilk (especially when you compare him to Derrida, Lacan, etc.) in this respect.

Yeah, I thought he was the least unreadable. Which isn't saying much. All of his sex shit I didn't have the misfortune to read, but I read college snippets from Discipline and Punish that were coherent. Something something "if you believe omniscient authority figures are always watching you, then eventually the observer doesn't need to be real- your own fear acts as an internal hall monitor". It's a concept that certainly didn't need pages of babble to get across, and it's something the more successful religions figured out way before some Frog yanked it out of a Marxist fever dream. But it's one of the few kernels of not-batshit I've seen from those postmodernists.

 

[Kornula]

About a month ago, I watched a Fassbinder film: "Fox and his Friends" Made in 1975, it follows the life of a carney worker who strikes it (somewhat) rich from the lottery. What strikes me most about this movie is that the main character is gay..but that's not the focus - as too many "gay" movies usually are. Fox, the main character has so many other issues in his life.. being gay is way down on his list of what needs his attention.... which is how life should be. Watch it

 

[Noir drag freak]

Why does it matter if homosexuality is a sin? Why do some people have to justify it like a Christian apologist? I think that WH Auden said it best, "Homosexuality is a sin and I'll keep on sinning. "

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

Why does it matter if homosexuality is a sin? Why do some people have to justify it like a Christian apologist? I think that WH Auden said it best, "Homosexuality is a sin and I'll keep on sinning. "

Yeah, for me it’s like “Good thing I’m not Christian then.”
For others though, it’s like this classic, tried and true meme:

 

[Kornula]

Why does it matter if homosexuality is a sin? Why do some people have to justify it like a Christian apologist? I think that WH Auden said it best, "Homosexuality is a sin and I'll keep on sinning. "

I have grown weary of that particular argument that a massive group of people actually believe this. I have found that it is a tiny handful of assholes who believe that being gay is an unpardonable sin. If people took the time to see a majority of the public in 1st world countries, over 70% of the population literally do not care if someone is gay - even if they belong to one of the 20,000 denominations of Christianity today.

You know that saying: "Dance like nobody is watching."? That is not exclusive to dancing.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

I have found that it is a tiny handful of assholes who believe that being gay is an unpardonable sin.

No Christian denomination, including the ones that consider homosexuality a sin, hold it to be an "unpardonable sin". The vast majority of sins are "pardonable", even rape and murder, inasmuch as you can be forgiven for them and still get to heaven, and that goes for homosexuality as well.

If people took the time to see a majority of the public in 1st world countries, over 70% of the population literally do not care if someone is gay - even if they belong to one of the 20,000 denominations of Christianity today.

I don't know where you get those numbers from, but they don't really matter at all. Homosexuality is still a sin against God regardless and 70% of the population not caring if someone is gay (assuming that number is correct; for the sake of argument lets say that it is) doesn't change that in the slightest. Also, not caring if someone is gay or not is not the same as saying homosexuality is not a sin, it just means that you don't care personally if someone is gay.

 

[gmax alcremie]

Homosexuality is still a sin against God regardless

Aren't their denominations that don't consider it a sin? Episcopalian churches have ordained gay and lesbian priests if I remember correctly. What is the rational there? I've heard an argument that the verses admonishing it need to be taken in historical context - that it was more a condemnation against promiscuity and as a safeguard against disease (also why the focus was more on males) Which are not applicable to a monogamous homosexual relationships today. But I will admit I don't know a lot about the subject!

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Aren't their denominations that don't consider it a sin? Episcopalian churches have ordained gay and lesbian priests if I remember correctly. What is the rational there? I've heard an argument that the verses admonishing it need to be taken in historical context - that it was more a condemnation against promiscuity and as a safeguard against disease (also why the focus was more on males) Which are not applicable to a monogamous homosexual relationships today. But I will admit I don't know a lot about the subject!

There are some mainstream denominations that have moved away from Bible and have pursued a modern "theology", rejecting Biblical truth for their own modernized "truth", and this was a major reason why these mainstream denominations have declined. There are also "liberal" and "progressive" churches as well. Many of these latter ones are only "Christian" in name only (some of them don't even believe that Jesus Christ literally died on the Cross). And there are outright "gay affirming" churches, filled with homosexuals and lesbians, with LGBT clergy and everything. Even in my small southern city that I came from, there is apparently such a church.

There have been numerous "arguments" for why these churches can accept gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, but do not be fooled: The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality and lesbianism are sins and outside God's order. And not just those either; any sex or sexual immorality outside of committed, heterosexual marriage, is a sin. To wit:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 (ESV))

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 (ESV))

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26–27 (ESV))

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV))

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine," (1 Timothy 8-10 (ESV))

We should note here the difference between homosexual acts, and homosexual inclinations and attractions. Its the difference between committing an act and being tempted to do it. The Bible never condemns anyone for being tempted, only for giving into that temptation and acting on it. Struggling with temptation may lead to sin, but the struggle itself is not sinful. The Bible characterizes homosexuality as outright disobedience towards God in Romans, and those who practice it are "given up" by God to do it, three times (in body, mind, and spirit), so that they can do it being given over to "a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:28 ). 1 Cor. 6:9 outright proclaims that those who commit homosexuality transgress against God's order, and will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some people may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people may be more susceptible to falling into fits of rage, but the Bible never accepts a person's natural inclinations as an excuse for sin.

The Bible calls all, even homosexuals, to repentance. In fact, after condemning homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Thus, some of the Corinthians were homosexuals, but, through the power of Jesus Christ, they turned away from it and overcame their sin, no longer being defined by that sin.

In the grand scheme of things, homosexual desire and attraction is no different from heterosexual extramarital lust, as far as the Bible is concerned; both are lusting after something God has declared forbidden, and thus has its ultimate roots in sin. For the Bible, there is no question where homosexuality came from; it is sin. Sin warps human perception and perspective so that our thoughts and desires are warped by it. Homosexual attraction does not always result in outright willful sin on a person's part, but it springs from mankind's inherent sinful nature. Homosexuality is just one more sin against God among many. But all men, homosexual or not, are called to resist temptation, which can only be done with the power of Jesus Christ.

Also, to be clear, the Bible does not call out homosexuality as a "greater sin" than any other. All sin is offensive to God. God's forgiveness is as open to homosexuals as it is to adulterers, and God promises victory in sin to all sinners who come to believe.

 

[Noir drag freak]

There are some mainstream denominations that have moved away from Bible and have pursued a modern "theology", rejecting Biblical truth for their own modernized "truth", and this was a major reason why these mainstream denominations have declined. There are also "liberal" and "progressive" churches as well. Many of these latter ones are only "Christian" in name only (some of them don't even believe that Jesus Christ literally died on the Cross). And there are outright "gay affirming" churches, filled with homosexuals and lesbians, with LGBT clergy and everything. Even in my small southern city that I came from, there is apparently such a church.

There have been numerous "arguments" for why these churches can accept gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, but do not be fooled: The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality and lesbianism are sins and outside God's order. And not just those either; any sex or sexual immorality outside of committed, heterosexual marriage, is a sin. To wit:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 (ESV))

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 (ESV))

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26–27 (ESV))

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV))

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine," (1 Timothy 8-10 (ESV))

We should note here the difference between homosexual acts, and homosexual inclinations and attractions. Its the difference between committing an act and being tempted to do it. The Bible never condemns anyone for being tempted, only for giving into that temptation and acting on it. Struggling with temptation may lead to sin, but the struggle itself is not sinful. The Bible characterizes homosexuality as outright disobedience towards God in Romans, and those who practice it are "given up" by God to do it, three times (in body, mind, and spirit), so that they can do it being given over to "a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:28 ). 1 Cor. 6:9 outright proclaims that those who commit homosexuality transgress against God's order, and will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some people may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people may be more susceptible to falling into fits of rage, but the Bible never accepts a person's natural inclinations as an excuse for sin.

The Bible calls all, even homosexuals, to repentance. In fact, after condemning homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Thus, some of the Corinthians were homosexuals, but, through the power of Jesus Christ, they turned away from it and overcame their sin, no longer being defined by that sin.

In the grand scheme of things, homosexual desire and attraction is no different from heterosexual extramarital lust, as far as the Bible is concerned; both are lusting after something God has declared forbidden, and thus has its ultimate roots in sin. For the Bible, there is no question where homosexuality came from; it is sin. Sin warps human perception and perspective so that our thoughts and desires are warped by it. Homosexual attraction does not always result in outright willful sin on a person's part, but it springs from mankind's inherent sinful nature. Homosexuality is just one more sin against God among many. But all men, homosexual or not, are called to resist temptation, which can only be done with the power of Jesus Christ.

Also, to be clear, the Bible does not call out homosexuality as a "greater sin" than any other. All sin is offensive to God. God's forgiveness is as open to homosexuals as it is to adulterers, and God promises victory in sin to all sinners who come to believe.

So I take it that you're a born again Christian?

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

So I take it that you're a born again Christian?

Yeah, you could say that. I'm also an avid studier of theology in general. I must say, this discussion regarding LGBT topics has actually been a very fascinating one, hearing from LGBT people themselves, and not having meaningful discussion shouted down by SJWs and Progressives simply because it doesn't align with their worldviews. It allows you to get a general feel for the subject without people censoring themselves in order to not face backlash. Kiwifarms may be one of the last places on the internet that allow that kind of discussion.

 

[idosometimes]

Why does it matter if homosexuality is a sin? Why do some people have to justify it like a Christian apologist? I think that WH Auden said it best, "Homosexuality is a sin and I'll keep on sinning. "

Because a group with authority calling the behavior bad can create feelings of shame and guilt for those who are not psychopaths.
Acceptance by religious groups for deviancy, like fagetry, helps these degenerates feels better because they can use an appeal to authority to justify their disgusting behaviors. This is not just an issue with religious groups. Tech companies allowing fagetry to reign makes it seem more acceptable and less offensive. Youtube bans people who question trannyism, but lets sodomites stick things up their bums.

 

[Noir drag freak]

Because a group with authority calling the behavior bad can create feelings of shame and guilt for those who are not psychopaths.
Acceptance by religious groups for deviancy, like fagetry, helps these degenerates feels better because they can use an appeal to authority to justify their disgusting behaviors. This is not just an issue with religious groups. Tech companies allowing fagetry to reign makes it seem more acceptable and less offensive. Youtube bans people who question trannyism, but lets sodomites stick things up their bums.

Hello, sodomite here. I am not saying that there shouldn't be any taboos nor that it should be a free from all. Or that nobody should be accountable for thier actions. But why do I have to justify my homosexual behavior? Why do I have to make myself acceptable to people like you?


ETA:
Another point, why do I have to play along with this narrative of the degenerate vs righteous crusader? It's just childish to act like a child rebelling against their parent for no one reason. Why can't I just be an adult about it and say it is what it is?

 

[idosometimes]

Hello, sodomite here. I am not saying that there shouldn't be any taboos nor that it should be a free from all. Or that nobody should be accountable for thier actions. But why do I have to justify my homosexual behavior? Why do I have to make myself acceptable to people like you?

ETA:
Another point, why do I have to play along with this narrative of the degenerate vs righteous crusader? It's just childish to act like a child rebelling against their parent for no one reason. Why can't I just be an adult about it and say it is what it is?

You do not have to do anything, you dumb faget. You feel the need to do it because you know that your lifestyle is depraved. Forcing others to accept that depravity means that no one is able to ask inconvenient questions, like "why are why allowing little children at 'pride' events where men are walking around with their wieners hanging out?" or "why are fagets so overrepresented in infection rates for HIV and other STIs?". That keeps the possibility of shame from entering your mind, though you, as a homo, probably cannot feel shame.

 

[Noir drag freak]

You do not have to do anything, you dumb faget. You feel the need to do it because you know that your lifestyle is depraved. Forcing others to accept that depravity means that no one is able to ask inconvenient questions, like "why are why allowing little children at 'pride' events where men are walking around with their wieners hanging out?" or "why are fagets so overrepresented in infection rates for HIV and other STIs?". That keeps the possibility of shame from entering your mind, though you, as a homo, probably cannot feel shame.

But what if I accepted that homosexuality is depraved and deviant? What if I want people to ask inconvenient questions?