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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, for me it’s like “Good thing I’m not Christian then.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because a group with authority calling the behavior bad can create feelings of shame and guilt for those who are not psychopaths.
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.
