One point of critique I do feel comfortable sharing is that while their might be an Us vs Homosexuals (ingroup vs outgroup) discrimination going on, homosexuals seem to be doing the exact same thing (homosexuals vs outsiders).
I've met a few extremely arrogant homosexual men who had nothing but disdain for outsiders, and felt they were somehow above the "plebian" heterosexual males. On the other hand I've met more than enough homosexual men who seemed cool and grounded.
As for lesbians, I've noticed that some enjoy pretending to be heterosexual to string men along, letting men waste time and attention on them while they'll cynically be playing games with the "stupid plebian" heterosexual males. On the other hand I've also met lesbians who seemed cool and grounded and didn't play these kind of games.
There definitely are homosexuals (both male and female) who act as if they are of a higher class and who strongly disdain heterosexuality. However this just seems to be a classical case of ingroup vs outgroup behavior. In the abstract it's the same as israel vs palestine, black minority vs evil white majority or city A's football team vs neighbouring city's football team B.
I don't know if it's about the homosexuality per se, but it seems more to be a case of what happens when you give a minority power: they'll always want more. You relieve homosexuals from prosecution: and they want representation on tv and media. You give them this: they want marriage. You give them marriage: they want parenting rights. You give them more rights: they want books/films/music about their minority group. You give them this: they want a stronger presence in history, in education and cultural position. You give them this: they want a president. You give them this: they want a separate aristocratic class for their minority. You give them this: they want majority status. You give them this: now white heterosexuals are the new minority and the game begins all over again.
What I see with the homosexual narrative is the same as for women, the same as for black americans, the same as for native american minorities, the same as the SJW's, et cetera. It's the story of the minority and the laws of power. You give a group power and they will always want more and more and more and more. That's how power works; there's never enough.
Presidencies, presence in history & education & culture, roles in tv-shows or movies, aristocratic rights, et cetera; these are all scarce resources and therefore there will always be conflict about who gets the juicy goods.
I'm still not sure there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality itself, but I do see how this seems to be the story of the minority that always wants MORE.
I've met a few extremely arrogant homosexual men who had nothing but disdain for outsiders, and felt they were somehow above the "plebian" heterosexual males. On the other hand I've met more than enough homosexual men who seemed cool and grounded.
As for lesbians, I've noticed that some enjoy pretending to be heterosexual to string men along, letting men waste time and attention on them while they'll cynically be playing games with the "stupid plebian" heterosexual males. On the other hand I've also met lesbians who seemed cool and grounded and didn't play these kind of games.
There definitely are homosexuals (both male and female) who act as if they are of a higher class and who strongly disdain heterosexuality. However this just seems to be a classical case of ingroup vs outgroup behavior. In the abstract it's the same as israel vs palestine, black minority vs evil white majority or city A's football team vs neighbouring city's football team B.
I don't know if it's about the homosexuality per se, but it seems more to be a case of what happens when you give a minority power: they'll always want more. You relieve homosexuals from prosecution: and they want representation on tv and media. You give them this: they want marriage. You give them marriage: they want parenting rights. You give them more rights: they want books/films/music about their minority group. You give them this: they want a stronger presence in history, in education and cultural position. You give them this: they want a president. You give them this: they want a separate aristocratic class for their minority. You give them this: they want majority status. You give them this: now white heterosexuals are the new minority and the game begins all over again.
What I see with the homosexual narrative is the same as for women, the same as for black americans, the same as for native american minorities, the same as the SJW's, et cetera. It's the story of the minority and the laws of power. You give a group power and they will always want more and more and more and more. That's how power works; there's never enough.
Presidencies, presence in history & education & culture, roles in tv-shows or movies, aristocratic rights, et cetera; these are all scarce resources and therefore there will always be conflict about who gets the juicy goods.
I'm still not sure there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality itself, but I do see how this seems to be the story of the minority that always wants MORE.