Dusk in Autumn writes about homosexuality a lot these days, and I usually delete intended comments for being to long and wandering.
Thinking about gays launches me into mental limbo. As a straight guy, i’m conflicted. Gayness is an aberration from normal, and on a primal level it inspires disgust, distrust, and apathy. Simply associating with gay men tends to compromise the foundation of socially beneficial morals or values rooted on feelings of trust and camaraderie.
At the same time, gayness is obviously not a loner-wierdo-recluse omega deviation from normal. Girls are clearly passionate about gay men, idolize the supposed value that gays bring to their life, and will defend gay men with their own reputation (and the reputation of their country) on the line. Obviously homosexuality inspires feelings of high trust in women, half the battle for a normal guy’s sexual relationship (attraction and trust). The jury is still out on whether gay guys get boners for women. How the fuck does that work.
Homosexuality, as I understand it, is a proclivity for a man to be sexually attracted to man. Similarly, it is a proclivity for a woman to be sexually attracted to a woman. These are clearly gender-segregated phenomenon. What incentive do women have to proclaim the values of man-on-man homosexuality if they themselves are not attracted to women? What value do men have in proclaiming the value of woman-on-woman homosexuality? Reframe the question: what incentive do homosexuals and women (and an increasingly large number of men) have to air out gay pride, gay acceptance, gay everything? Shouldn’t it be a personal relationship between two consenting people who establish/reciprocate the initial attraction?
The only logical answer is that people have an interest in perpetuating the stereotyped personality of homosexuals. It’s a power play, pure and simple. Look at the only logical preference for homosexuality: gay men represent men who are unconcerned with power obtained via masculine dominance. This is attractive to both men and women: men hate to be dominated period, women hate to be dominated by anyone but the charismatic alpha. Men are willing to let gay men represent an ideal in which men don’t have to fight and kill for power, and women idolize the charisma and flamboyance of gays.
The risk is that gay men are only concerned with self-power. People support them at their own cost: it perpetuates more gay men concerned with self-power at the risk of a neighboring patriotic/racist/sexist/homophobic enemy wiping out the entire deviant community. Men might be willing to let a gay community thrive, but eventually they have to accept that male dominance and leadership go hand-in-hand, a willingness and acceptance of being led. The ugly truth is that violence precludes all.
We cannot all imagine ourselves as kings, since there would be no pawns left when an army of pawns attacks. Homosexuality’s success hinges on convincing everyone to accept gayness so that there are no large groups of pawns left.
Grit Artisan 
i think, it’s more about equality meaning equality.
and the notion that it’s not the government NOR any other citizen’s place to tell me what i can do with a consenting adult (be they the same or different sex than myself).
if that power is granted, then all else can be equal. it’s one last bastion of people thinking they should tell others what to do in the privacy of their bedroom and in their personal lives.
it’s representative of a great belief (at least for me as a straight guy).
plenty of my personal life others and many would likely disagree with….but the rule of law is not to mandate nor ban what we do not like or understand.
I tried elaborating on this phenomenon elsewhere but wasn’t satisfied with the result.
Requiring men to accept homosexuals/homosexuality is obviously a compliance test, often the most critical (among urban deracinées). In itself the compliance test is a healthy mechanism of establishing trust, but of course the impulse has gone awry in the social circumstances of “liberation”: given free reign, now everything a woman believes to be good (flattering) becomes a compliance test.
Also likely that they “perceive” gays to be less “threatening”, using them as a shield or filter — if the homo approves, the girl will too. “Damaging” doesn’t enter their irrational calculation of alliances to cultivate/avoid, having inferior future-time orientation.
And broadly speaking, accepting homos seems to be for them an acid test for a man’s overall “agreeableness”; if he makes any distinction between groups, values one over another, deviates from the default anti-white narrative, he fails their solipsistic oxytocinfest for all the world. A woman unmoored from community will eventually widen the circle of trust to EVERYONE — except men of her own kind.
Homosexuality inspires urban deracinées with trust, but men with distrust.
It’s easy to see why: the sexual element in their relations is (supposedly) absent. A relief from the tension that comes with interacting with men, but providing plenty of approval/negation to keep their hamsters turning furiously.
I don’t think there’s much else to be said about it. At the end of the day — “Blut muss fliessen.”
Pingback: Thoughts on Homosexuality Part 2 « Grit Artisan