One of the rubs that consistently comes up in NRx, Rx and especially in the Orthosphere is a generally negative attitude to homosexuality. Even the reasonable points (promiscuity is pretty generally terrible, feminine homosexuals are deliberately alienating, gay marriage isn’t justified) are viewed with the default assumption that ‘homosexuality is wrong’ is a first principle (much in the same way that Alan Roebuck on Orthosphere recently complained that atheism is the assumed default in scientific inquiry)
But the problem with this is that homosexuality is prevalent everywhere, and no amount of opposition will ever eliminate homosexuality. It is, simply put, an in-group phenomenon. There is always a possibility that a son or daughter of any given person will be homosexual (or transgender &c). I would suggest that the probability is about 3%, ±1%. It would be impossible, therefore, to ever have a country without homosexuals, so a prejudice against homosexuality seems silly. That there are fewer homosexuals in society than, say, women, does not presuppose that there is no useful role that can be fulfilled by homosexuality. Given the opportunity, I’m sure a specialised role could be found.
Consider another group. Perhaps the Muslim Rohingya minority of Burma. They are disliked greatly by the Buddhist Burmese majority, and are viewed an invaders from Bangladesh. If every single Rohingya was removed from Burma, there would be no chance of spontaneous reappearance of Rohingya. Opposition to Rohingya is an out-group prejudice, and right or wrong in one opinion or another, it isn’t silly, futile or self-defeating. Separation is permanent, and after a single act of divorce (like the hypothetical deportation of all Arabs from Cisjordan to Transjordan that should have occurred in ’48), no contact need ever be made.
I would go as far as to suggest that homosexuality is a natural ally of reactionaries. It was always an elite pursuit that the lower orders didn’t take kindly to, after all. And no moralising about pederasty, please, the age of consent for marriage was fourteen into the 1800s.
I have a little theory that it is not homosexuality that is degenerate, but rather the lower class people who represent the majority in all things that are inclined to the degenerate behaviour, especially promiscuity. They are stupider and more animalistic, more governed by the Darwinian imperatives of eating to fight and fighting to fuck (fighting these days being stripped down to some menial occupation) and from that, rather than from the acts themselves, stems the problem. These people being the majority, they condition young homosexuals to believe that promiscuous sexual behaviour is not just normal but expected, and so homosexuals who, in isolation, would exhibit better judgement are dragged into the pattern of behaviour. This has been the correlation I have noticed in my experience, but of course, it is merely speculation based on observation.
If this is the case, surely it would be possible to deprogram the better bred homosexuals? And if opposition to homosexuality is nuanced, rather than something to be considered immediately and irredeemably wrong, maybe it would be desirable. I certainly prefer an ‘us vs. them’ approach based on shared elitism and intellect than one based on opposition to a sexuality.