It Gets Worse, Gwen Stefani Caught Following Anti Gay Rights & Right Wing Accounts

[Red 99,515]

On 8/17/2026 at 11:54 AM, Knife said:

Out of curiosity, how has Gwen Stefani pandered to the LGBT community specifically?

If it's that she made pop/electro-dance music once upon a time, I'm gonna need a little more than that.

I don’t remember at the top of my head now, feminism (and Japan ) has always been her thing and gays tend to bop their bussies to feminist anthems, so she became a gay icon by proxy I guess 

[Bronco 27,646]

5 minutes ago, Red said:

I don’t remember at the top of my head now, feminism (and Japan ) has always been her thing and gays tend to bop their bussies to feminist anthems, so she became a gay icon by proxy I guess 

Yeah she did some relatively lukewarm 90s/early 00s feminist stuff in Just a Girl (which is like the opposite of her behaviour now) and said in 2019 that she'd have no problems if her kids ever came out as gay. 

But like she's never really been this big activist or campaigner. Just a Girl just became such a big anthem that people inflate their idea of Gwen as this big feminist icon. 

[ChicaSkas 24,205]

all i feel is so sad. she changed my young life with No Doubt. 

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,998]

On 8/15/2026 at 4:11 PM, 27monster27 said:

One concerning thing I've noticed is how easy it is for a lot of people in the US to fall for fascist propaganda. JonTron (gaming and comedy YouTuber) is another strong example of this. He was staunchly pro-Bernie and immigration in 2016, but by the election a known fascist (I forget his name) managed to convince him to switch to right leaning beliefs. I think the US needs to adopt mandated classes that teach people in K-12 about identifying propaganda like countries like Finland do.

It's in the curriculum, just as part of the college level classes taken in high school. 

[Leoooo 2,345]

On 8/15/2026 at 5:10 PM, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Sorry, bb. No shade to you but the religion you chose became anti-gay as far back as when Leviticus 18:22 got translated weird and the followers just rolled with it. 

If there can be Black and Mexican n*zis (there are), then an anti-gay religion can preach "all is love" (it is)

 

On 8/15/2026 at 5:08 PM, Meruk Holland said:

It's nice that you have been able to find a carved-out space where you can be a practicing Christian. I don't disagree that individual Christians can be pro-queer or even queer themselves. But the religion itself is not, it is virulently anti-queer.

Apologies for dragging you back to this but I have only just seen you replies and want to quickly amend:

The majority of Christians (you're right) are anti-gay as an established, legitamate lifestyle choice. It's not that having same sex attraction is a problem, but wanting to wed up / have children / do the traditional straight couple things is never accepted. There are ofc the 'Jesus loves the gays' Christians but honestly I wish their general theology outside of that was better wrapped so I could get behind it (I followed one such account and saw a video about how Jesus was probably in a gay relationship was the apostle John )

I meant anti-gay as anti the person who is gay, but that makes no difference to the person in reference if Christians are anti everything else about their lives so yes, I will take that back. 

All I know is after 2 years of going far too deep into meditation, tarot (& mild wicca) I picked up something bad. I actually made a thread about it on here ages ago but I dont know how to find it (my UN was 'Medusa' then) it basically felt like I was being felt-up by ghosts constantly lol. Anyway after nearly a year of dealing with that, I broke down, terrified and on my literal last edge and prayed to Jesus to help me and it completely went away. Like never returned. He did some crazy spiritual help to someone who gave him absolutely nothing so now I try to give him atleast my love. Jesus said nothing about gays btw - and gays where everywhere at that time (Roman soldiers, hello?) So I apologise, I sometimes forget the religion itself has such an overweighed rhetoric against it all 

Edited August 21 by Leoooo

[zevthepaparazzo 2,592]

8 hours ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

It's in the curriculum, just as part of the college level classes taken in high school. 

it's here in australia too but it's split between history and english classes

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,866]

1 hour ago, Leoooo said:

 

Apologies for dragging you back to this but I have only just seen you replies and want to quickly amend:

The majority of Christians (you're right) are anti-gay as an established, legitamate lifestyle choice. It's not that having same sex attraction is a problem, but wanting to wed up / have children / do the traditional straight couple things is never accepted. There are ofc the 'Jesus loves the gays' Christians but honestly I wish their general theology outside of that was better wrapped so I could get behind it (I followed one such account and saw a video about how Jesus was probably in a gay relationship was the apostle John )

I meant anti-gay as anti the person who is gay, but that makes no difference to the person in reference if Christians are anti everything else about their lives so yes, I will take that back. 

All I know is after 2 years of going far too deep into meditation, tarot (& mild wicca) I picked up something bad. I actually made a thread about it on here ages ago but I dont know how to find it (my UN was 'Medusa' then) it basically felt like I was being felt-up by ghosts constantly lol. Anyway after nearly a year of dealing with that, I broke down, terrified and on my literal last edge and prayed to Jesus to help me and it completely went away. Like never returned. He did some crazy spiritual help to someone who gave him absolutely nothing so now I try to give him atleast my love. Jesus said nothing about gays btw - and gays where everywhere at that time (Roman soldiers, hello?) So I apologise, I sometimes forget the religion itself has such an overweighed rhetoric against it all 

Happy you found peace through faith 💜

[EART HL I NG 1,556]

1 hour ago, Leoooo said:

Jesus said nothing about gays btw - and gays where everywhere at that time (Roman soldiers, hello?) So I apologise, I sometimes forget the religion itself has such an overweighed rhetoric against it all 

I believe Jesus may have healed a gay man, though! It's the story of the Roman centurion who came to Jesus and said "my bondservant is sick". I don't know Greek but I've seen it said that the word in that passage that was translated into bondservant explicitly implies a romantic connotation, meaning something along the lines of either partner or concubine. It's been a while since I've read up on it but I figured I may as well share

 

Edit to add that you and I share a very similar path. I was pretty deep into tarot and magick (like my tarot readings had near 90% accuracy) and I was two steps away from becoming a devotee to Brigid, and stepped away because I was coming apart spiritually and in my physical life.

And to everyone else reading this, no, I don't plan on evangelizing on this platform

Edited August 22 by EART HL I NG

[Meruk Holland 2,429]

1 hour ago, Leoooo said:

 

Apologies for dragging you back to this but I have only just seen you replies and want to quickly amend:

The majority of Christians (you're right) are anti-gay as an established, legitamate lifestyle choice. It's not that having same sex attraction is a problem, but wanting to wed up / have children / do the traditional straight couple things is never accepted. There are ofc the 'Jesus loves the gays' Christians but honestly I wish their general theology outside of that was better wrapped so I could get behind it (I followed one such account and saw a video about how Jesus was probably in a gay relationship was the apostle John )

I meant anti-gay as anti the person who is gay, but that makes no difference to the person in reference if Christians are anti everything else about their lives so yes, I will take that back. 

All I know is after 2 years of going far too deep into meditation, tarot (& mild wicca) I picked up something bad. I actually made a thread about it on here ages ago but I dont know how to find it (my UN was 'Medusa' then) it basically felt like I was being felt-up by ghosts constantly lol. Anyway after nearly a year of dealing with that, I broke down, terrified and on my literal last edge and prayed to Jesus to help me and it completely went away. Like never returned. He did some crazy spiritual help to someone who gave him absolutely nothing so now I try to give him atleast my love. Jesus said nothing about gays btw - and gays where everywhere at that time (Roman soldiers, hello?) So I apologise, I sometimes forget the religion itself has such an overweighed rhetoric against it all 

The actual teachings of Jesus are actually incredibly positive and idealist, so religious beliefs about the figure of Jesus are generally good. But that's not Christianity. Christianity, as an religious institution, was not founded by Jesus, but by Paul, who co-opted Jesus' message and teachings to serve his political agenda. He's the one who shaped Christianity to be an authoritarian, anti-queer establishment, along with later authors of the Bible and the Councils hundreds of years after the fact.

Also, just out of pedantry, the ancient world wasn't as "gay" as it's prescribed to be. To Ancient Romans, it wasn't queer to be the penetrator, but it was queer (and also very bad) to be the penetrated - being permitted only by prostitutes, slaves, and other non-citizens. Compare to Ancient Greeks practice of pederasty, which was considered a lot more equitable (emphasis on "more", it was inherently hierarchical) and socially acceptable for both roles. Then, once Christianity became Rome's official exclusive religion, non-procreative sex of all kind was prohibited.

It's my theological opinion that Jesus wouldn't approve of what Christianity became, based on the words and sermons attributed to him within the Bible itself. It's why it's so easy to point out hypocrisy amongst Christians: they're often following Paul's Christianity, not Jesus' own teachings.

That's also why I think individuals who follow Christ's teachings aren't inherently anti-queer themselves. It depends largely on what's informing their beliefs, the teachings themselves or the church (and which church) or even - in your case - personal experience. So, like I said, I am glad you've been able to find that relationship with Jesus despite the Christian institution, I find that to be incredibly challenging for queer people, especially those who have experienced that targeting and trauma of the anti-queer doctrines. It's nice when it works out for them, and it's good that it does for you!

Edited August 22 by Meruk Holland

[Leoooo 2,345]

14 hours ago, Meruk Holland said:

The actual teachings of Jesus are actually incredibly positive and idealist, so religious beliefs about the figure of Jesus are generally good. But that's not Christianity. Christianity, as an religious institution, was not founded by Jesus, but by Paul, who co-opted Jesus' message and teachings to serve his political agenda. He's the one who shaped Christianity to be an authoritarian, anti-queer establishment, along with later authors of the Bible and the Councils hundreds of years after the fact.

Also, just out of pedantry, the ancient world wasn't as "gay" as it's prescribed to be. To Ancient Romans, it wasn't queer to be the penetrator, but it was queer (and also very bad) to be the penetrated - being permitted only by prostitutes, slaves, and other non-citizens. Compare to Ancient Greeks practice of pederasty, which was considered a lot more equitable (emphasis on "more", it was inherently hierarchical) and socially acceptable for both roles. Then, once Christianity became Rome's official exclusive religion, non-procreative sex of all kind was prohibited.

It's my theological opinion that Jesus wouldn't approve of what Christianity became, based on the words and sermons attributed to him within the Bible itself. It's why it's so easy to point out hypocrisy amongst Christians: they're often following Paul's Christianity, not Jesus' own teachings.

That's also why I think individuals who follow Christ's teachings aren't inherently anti-queer themselves. It depends largely on what's informing their beliefs, the teachings themselves or the church (and which church) or even - in your case - personal experience. So, like I said, I am glad you've been able to find that relationship with Jesus despite the Christian institution, I find that to be incredibly challenging for queer people, especially those who have experienced that targeting and trauma of the anti-queer doctrines. It's nice when it works out for them, and it's good that it does for you!

I appreciated this, I have to say though - Paul is pretty undeniable proof of Jesus. He was a well documented Christian killer, hunting them down from a high position - suddenly he has a vision & hears Jesus & does a complete 360 and spends the rest of his life spreading the gospel. 

To say this man had a 'political agenda' is just not true, regardless of your own belief, he completely abandoned his politics and had literally one very obvious mission. He wrote the majority of the letters in the new test & wrote some of the most beautiful words ive read, and yeah a few lines that were hard to swallow but if you think of the cultural setting - who he's writing to, the reason he's writing to them, it makes sense. He does advise against engaging in homosexuality (literally it goes that deep with anti - queer) but he was talking to Greeks and Italians, who's version of homosexuality was endless anonymous sex & orgys, there was no version of a healthy gay relationship in that time. 

I don't believe Jesus would choose somebody to spread the gospel that was 'authoritarian' or double minded, I think translations, Christians interpretation (and deciding which sin is apparently worst and the one we're going to worry about / condemn people for most) are responsible for the bad press Christianity gets (keeping it non-denominational, pitfalls with individual church's are a whole other thing and always down to greed / ego/ human evil) Honestly, modern Christianity looks completely different wherever you look, America certainly do it different to us in the UK, the only thing that actually matters is having a relationship with Jesus, he is supposed to (and in my case, definitely does) do the heavy lifting, not the church

Edited August 22 by Leoooo

[Bronco 27,646]

6 minutes ago, Leoooo said:

He does advise against engaging in homosexuality (literally it goes that deep with anti - queer) but he was talking to Greeks and Italians, who's version of homosexuality was endless anonymous sex & orgys, there was no version of a healthy gay relationship in that time. 

Oh honey. 
The mysteries of the cults of the gods were not the singular performance of same-sex sexual relations in the ancient Greek & Roman empires. 

[Leoooo 2,345]

9 hours ago, EART HL I NG said:

I believe Jesus may have healed a gay man, though! It's the story of the Roman centurion who came to Jesus and said "my bondservant is sick". I don't know Greek but I've seen it said that the word in that passage that was translated into bondservant explicitly implies a romantic connotation, meaning something along the lines of either partner or concubine. It's been a while since I've read up on it but I figured I may as well share

 

Edit to add that you and I share a very similar path. I was pretty deep into tarot and magick (like my tarot readings had near 90% accuracy) and I was two steps away from becoming a devotee to Brigid, and stepped away because I was coming apart spiritually and in my physical life.

And to everyone else reading this, no, I don't plan on evangelizing on this platform

Haha that was exactly what I was thinking when I wrote (Roman soldiers) 
Yeah apparently it was widely acceptable for high powered soldiers to have male lovers who would travel with them while they are away from wives for long periods, from what I remember the translation essentially implied such a relationship

As if! I'm so glad you also got pulled out of it. As you know its such a indescribable, scary and "Am I like, actually insane?" space to be in, I genuinely and am so glad you made it through  
It's also kinda cool, we be community 

[Leoooo 2,345]

6 minutes ago, Bronco said:

10 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Oh honey. 
The mysteries of the cults of the gods were not the singular performance of same-sex sexual relations in the ancient Greek & Roman empires. 

 

Okay I used a super fat brush stroke on that one i'll admit. 
Ignoring my (in hindsight far to generalised) example, my point was there wasnt healthy gay relationships in these places, documented atleast (which is what Paul would know, he hadn't actually been the majority of them) It was either ritualistic, mass pleasure seeking or deep social institutions like Greek pederasty (mentorship/romantic bonds) and the Band of Thebes (cohabiting military lovers) that really were just institutions of power or potential areas for abuse (who's to say these were always consentual...) All I'm saying is in context, he isnt talking to modern gay people because they literally didnt exist 

[Meruk Holland 2,429]

3 hours ago, Leoooo said:

I appreciated this, I have to say though - Paul is pretty undeniable proof of Jesus. He was a well documented Christian killer, hunting them down from a high position - suddenly he has a vision & hears Jesus & does a complete 360 and spends the rest of his life spreading the gospel. 

To say this man had a 'political agenda' is just not true, regardless of your own belief, he completely abandoned his politics and had literally one very obvious mission. He wrote the majority of the letters in the new test & wrote some of the most beautiful words ive read, and yeah a few lines that were hard to swallow but if you think of the cultural setting - who he's writing to, the reason he's writing to them, it makes sense. He does advise against engaging in homosexuality (literally it goes that deep with anti - queer) but he was talking to Greeks and Italians, who's version of homosexuality was endless anonymous sex & orgys, there was no version of a healthy gay relationship in that time. 

I don't believe Jesus would chose somebody to spread the gospel that was 'authoritarian' or double minded, I think translations, Christians interpretation (and deciding which sin is apparently worst and the one we're going to worry about / condemn people for most) are responsible for the bad press Christianity gets (keeping it non-denominational, pitfalls with individual church's are a whole other thing and always down to greed / ego/ human evil) Honestly, modern Christianity looks completely different wherever you look, America certainly do it different to us in the UK, the only thing that actually matters is having a relationship with Jesus, he is supposed to (and in my case, definitely does) do the heavy lifting, not the church

Paul absolutely had a political impetus to spreading Christianity. He used to to justify the power of governing authorities and the imperative to obey the establishment (Romans 13:1-7), that is the most political thing you can do with religion. That's nothing to say on how he uses his writings to create a moral code where women aren't allowed to speak in church, slaves are required to obey their masters, and men who lay with men are condemned as "contrary to nature" and they would be "receiving in themselves their due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27). These aren't just theological ideas, they are political. And even if Paul never intended it that way, the Church became authoritarian because of his implementations and writings. Either he was malicious in pushing his own agenda or he was reckless and set the precedent for future architects within the Church to push their agendas with his example. 

The whole idea that there was rampant debauchery and promiscuity was largely propaganda meant to damage political rivals and defame pagan practices. Whether Paul and other writers bought into that propaganda is another story.

Further, Greek and Romans did have healthy same-sex relationships at the time, they were just healthy by ancient standards. We see them as unhealthy now because they were hierarchical and power imbalanced. But at the time, in all ancient cultures, that was virtually every relationship. It was the standard practice that girls would be married off as young teens to adult men. Women were more akin to property. Exploitation wasn't the concern with Christian authors because they didn't see that aspect as aberrant. Power imbalance was a part of every relationship, but ironically, relationships between men was the closest to egalitarian. By our standards, these were actually healthier than almost all heterosexual couples of the time (Greeks were better about it, because Romans required the bottom to be a lower status).

The ancient world did not have the modern concept of homosexuality, but they did have clear queer analogues. It wasn't a paradise, these analogues had their own issues of permissibility, social expectations, and discriminations. But it's erroneous to also think of them as completely divorced from our modern understanding of queerness. 

[PartySick 174,285]

I have far too much religious trauma, grounding in reality, and pure hatred for delusion to take certain conversations here seriously sometimes  

It's wild...debating the fictional representation of a potentially real historical figure that maybe lived 2000 years ago as if who he did or didn't shame has any bearing on the modern world and how we should or shouldn't see each other now  

Religion is nuts, superstition is nuts, and treating people poorly because you're religious and superstitious goes beyond being nuts and into being offensive and you should be silenced and condemned for it, not debated with as if you have an actual position. Religious bigots should be diagnosed as clinically insane and deprogrammed from the abuse and indoctrination they almost certainly suffered as children.

Fealty to deities, especially relatively new ones like the Christian god, should have died out generations ago. Sometime around us discovering Earth was round or at least when germ theory was a thing idk  

One of the few things that'll actually make me livid enough to rant