Serious LGBT Discussion

[Peepeepoopoo Witch]

I'd want to see raw data and the methodologies on these surveys because the ones I've seen aren't apples to apples.

You'll be waiting forever. Phobefags don't do reason.

this entire thread is faggots dancing around this question because we all know it's true.

It's no one's fault except your own if you're too retarded to the tell the difference between LGB and TQ.

 

[Rich Evans Simp]

I recently went to visit my 85 year old great aunt. She was a late-in-life baby to my great-grandparents, so she was the baby of the family and significantly younger than my grandparent (her sibling). They grew up working class but not particularly religious in the northeast US. She is still mentally sharp and physically healthy for a woman her age.

Out of pure curiosity and nosiness, I asked her what she thought about all the “gay stuff” in our culture. And if it was talked about when she was young. Basically, she responded that it was considered private and somewhat taboo, but not something hugely controversial. She discussed the example of a close girl friend - “everyone” knew and joked about “Jane’s” husband being a homo, but Jane was seemingly happy, and everyone liked the husband even if he was queer.

Jane and her husband were loved and accepted, even if Jane’s husband wasn’t part of the hard-drinking nights out with the guys and even if they laughed behind his back. He gave Jane a couple of healthy children and did right by them. Whatever he got up to was his business, as long as he didn’t harm his family reputationally or financially.

I think this is a much more common situation than the idea that fags were beaten up 24/7 for being slightly camp.

 

[Piggle-o]

Out of pure curiosity and nosiness, I asked her what she thought about all the “gay stuff” in our culture. And if it was talked about when she was young. Basically, she responded that it was considered private and somewhat taboo, but not something hugely controversial. She discussed the example of a close girl friend - “everyone” knew and joked about “Jane’s” husband being a homo, but Jane was seemingly happy, and everyone liked the husband even if he was queer.

I think this is a much more common situation than the idea that fags were beaten up 24/7 for being slightly camp.

In Appalachia, to varying degrees. Mountain folk are all kin and clan and the idea that "some folks are just born quare different and it ain't no reason not to treat 'em rightly." is deeper than whatever the holy roller of the week is preaching down by the river. Being a productive member of the community trumps a lot of bullshit. It was known and tolerated as long as it weren't seent, everyone is half related and has a gun they're not afraid to use and needed services they're not afraid to withhold. The South and further west has some of that due to the migrations.

Cities and other places vary more. I think the camp archetype and behavior was less obvious as, at least in the mountains, the men are pretty reserved and gentle and the women are men. I've seen absolutely straight men of all ages get clocked as gay, in the way Brits and northern Italians get the same treatment, so the onus is on being absolutely flaming or having the suspicion of other information. It's also Highland Danelaw shit where being openly called a fag without sufficient evidence opens the accuser up to getting beaten the fuck up without repercussions. Thumpings go both ways.

Now, it could also get you imprisoned or institutionalized anywhere so it's not all sunshine and roses even on the downlow. It's a very regional, and even hyperlocal, issue.

 

[California Newt]

@Piggle-o do you have any thoughts on my response to your question? I want to make sure I understood what you were asking.

You're the expert so share your own experiences with us. Did you ever feel a little queer or trans when gooning to furry porn?

You'll be waiting forever. Phobefags don't do reason.

Are either of you able to justify gay romance as a concept—can you explain how it leads two men to understand one another more substantially than would be possible without it?

Without that pretense, homosexuality is obviously no more meaningful than a foot fetish or something.

 

[Executive Petrel]

Moids are icky, y are u even gay from the start

 

[Peepeepoopoo Witch]

@Piggle-o do you have any thoughts on my response to your question? I want to make sure I understood what you were asking.



Are either of you able to justify gay romance as a concept—can you explain how it leads two men to understand one another more substantially than would be possible without it?

Without that pretense, homosexuality is obviously no more meaningful than a foot fetish or something.

So, that's a no, then? You can't come up with a reason other than "thinking about the gays makes me feel bad?"

Justify it to whom? You and other ass hurt homophobes on this thread? Even if you were owed anything (you're not), there's nothing you can do about it except seethe impotently.

 

[California Newt]

So, that's a no, then?

You didn't ask me a question.

Justify it to whom? You and other ass hurt homophobes on this thread? Even if you were owed anything (you're not), there's nothing you can do about it except seethe impotently.

If you don't want to seriously discuss LGBT, then you probably shouldn't be in the "serious LGBT discussion thread". It's not much of a discussion if everyone mindlessly agrees with each other.

You seem passionate about the subject, so it's a little odd that you're not willing to go into detail.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

You seem passionate about the subject, so it's a little odd that you're not willing to go into detail.

Thats not odd at all, thats typical.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

Justify it to whom? You and other ass hurt homophobes on this thread? Even if you were owed anything (you're not), there's nothing you can do about it except seethe impotently.

Generally when people think of a healthy relationship they think 'till death do us part'. When it comes to faggots stable long-term monogamy is nonexistent.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

Are either of you able to justify gay romance as a concept—can you explain how it leads two men to understand one another more substantially than would be possible without it?

Sure, I'll bite but I find it telling that as a reformed homosexual, you find it impossible to imagine positive romantic interactions between men. You got burned and that's fine, but don't behave like the worst stereotype of a lesbian and swear off all men while trying to philosophize the stance.

You can approach it from the perspective of self-actualization and I would argue that to become the best version of yourself and capture the entirety of the human experience, romantic relationships are necessary. Profound interpersonal relationships are simply a key component of self-actualization and homosexual people were denied this. They can't just form these relationships with the opposite sex because the romantic attraction to support them just isn't there. Full self-actualization may be possible without a romantic relationship, but I think that we both agree they are a fundamental part of the human experience and should not be seen as "optional" in most cases. If you want to argue against romantic relationships as a contributor towards personal growth, life satisfaction and happiness, go ahead. If you hate Maslow and don't even want to engage with these ideas, that's fine too.

A weaker but commonly used justification would be the natural and historical precedent. Homosexual relationships have existed in the past and are still found in the animal kingdom. Nature does not need to justify itself. Again. a weak argument that has been beaten to death. There are also the pragmatic and utilitarian perspectives which I don't really want to get into. Existentialism offers a more interesting justification as you could argue that to live authentically, one should not deny their true sexual orientation to please retards and society which hate sthem anyways.

Which of these perspectives do you want to get deeper into? I'm not going to start listing off shit again and get ignored like all the previous times.

If you don't want to seriously discuss LGBT, then you probably shouldn't be in the "serious LGBT discussion thread". It's not much of a discussion if everyone mindlessly agrees with each other.

You're the only person with a negative view of homosexuality that wants something even reminiscent of a discussion. @Inco G. Nito and @Hooked on phobics are just here to stir shit. Mind you, I have not forgotten that you were here to stir shit too. You did the same shit and got banned multiple times off the Beauty Parlor as well.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

@Inco G. Nito and @Hooked on phobics are just here to stir shit.

I assure you that I was actually attracted to the title "serious LGBT discussion" but yes, now that I have seen that serious discussion with faggots is impossible because it consists only of irrationally dancing around questions like

Here's my main point, which I'll express as an open question: for enthusiastically "lgbt" members viewing this thread—what are your specific reasons for opposing pedophilia, if you don't have a concept of innocence that also applies to adulthood?

I am indeed only here anymore to stir shit because gay people are so inherently contradictory and backwards that watching them perform mental loop-de-loops to justify their own existence to themselves is hilarious.
still eagerly waiting on even just one answer to that question btw

 

[California Newt]

Sure, I'll bite

I appreciate it.

reformed homosexual

That's generous but I'll take it

but I find it telling that as a reformed homosexual, you find it impossible to imagine positive romantic interactions between men

I find it impossible to imagine "romantic" interactions with men at all, because that's a category error. What I can imagine is sexualized fraternity that occasionally play-acts with superficial "romantic" roles, which is a completely different thing and only confused for "romance" because people don't allow themselves to see important distinctions between men and women.

You got burned and that's fine, but don't behave like the worst stereotype of a lesbian and swear off all men while trying to philosophize the stance.

Swing and a miss.

You can approach it from the perspective of self-actualization and I would argue that to become the best version of yourself and capture the entirety of the human experience, romantic relationships are necessary.

This would put you out of step with the Western world from the time of Plato (at the latest) to Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther ended monasticism. In both the East and West, romance has never really consistently been seen as a necessary precondition for actualization. Interpersonal relationships? Absolutely—but not "romance" as understood today. There would never have been any celibates in the pagan or Christian worlds. The "romance" obsession (really a sex obsession) is a byproduct of the Protestant Reformation, which is one of the only things I agree with Foucault about—although I'd say the ball was already rolling when the Catholics introduced the idea of purgatory, removing the purpose of ascesis from Western monasticism.

Full self-actualization may be possible without a romantic relationship, but I think that we both agree they are a fundamental part of the human experience and should not be seen as "optional" in most cases.

I don't agree. This is what's in contention; this is the point of my original question. By "justify", I mean that I'm asking you to explain why you think that this is the case.

I think that romance is one form of interpersonal knowledge among many, and one that is specifically designed to bridge the gap between unrelated men and women. This is what I meant when I said that "women define romance". My understanding of male "emotional attraction" is the fraternal bond, which is a praxeological rather than sexual eros—except in the case of the homosexual, who makes it incestuous.

This is also why all gay "romance" is inherently effeminate and emasculating, despite attempts to butch it up: it's a relation meant for (and defined by) women.

If you want to argue against romantic relationships as a contributor towards personal growth, life satisfaction and happiness, go ahead. If you hate Maslow and don't even want to engage with these ideas, that's fine too.

I actually specifically do hate Maslow (or at least his influence), as well as the Esalen Institute and the entire Human Potential Movement. I'll engage with the ideas, though; you'll just have to argue them rather than assert them as self-evident.

A weaker but commonly used justification would be the natural and historical precedent. Homosexual relationships have existed in the past and are still found in the animal kingdom. Nature does not need to justify itself. Again. a weak argument that has been beaten to death. There are also the pragmatic and utilitarian perspectives which I don't really want to get into.

I'm glad you're aware that none of these are good arguments. They're also irrelevant to my question, which was directly asking how gay "romance" is a superior form of knowledge/union than other available forms of interpersonal contact and knowledge. It's possible that the word "justify" was confusing.

Existentialism offers a more interesting justification as you could argue that to live authentically, one should not deny their true sexual orientation to please retards and society which hate sthem anyways.

"Existentialism" and "should" don't belong together; there is no "should" in a nihilistic framework.

Putting aside John-Money-coined terminology like "sexual orientation", the point isn't to "please retards". The point is that you need the right method of union/knowing for the right relation, or else you're going to have an inferior result.

Mind you, I have not forgotten that you were here to stir shit too. You did the same shit and got banned multiple times off the Beauty Parlor as well.

Sometimes people can't handle an honest question or disagreement. The lesbian thread went great though.

I assure you that I was actually attracted to the title "serious LGBT discussion" but yes, now that I have seen that serious discussion with faggots is impossible because it consists only of irrationally dancing around questions like "Here's my main point, which I'll express as an open question: for enthusiastically "lgbt" members viewing this thread—what are your specific reasons for opposing pedophilia, if you don't have a concept of innocence that also applies to adulthood?"

@YHWH's Strongest Soldier I agree, it does look like you and some others have been dodging this question.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

Sure, I'll bite but I find it telling that as a reformed homosexual, you find it impossible to imagine positive romantic interactions between men. You got burned and that's fine

Its amusing you dismiss the skepticism as JUST being burned, and nothing else, assuming thats even a factor. Its like you don't even want to give validity to him thinking its immoral or unproductive. Is this just "gay branding" to try and whitewash away any mention of flaws, or do you really not believe a homosexual can come to regret things and feel different authentically? because newt is not the first I've see do this, even in this thread.

You can approach it from the perspective of self-actualization and I would argue that to become the best version of yourself and capture the entirety of the human experience, romantic relationships are necessary. Profound interpersonal relationships are simply a key component of self-actualization and homosexual people were denied this.

I really doubt a homo could just "not find love" because they went straight. Besides you were just going off about lesbians swearing off all men, which while amusing, seems to indicate that swearing them off is more CHOICE than incapability to deal with them. though I don't buy the whole "innate" attraction larp, I've seen plenty of people become faggots from weird shit they found on 4chan, or become furries, or whatever. I don't view homosexuality much different at all from furries either, probably some people felt they were "born" as a furry because some unhealthy raising and watching way too much disney movies, but I don't think its innate, just as I think being a homosexual isn't innate. Its not to say it couldn't be difficult, but to say its impossible flies in the face of evidence pretty much all over, unless you want to assume every case of anyone EVER switching was "oh, they just DISCOVERED it" or "Well they were confused and experimenting and finding themselves".
And even if you want to go with that, let him experiment and find his straight self.

If you want to argue against romantic relationships as a contributor towards personal growth, life satisfaction and happiness, go ahead.

This feels manipulative as you are basically making a strawman for him. He's not arguing against romance, hes arguing against homosexuality. This is a top strategy among fags TBH, to relabel stuff to win arguments.

its not a deviant sexual activity its """love""", so if you speak against it, you are """anti love""""
you aren't messed up mentally / doing disgusting acts, you were """born this way""", so if you speak against it, its like hating cripples
This shit is painfully common, and I hate it, because its pure manipulative bullshit.

commonly used justification would be the natural and historical precedent. Homosexual relationships have existed in the past

So has stoning and burning homosexuals...

You're the only person with a negative view of homosexuality that wants something even reminiscent of a discussion. @Inco G. Nito and @Hooked on phobics are just here to stir shit

I actually DO crave discussion, but I also am not going to just accept utter bullshit. Plus the contentious topic gives both sides a propensity to shit stir, don't act like you, or others are immune.

@YHWH's Strongest Soldier I agree, it does look like you and some others have been dodging this question

Me too frankly. Faggotry and troonery really aren't LOGICALLY too separated in arguments against pedos. And before you say "children can't consent" remember, it was believed a man couldn't consent to being sodomized, OR to becoming a tranny before. So its nothing more than another goal post which has moved before, so its nothing to say the LGBT wouldn't try again, as thats LITERALLY their thing, is moving goal posts all the fucking time

I think homosexuals logically understand this, and pedos are next in line, but are in that uncomfortable space where they KNOW they are next in line, but its not "ready" yet. I know I saw this with faggots and trannies during the gay rights BS in the 2010s or so, you'd ask why it wouldn't allow space for trannies being normalized, and many faggots would say verbatim "don't you compare me to those fucking freaks"

Now you have the same thing with people arguing against trannies if it will normalize pedos and they are saying "don't you compare me to those freaks".

But """logically""", all are sexual minorities, who have faced oppression, have been ostracized, ect ect. None of that is even debatable, yet these are the standards "sexual minorities" who need help according to the LGBT.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

still eagerly waiting on even just one answer to that question btw

I hate pedophiles and what they do children destroys them for the rest of their lives. There are no positive outcomes to pedophilia and I have seen what it does to the victims. It is abhorrent and every single pedophile must be killed. I don't need an argument grounded in philosophy to support this stance.

I answered your questions before but you keep ignoring everything except attempts to rile you up. What else do you want?

Edit: I read over this at first. What do you even mean by it?

That's generous but I'll take it

 

[Piggle-o]

@Piggle-o do you have any thoughts on my response to your question? I want to make sure I understood what you were asking.

I did but nothing you said was particularly interesting. It's too role defined and means that lesbians are the purest form of romantic love. Your model is too rigid and limited, you take the word fraternal literally, keep dancing around the fact that homosexuals have no interest in the opposite sex, seek superlatives and "optimal" behavior like you're buying a new rice cooker, and, without resulting to an ad hom, your argument shows no practical experience of mutual attraction to another human being. It's a mess.

 

[California Newt]

I hate pedophiles and what they do children destroys them for the rest of their lives. There are no positive outcomes to pedophilia and I have seen what it does to the victims. It is abhorrent and every single pedophile must be killed. I don't need an argument grounded in philosophy to support this stance.

Thank you for answering the question; it does, however, fall neatly within my original prediction regarding the responses:

I would obviously argue that any juvenile sexuality is harmful, but would these guys? Do they think of what they got up to when underage as "harmful"? Fake profiles; "only enter if you're 18+"; the whole deal? Or do they think of those things as happy mistakes and "formative experiences"? The only problem a lot of these guys (in general, not necessarily in this thread) have with EPI is that it's not organic, or that it's "the wrong kind of porn".

Here's my main point, which I'll express as an open question: for enthusiastically "lgbt" members viewing this thread—what are your specific reasons for opposing pedophilia, if you don't have a concept of innocence that also applies to adulthood?

I find it impossible to belive that a person who doesn't value innocence in adults can articulate a reason to value it in kids. I get that you might have a moral instict to oppose pedos—that's great, and I hope you keep that, but I don't think you can express it in a way consistent with your worldview.

My prediction is that most of the reasons will involve the exploitative nature of chomos, the nieve nature of kids that makes them vulnerable to evil people, visceral disgust to the idea, etc.; I'm with you on all of these, but I don't think that you have a coherent concept of innocence. I don't think you can articulate why it's bad in and of itself in the same way that someone with a worldview more like mine could.

Edit: I read over this at first. What do you even mean by it?

I would be misrepresenting myself if I said that I was totally out of the woods. I can't misrepresent.

I did but nothing you said was particularly interesting.

If you respond to any of the three requests for clarification within the post, I might be able to give you a more satisfying answer. I was having real trouble understanding what you were asking.

It's too role defined and means that lesbians are the purest form of romantic love.

You've (maybe understandably) misunderstood my post, if that's the conclusion you draw from it. Here's a simplified run-down of my understanding of the situation between men and women:

• Everyones' emotional attraction to men—when genuine—is gravitation towards their talent and will. Gravitation to "roles" is purely fetishistic at best, and delusional at worst.
• Men's attraction to women (generally) doesn't work this way, because frankly the ladies ain't got that dog in 'em; instead, men's attraction to women is based on the unique way in which women are able to reflect or manifest the will of another. This is a man's romantic love of a woman. This isn't about "roles"—it's just what a woman is, and what's necessary to connect to one.
• By contrast, a woman's romantic love of a man is her desire to absorb and reflect his potency—whether this be physically through pregnancy, or spiritually through uniquely manifesting his will*.
• In the rare case that a woman does have a strong talent or will, a man will be attracted to that aspect of her fraternally rather than romantically; this isn't to say that a man can't feel both for a woman at once, but it's important not to confuse the two just because they appear together. Peanut-butter and Jelly may be good together, and may appear together often; that doesn't mean they're one simple substance rather than a mixture.

*I understand that women also have a drive for total autonomy and authority over themselves (and the man), just as men have a drive to offload their authority onto women—in both cases, these tendencies undermine attraction (I'm far from the first person to say this).

With this understanding, it's easy to see why lesbians experience bed death: it's usually two fat ladies with no dog in 'em—there's not much basis for romance or fraternity. You can go into Beauty Parlor and ask them—I did, and they don't understand male friendship: women don't seem to have the same hard distinction between buddies and what C.S. Lewis called "philia". For women, it's more of a hive-mind of friendly acquaintances that may or may not be more supportive in some ways than the baseline male "pals", but seem to lack the depth of more serious male friendships.

Your model is too rigid and limited

In what way?

you take the word fraternal literally

I'm using a specific technical sense of the word, for clarity's sake.

keep dancing around the fact that homosexuals have no interest in the opposite sex

This one's baffling; it has nothing to do with my post. My point was that homosexuality is worse than other kinds of male relationships—it had nothing to do with women.

seek superlatives and "optimal" behavior like you're buying a new rice cooker

Presumably everybody wants what's best.

without resulting to an ad hom, your argument shows no practical experience of mutual attraction to another human being. It's a mess.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Executive Petrel]

The finas for homos is not killing all faggots but sterilize all abusers.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

I think homosexuals logically understand this, and pedos are next in line, but are in that uncomfortable space where they KNOW they are next in line, but its not "ready" yet.

The entire past decade (it has only been 8 years since gay marriage was legalized btw) has been dedicated to boiling the frog closer and closer to open pedophile acceptance. This was an inevitability as soon as the sexual revolution started. The logical next step in sexual liberation is children and animals.

 

[California Newt]

I think I'm gonna take a break from engaging with this subject (unless I'm directly asked about it), but want to make one more observation: one of the weirder things surrounding gay discourse is a lack of perspective even on the opposed side.

Imagine if there were guys who came up to you and went on and on about being attracted to their own mothers, and treated it like same-sex attracted people do with their deal: they act like it's something you are rather than a weed gowing in your head.

You'd probably be unsettled by the way this nothing-thing has taken hold of his mind, moreso than by the (embarrassing and gross) temptation itself. It's like a quasi-autistic obsession-driven lack of perspective.

With gays, though, everyone kind of implicitly buys it and doesn't have that "this dude needs to get out of his own head" reaction. It's odd and probably says something about the state of things.

I think homosexuals logically understand this, and pedos are next in line, but are in that uncomfortable space where they KNOW they are next in line, but its not "ready" yet. I know I saw this with faggots and trannies during the gay rights BS in the 2010s or so, you'd ask why it wouldn't allow space for trannies being normalized, and many faggots would say verbatim "don't you compare me to those fucking freaks"

It's really just an extension of normalfag semi-willful blindness, applied to gays.

Nobody wants to take responsibility for the evil that they pave the way for and give room to thrive. They don't think about how someone moves from good to bad to worse: to them there's just "good people" and "bad people".

It can be very scary to allow yourself to notice that there's a living, organic, and initiatory super-structure to evil beyond isolated individual actions, and it can be very upsetting to have to acknowledge that you're not one of the "good people" (who would—due to your superior birth and upbringing, naturally—be all-but-immune to such forces). The normalfag mentality is built on ignoring these things, and it persists even up into relatively deep initiatory stages.

I don't view homosexuality much different at all from furries either, probably some people felt they were "born" as a furry because some unhealthy raising and watching way too much disney movies, but I don't think its innate, just as I think being a homosexual isn't innate.

This is a really good comparison, especially regarding what I just wrote about the reification of these things into identities—I think it has to do with the process of initiation. Once you allow something into yourself to a certain degree and through certain means, it acts from within you instead of from outside of you—it's extremely difficult to get out from under it. You feel like you've actually been changed in a real way from one thing to another.

Weeds don't care if you're happy or angry while you water them. It's the same with attention.

I'm able to write on these subjects for upwards of ten hours at a time. It's time for another break.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

Can we finally all just agree at this point that homosexuality is irrefutably a mental illness?