LGBT Marriage

 I've updated this post recently. My views have changed and I no longer agree with much of what I've said here but I will not delete it because I think this is good rationalization. Still, for society as a whole and my own integrity, I cannot allow homosexuality to be validated and even less homosexual marriage. You can see the update here.

I'm not sure what to think about gay marriage. I'm not sure what to think of homosexual relationships in general. Like I'm said numerous times before, I think being sexually deviant is a form of lust. I don't think we should see people as 'gay' or 'straight', I think there is reproductive sexuality (man and woman) and then there are masturbatory practices that can happen between two people. I think gays and lesbians who want to marry are sexually active with each other and believe themselves spiritually bonded and therefore desire 'marriage'. What homosexuals don't seem to understand about marriage is that it's a religious act, it's an the bonding between two people to share the entirety of life together, and ultimately, to start a family. Is having a family necessary? Not really. You could focus on having a career, I guess. Gay men have a leg up in being non-family-oriented and career-focused, but still, what would you do with all the money you would accumulate? Move up the tiers of society? Buy a house for yourself? I guess you could adopt children and have a dog and live the life of a nuclear family. Same with lesbians. I just don't see how fulfilling it is to be with someone of your own sex.

You do your school, you have lots of lesbian/gay sex, sexual activity until your libido goes away, and then you move in together, get married, and then just live a career life and use your money for your own life. You travel, you set up a business selling something stupid, maybe if you're financially smart, you'll invest some money, but... where will that money go? I guess it could go to your adopted children, who'll have the privilege of having two moms or two dads, as if that's normal. Let's spread out the options for a married gay couple:

1. You live a 'normal' life, but you're gay. You adopt kids. You work your jobs. You live in a suburban neighbourhood.

2. You live a 'lonely' life, with no children, and a self-centered mutual partnership where your souls are bonded into the everlasting individual chaos that you believe in. If you are knowledge-oriented, you could take the time to be workaholic scientists or something useful.

3. You open up your marriage, you explore lust on a continuum, you focus all of your energy on your sexuality, on social justice activism, on forcing Christians to make cakes for you and attempt to open up Christianity to homosexuality.



For option 1, you might want to reconsider how you view your sexuality. A lot of people fall in love with friends of the same sex, and desire them sexually. It's the lust for them that makes them believe that they are gay. They cannot hide their feelings, cannot suppress their emotions, and when those feelings are mutual, there seems to be no other option but to get together and marry. But what's the use of owning each others' genitals (as Kant would view marriage) if your entire relationship is based on the feeling that is extracte from your genitals. If that feeling goes away, what are you left with? Well, the smartest answer is... the other person's spirit and yours are one an you love the person so much that you cannot part with them and desire to be with them despite all odds.

A spiritually-strong absolute love between two individuals, no matter their genitals or gender is something worth getting married for. This bond must transcend sexual attraction and passion, lust and pride. The two people must not obsess over their sexuality as a defining marker of their life. I am because I'm gay doesn't mean much. I say this being very nice, very liberal, because ultimately I am rationalizing and humanizing the individual, because even as someone who follows the Alt-Right and whose last hope for humanity is in social engineering, I am still of the idea that two people can love each other enough to spend their life together no matter what their genitals are.

And to add to this social engineering principle, if we are to let people be gay, it might help stabilize the population by reducing births, and the adoption of abused children by gays (although sexual assault in homosexual families is present) could help keeping children away from foster care, which is mostly horrible.

Option 2 sounds like the saddest life ever. A lot of depressed people or sexually abused people tend to be sexually deviant simply because they've been sexually educated that way, have a haywire moral compass or rationalize everything with a secular humanist lens. Asexual partnerships exist as well between same-sex but they rarely marry.

Option 3 is very common among lesbians. Gay men with this mentality will not tend to marry, but women want to marry, and I've spoken about the possession aspects that come with lesbianism in older posts. Lesbians are often disturbed in some way; either they don't have a father or they've been sexually abused and cannot connect with their natural femininity and so will mine it in another woman. Lesbians desire to be their partners, to own them so that they can own a feminine or masculine version of themselves that is lacking. A normal woman will be feminine and masculine--good ordered mothers are fine examples of this united dichotomy of authority and assertiveness and care and sensitivity. Lesbians will be ruled and dominated by their genitals, by their sex drive and often will be willing to open their marriage to others in a polyamorous way. If they could triple-marry, they would. Perhaps gay-conversion therapy should be about saturating someone with so much gay sex that they realize 'I've now had enough.' (theory pending...)

Another option for people who believe themselves to be fully trained to be homosexual or who are 'born' homosexual, would be to see their marriage with the opposite sex and the family they want to sire and create as 'work'. If people are so keen to shove women out of the home and into offinces, rip fetuses from their wombs, sterilize them and call them 'liberated', then people should be telling gays to get with the opposite sex, have children and tell their spouse that want to have a lover on the side in a 'slightly-open marriage' kind of way. If she knows you have a lover somewhere that you want to sexually fulfill yourself with, and you're just going there to fuck and saturate yourself with that so-desired passion, she should understand. It's not about feeling shame about it either, it's understanding that a gay relationship is ultimately about how intense and chaotic you feel about them sexually.

What annoys me is when people say things like 'we're born bisexual' or that straight people are 'close-minded'. Why aren't homosexuals close-minded? I think people who think themselves fully homosexuals are in denial to any form of natural reproduction and it's a form of rebellion to be gay. I've even heard this from gays themselves. There is an odd revelation when reading gay people's testimonies of gayness. They say things like 'It's an act of rebellion in a patriarchal 'heteronormative' world to be gay' and it simply echoes a Christian view of homosexuality. Yes, you are rebelling, but not against this so-called pathological society you see, you're rebelling against nature, normalcy, conformity, cohesion, an ultimately sexuality itself and I should extend this even to God.

So, should gay marriage be illegal? I think two people should be able to be recognized as living partners, as a civil union. People can also just 'be married' it's just a title anyway, most people aren't married these days. Should they get married in churches? No. It's as simple as you cannot be married under God, you are unable--marriage under God required the bonding of the male and female genitals. It's actually as simple as that. Even those who think they're married in a church aren't actually married Biblically, and that's a bit sad. I don't think it's normal or good that a woman have a wife and a man have a husband. Two husbands doesn't really work--a gay couples would technically share the role of husband and wife, which means a woman would be husband and a man would be wife. It simply doesn't work. Not in a functional society.

But do we want social activism to flood our streets and further the disorder in our cities?
Is it worth it to legalize marriage for gays (through the government) in exchange for peace?
Shall we reduce people to their genitals and deem them unworthy of marriage because of titles and constructs they refuse to conform to and ultimately create no direct moral harm personally?