The Sacred Cow of Homosexuality - lmao i'm gonna get so much shit for this

[Spatula]

Even tho being gay is not as bad as being trans, Gays are the first ones that coined the -phobic term, and prosecuted normal people who told gay jokes, thus killing comedy.

Ttannies stole the playbook and faggots are mad because trannies are using the playbook against them.

Zoophiles and Pedos are gonna take a turn next.


You can't stop this process in it's tracks. Even gays who realized they made a mistake for making pride parades a thing stopped going to them and are doing anti lgbt rhetoric, get called X-phobic and get the same treatment straights got.
Gays single handedly pushed the western culture in a downward spiral and there is nothing they can do to salvage this.

All because the sin of pride was too strong to admit that maybe... they are an oddity.

 

[this is the drama reborn]

Can we acknowledge how class, history, technology and capitalism has influence this debate?

It like black college students going full horseshoe theory and demand to be resegregated.

Bet MLK is spinning faster than a turbine right now

To be fair, the civil rights movements was complicated. It was not as simple as blacks wanting to integrate into white society. There are layers to this. There is a strong class component. The main argument was for equal access to infrastructure and materials. But that is another discussion in and of it self.

The liberal mindset has a couple of really obvious myths that are completely retarded if you think about them for 2 seconds:

1. Everyone is the same.
2. All behaviors are equal as long as everyone involved consented to whatever it is.

By turning these into unquestionable sacred values it's completely predictable that you will get lots of bad results due to people's expectations being misaligned with everyday reality.

I think some gay people actually did just want to get married and then be left alone. I don't doubt that. The problem is you can never have your cake and eat it too. Humans always exist in hierarchies, someone is going to be on top. There is no world where gays and straights can be treated equal because they aren't the same. You can only favor one or favor the other, and try your best not to abuse the disfavored one. Social status is zero-sum, it is impossible for everyone to be high status and because humans are primates not ants it is also impossible to eliminate hierarchies. Liberals have proven this because their efforts to eliminate hierarchy as part of their religious worldview has only ended up flipping the hierarchies on their heads instead of getting rid of them.

Then I could sperg a lot more about this ties into religion and government but that's enough for one post.

This is making the assumption that all heterosexuals are ranked the same in the hierarchy. This is also making the assumption that all Liberals are the same or have the same goal. I am willing to bet that about a quarter of liberals are only liberals because that's what the system currently favors. You have to add in class and other demographic factors to make sense of this all.

cybertoaster made a good point that " the lgbt movement as it is now its mostly rich gays looking for status, they don't like being 2nd class citizens not so much because of the (lack of) rights but because the "2nd" part, as in inferior to others, even plebs who are poorer than them. " The rich gays are going to have to different political goals than alienated suburban queers. The rich gays are going to argue for policies that protects their assets. While the queers are going to argue for something else entirely.

 

[cybertoaster]

To be fair, the civil rights movements was complicated. It was not as simple as blacks wanting to integrate into white society. There are layers to this. There is a strong class component. The main argument was for equal access to infrastructure and materials. But that is another discussion in and of it self.

There are no layers in this case, these are all upper class black students appropriating the past struggle of other black people for their benefit as if their class privilege wasn't enough for them. No, they must appropriate the kind of solidarity that in any sane society would actually go to the ones born into generational poverty as a shield lest someone dare call them out for what they are: shitty preppy kids who want a private club only for themselves, not even other minorities are allowed.

 

[Smug]

Gays are the first ones that coined the -phobic term

You have me wondering if it was "homophobic" or "Islamophobic" which first saw common use now, cause I think I first heard the latter - but that could just be me.

Spoiler: I thought wrongly, you seem to be right

Either way people from both groups are utter faggots for abusing that suffix.

 

[Crex Crex]

I think the fundamental difference between troonism and homosexuality is that, while gayness is really just a preference (whether it's ok or not among adults IDGAF, obviously it's not ok  if it's towards kids), troonism is an all-encompassing, profound and total delusion that stems from severe and incurable mental illness. Deep down trannies are aware of this, so they have to flaunt their delusion as much as they can and seek validation from all possible sources in order to keep their illusion stable.

That's also why they're so thin-skinned and spin any criticism (including personal criticism unrelated to their "identity") into a transphobic attack. There is plenty of gays who do the same, obviously, but most won't bring their sexuality into an argument, a debate or a spat unless you call them faggots or if it's the reason for the argument in the first place. On the other hand, trannies are impossible to criticize on the objective or subjective level without them veering the discussion on troonhood and the supposed oppression they face, thus they're immune to public scrutiny.

They do this because (aside from getting an ez scapegoat) in order to validate their delusion, they make troonhood into their entire personality and mould every aspect of their life around it: so attacking anything about them is attacking their "gender identity" or whatever they wanna call it. Homosexuals, especially those who grew up 40-something years ago and were not exposed to reddit/twatter gendershit, still understand that their life and their social interactions don't necessarily revolve around them being gay.

 

[gang weeder]

This is making the assumption that all heterosexuals are ranked the same in the hierarchy. This is also making the assumption that all Liberals are the same or have the same goal. I am willing to bet that about a quarter of liberals are only liberals because that's what the system currently favors. You have to add in class and other demographic factors to make sense of this all.

Shit it's probably way more than a quarter. I would guess it's more like three fourths of people that are essentially sheep who adopt whatever ideas the political and cultural elite tell them to, maybe even more than that. And no of course not all heterosexuals are ranked the same. There are tons of factors that influence status of course, Elon Musk is higher status than me even though we are both hetero. My point is, between being sexually normal and sexually deviant, one is going to be treated more favorably than the other. They're never going to be the same. Currently being a deviant is higher status, historically it was the other way around and with good reason.

 

[this is the drama reborn]

There are no layers in this case, these are all upper class black students appropriating the past struggle of other black people for their benefit as if their class privilege wasn't enough for them. No, they must appropriate the kind of solidarity that in any sane society would actually go to the ones born into generational poverty as a shield lest someone dare call them out for what they are: shitty preppy kids who want a private club only for themselves, not even other minorities are allowed.

Blacks aren’t the only ones to do that. A majority of minorities act the same way. What about wealthy Indians who talk about the Bengal famine of 1943 or the consequences of British Imperialism? Or Jews?
I came to the conclusion that the upper classes don’t care about their brothers on the lower totem pole in as far as they can use them. All the lower classes are pawns. History and culture are mostly weaponize to act other groups.

The upper classes also hate each other.
I say that there are layers to this because the upper classes are all in competition with each other. Most of the time, it’s not very integrated and they stay among themselves unless it is beneficial.

So you have class conflict, inter and intra racial conflict, and a whole loads of other stuff. Not proposing a solution. Just describing a problem.

Shit it's probably way more than a quarter. I would guess it's more like three fourths of people that are essentially sheep who adopt whatever ideas the political and cultural elite tell them to, maybe even more than that. And no of course not all heterosexuals are ranked the same. There are tons of factors that influence status of course, Elon Musk is higher status than me even though we are both hetero. My point is, between being sexually normal and sexually deviant, one is going to be treated more favorably than the other. They're never going to be the same. Currently being a deviant is higher status, historically it was the other way around and with good reason.

Agree to a certain extent. I think that I’m just being picky at your arguments. Cheers.

 

[cybertoaster]

Blacks aren’t the only ones to do that.

Are we starting with whataboutism already?

A majority of minorities act the same way. What about wealthy Indians who talk about the Bengal famine of 1943 or the consequences of British Imperialism?

Nobody cares, I know these brahmin scum have been trying really hard to carve a spot in the progressive stack pretending to be victims for clout but for a number of reasons chief among them bad acting (being a stuck up bitch its intergenerational in a caste system and nobody is going to believe you're a victim of anything acting like that) and the fact most of the people who died in that famine were the lower castes specially the untouchables, many brahmin actually benefited from the british occupation. It also does not help that many of these woke hindians manage to pull a 180° and defend the caste system at the same time, really bad optics there.

Or Jews?

Yes and no, jews are pioneers in the victim business, just read 'The Holocaust Industry' by Finkelstein, who of course is also a jew. However the jewish community has a history of helping other groups who also got the short end of the stick while blacks have this tendency to view themselves as the only victims of history, even above other blacks living in africa in conditions that are as bad as those of slaves here nearly 2 centuries ago.

Needless to say other minorities really hate this, and the hatred just accumulates. If SHTF black americans should look at what happened to Iraqi Palestinians during the 2003 invasion. Hint: it wasn't our troops or the baath who went around those quarters killing them in revenge, it was the other minorities who got shafted by saddam who did it because those Palestinians were a protected minority in the old regime.

I came to the conclusion that the upper classes don’t care about their brothers on the lower totem pole in as far as they can use them. All the lower classes are pawns. History and culture are mostly weaponize to act other groups.

Yes and no, plenty of neocons draw the line at white people getting screwed in favor of minorities, tho they are perfectly okay with poor white people getting screwed by rich white people. And even the post-history post-ethnicity soviet nomenklatura aparatchiks felt bad for their fellow russians falling into misery, even tho they had been exploiting them horribly for 70+ years.

The upper classes also hate each other.

A rich black man has more in common with a rich white man than with a poor black man, and he's also aware that it gives him no financial gain to stand up for his fellow black man while being in good terms with the rich man of any other race can bring big opportunities.

That's why you never see rich people actually pushing for legislation that would hurt other rich people because they know that eventually it will come back to them.

I say that there are layers to this because the upper classes are all in competition with each other.

No, the 1% is in competition to replace the 0,1%, and the latter is in competition to replace the 0,001%, but never at the expense of class privilege.

Most of the time, it’s not very integrated and they stay among themselves unless it is beneficial.

Who?

So you have class conflict, inter and intra racial conflict

Most of the current race issues are a grift and a distraction for far more serious snowballing issues, but the latter are class/economic issues and fixing those would affect the status quo and we're most def not doing that.

 

[this is the drama reborn]

Are we starting with whataboutism already?

I'm not defending the behavior. I'm trying to illustrate my point.

Nobody cares, I know these brahmin scum have been trying really hard to carve a spot in the progressive stack pretending to be victims for clout but for a number of reasons chief among them bad acting (being a stuck up bitch its intergenerational in a caste system and nobody is going to believe you're a victim of anything acting like that) and the fact most of the people who died in that famine were the lower castes specially the untouchables, many brahmin actually benefited from the british occupation. It also does not help that many of these woke hindians manage to pull a 180° and defend the caste system at the same time, really bad optics there.

Yes and no, jews are pioneers in the victim business, just read 'The Holocaust Industry' by Finkelstein, who of course is also a jew. However the jewish community has a history of helping other groups who also got the short end of the stick while blacks have this tendency to view themselves as the only victims of history, even above other blacks living in africa in conditions that are as bad as those of slaves here nearly 2 centuries ago.

Needless to say other minorities really hate this, and the hatred just accumulates. If SHTF black americans should look at what happened to Iraqi Palestinians during the 2003 invasion. Hint: it wasn't our troops or the baath who went around those quarters killing them in revenge, it was the other minorities who got shafted by saddam who did it because those Palestinians were a protected minority in the old regime.

Yes and no, plenty of neocons draw the line at white people getting screwed in favor of minorities, tho they are perfectly okay with poor white people getting screwed by rich white people. And even the post-history post-ethnicity soviet nomenklatura aparatchiks felt bad for their fellow russians falling into misery, even tho they had been exploiting them horribly for 70+ years.

I would argue that minorities hate each and are in competition with each in the abstract. Ethnic rivalry is a part of human nature. That's why I view race and sex as a modifier to class. I know that people are going to say that is how Woke people view the world. The only difference is that I don't think that you can social engineer people out their instincts. And I wouldn't even try to. The only solution I can offer is segregation. Humans are hierarchical species. Our closets relatives are a war-like species.

A rich black man has more in common with a rich white man than with a poor black man, and he's also aware that it gives him no financial gain to stand up for his fellow black man while being in good terms with the rich man of any other race can bring big opportunities.

That's why you never see rich people actually pushing for legislation that would hurt other rich people because they know that eventually it will come back to them.

Yes, they have more in common. But what about the "narcissism of small differences"? I would argue that has more of an affect than policy. Tensions between the upper classes from different countries creates ideas that can influence culture. For example, there was the Cosmopolitan Club at Oxford University. The Cosmopolitan Club was composed of scholars from the British colonies or countries that were influenced by the British. The Club was one of the sparks for Pan-Africanism and Zionism via Isaka Seme and Horace Kallen.

Even intra-ethnic conflict was caused by those small differences. Didn't Kaiser Wilhelm II have inferiority complex to his British relatives? That complex which probably lead to the first WW?


Yes, rich people may never push for legislation that would hurt other people. But they do play cultural games with the intent to subdue each other and show superiority. Hence Luxury Beliefs being a thing.

Who?

Wealthy non-whites, especially those of the immigrant of variety. I have a friend whose grandmother would cut her off if she doesn't marry an Asian men. Actually, wealthy people as a whole. The only time that they interact with each other is work or education.

Most of the current race issues are a grift and a distraction for far more serious snowballing issues, but the latter are class/economic issues and fixing those would affect the status quo and we're most def not doing that.

Yes and No. We're assuming that if race wasn't discussed than there would be a unifying class consciousness. I would argue that humans are too tribal for that to happened. But race is probably a grift for the men who are the outside elite.

Adam Clayton Powell speaks on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

www.youtube.com

 

[Marley Rathbone]

It is still disgusting and that is good enough reason to oppose it in all its forms. No religious pretexts necessary.

 

[RybenZ999]

Say what you want about fags, but you gotta give it to them. They managed to change the minds of people SUPER FAST. It wasn't even too long ago that most western countries were against gay marriage and adoption. Now, even some third world shithole countries have at least half of the population support it.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Say what you want about fags, but you gotta give it to them. They managed to change the minds of people SUPER FAST. It wasn't even too long ago that most western countries were against gay marriage and adoption. Now, even some third world shithole countries have at least half of the population support it.

Yes, indeed they do.

 

[Ser Prize]

Yes, indeed they do.

I don't know if something is commendable if it has had the backing of academia behind it. It's not like gay people changed people's minds with their behaviour.

 

[gang weeder]

Say what you want about fags, but you gotta give it to them. They managed to change the minds of people SUPER FAST. It wasn't even too long ago that most western countries were against gay marriage and adoption. Now, even some third world shithole countries have at least half of the population support it.

Faggots didn't do that the government & co. did. Same as blacks. Blacks didn't change people's minds about race, the government told everyone they had to change their minds, and if they didn't integration was forced on them at gunpoint.

 

[Reticulan Joe]

Well, remember that LGBT people have a huge advantage over black people or (especially) poor people: sometimes LGBT children are born to rich, well-connected parents, and those parents naturally want to support their children and are willing to use their wealth and influence to do so.

Or, in the form of a Jeopardy answer, "Who is Jennifer Pritzker"?

 

[gang weeder]

Well, remember that LGBT people have a huge advantage over black people or (especially) poor people: sometimes LGBT children are born to rich, well-connected parents, and those parents naturally want to support their children and are willing to use their wealth and influence to do so.

Or, in the form of a Jeopardy answer, "Who is Jennifer Pritzker"?

I mean sure but way more people, if I had to guess, are born to rich well-connected parents and end up having substance abuse problems. Did all of their parents go out and advocate to normalize drug addiction as an ordinary healthy behavior that is 100% hard coded from birth and can't be changed so you should just indulge in it fully and everyone else has to pretend it's normal and okay? No they didn't. There is more going on than "parents wanting to support their kids." What a weird theory, to be honest.

 

[Reticulan Joe]

Probably a few did, but a lot of them instead used their wealth and influence to keep their kids out of prison and "the system," or at worst, sent them to some country-club rehab facility. Which, of course, only enables their little smacked-up sprog, but it's coming from a place of good intention.

Money talks, and a lot of discrete pressure can be applied - "Yes, Big University, we'd love to endow this distinguished scholar position in your Psychology department. Now, we of course, respect your University's independence, but we'd be delighted if you'd consider Dr. Soandso for the inaugural holder of the role. You've heard of him, yes? His dissertation was on homosexuality as a perfectly normal mammalian behavior..."

The LGBT movement was so successful because it first won over the experts that The Establishment listened to. And the experts in academia were won over through the promise of receiving guaranteed funding while still being able to promote themselves as maverick thinkers.

 

[Bani]

The most promiscuous fag they surveyed had over 9000 partners.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/

Congratulations, you've just learned what a statistical outlier is.

Homosexuality can never be elevated to an eternal, perfect principle. It will always be imperfect, and lesser. A society thrives off of heterosexual individuals having children, who in turn have children of their own in a never-ending cycle. An axiom of a functioning society is therefore for men to procreate with women. Same-sex relationships can never become a civilizational axiom, because if its seen as a perfected moral way of being to strive for, then that civilization will die off in an almost Darwinian fashion. Gays do not create civilization, straights do. We need to strive for straightness if we want to have a civilization. We also need to bring back discussions around the absolute, because that’s what built us up.

Now this is actually an interesting contribution. Sorry for the late reply.

Human beings can never be elevated to an "eternal, perfect principle," if such a thing even exists. A certain percentage of people will always have qualities that prevent them from having children, yet humanity not only persists but thrives. When there are so many human beings on Earth that it borders on unsustainable under our current systems, I think it's fair to say that we've passed the threshold at which the ability to reproduce is a human being's most valuable asset. There is no need to "create civilization" when it already exists in abudance. This isn't to say fertility is not still important; take a look at the troubles experienced by countries with below-replacement birthrates for an example of the need for new children to be born. My point is that fecundity shouldn't be prioritized over the ethical treatment of the human beings that are already here.

I'm not trying to be accusatory here, but some of what you're saying is edging dangerously close to the underlying principles of eugenics. If you aren't extremely careful in your pursuit of perfection, you may end up causing more damage than progress. For the sake of argument, let's say that perfection is a harmonious, united human population that hovers around the same number for however long the Earth can support human life. There's an argument to be made that harmony is achieved through collectivism, and that collectivism is predicated by some level of homogeny. However, in real life, acceptance of natural variance in human psychology and biology (homosexuality, physiological disabilities, etc) doesn't tend to have an appreciable effect on the foundations of collectivist cultures. There exist developed nations that do and don't accept homosexuality, and it doesn't seem to have caused ideological upheaval the way that major sociopolitical events like war and immigration have. The impact being negligible makes a lot of sense given that a homosexual from culture A is still going to have most of culture A's values, whereas transplants in large numbers or occupying military forces from culture B won't. It's also negligible because there just aren't very many homosexuals, and even fewer of them never have kids. Recall that gay men can still have children, either during a "lavender" marriage or through surrogacy.

My point in all of this is that being tolerant of romantic relationships between consenting adults of the same sex, even if it doesn't result in children, has no effect on the stability of a culture or civilization on the greater scheme of things. At the end of the day, it just isn't significant enough to make or break the larger ideological underpinnings of a culture, largely because it represents such a puny subset of people. I understand that seeing the trendiness of the gay rights movement in the Anglophone world can seem destabilizing, but remember that's all that it is-- a trend. Sure, a bunch of straight zoomers might be calling themselves "gay" now, but when the dust settles, the population of actual, non-reproducing gay people will still be around 2%, the way it presumably always has been. The vast majority of these kids are going to grow up and have kids of their own. I'm not a fan of the commercialization of gay people, either (for reasons I assume are different from yours), but it's unfortunately an annoying moment in our history that we'll have to endure. To me, it's just the modern day equivalent to the hippie movement-- a bunch of teenagers and college kids trying to be anti-conformist before eventually growing up and settling into the same life trajectories as their parents before them.

We no longer care about the best way to be, as Socrates, Christ and other Western axiomatic individual would have been interested in.

Buddy, I have some bad news for you about Socrates. And the Greeks in general. Hahaha.

 

[Pomniman]

In the context of this site a lot of the dedicated anti-tranny posters are liberal feminist women, some of them self-identified lesbians or bisexuals, but all of them, carpet munchers or otherwise, still thralls to many of the same liberal ideologies that precipitated the insanity of contemporary trannyism. They can never admit how wrong they were about everything else because they still believe 99% of the same things as the average tranny who they only now hate because the reality of something none of them cared about a decade ago is being shoved into their faces.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

I'm not trying to be accusatory here, but some of what you're saying is edging dangerously close to the underlying principles of eugenics. If you aren't extremely careful in your pursuit of perfection, you may end up causing more damage than progress.

People around these parts are remarkably obsessed with anything that has to do with genitals. Gayness, trannies, abortions, pedophilia, if it involves genitals it takes precedence over anything else. It's bizarre.

Ultimately humanity has always had people who didn't reproduce, look at a guy like Leonardo Da Vinci: no kids, no wife, evidence shows he was very possibly gay.
He was considered by many at the time to be a shining example of what a person could be, he was an artist, he was an inventor, he was a writer, he cared about health so much even wrote a book about health/fitness...but I guess none of that made him worthwhile to humanity because he didn't screw women?

It's interesting, because the types that talk about elevating humanity, almost all their views of how humanity operates treats it as nothing more than a bunch of rutting animals no different from rodents or monkeys. Nothing more complex, no need for variation of personality or role, there's some "ideal" way to be human and that's it.

Fact is humans can figure out how to fuck properly without someone needing to tell them "straight good!".
If corporations and media outlets are pushing this garbage then stop obsessing over homos and direct your attention towards why the only thing people have left to orient themselves by is corporate messaging, because that concept is way more startling.