***************************************************************************************************************************
Alleged genetics
- - The Lavender Mafia
-- A Biblical Abomination
-- The Civil
Rights Humbug Marriage
********************************************************************************************************************************
Whatever we
fantasize finds a way to become reality.
No matter how cruel or treacherous, it
finds the people who jump at the opportunity to apply it in real life, unless it
requires still undeveloped technical means that are now only possible in science
fiction.
We heard of
many hidden and unresolved conspiracies like the case of Kennedy’s
assassination.
Or the case of Senator Joseph McCarty, who was mercilessly
demonized by the American leftists (inspired by the Soviets) because he tried
to expose the communist conspiracy about 60 years ago.
The McCarty case is an example of one side using wrong means (“evil”) for a good purpose (“virtue”). Some others use good means (“virtue”) for a wrong (“evil”) result.
In both cases,
the total picture is distorted by the composite posture of both sides.
The
ability of one side to influence public opinion transforms the scenario into the
proverbial Gordian Knot that can only be cut by sword, not untangled.
Alleged genetics
On 3 May 2001 a newspaper published my following letter (after censoring it):
Mentioning the genetic superiority of the blacks in sports is hush-hushed in the media, for fear that it would expose the blacks’ “genetic inferiority” in moral and intellectual matters.
Media, politicians, some glib doctors and
postmodern intellectuals pontificate that gays are victims (perhaps a Freudian
slip: they cannot be called victims if homosexuality is as "normal" as
heterosexuality ) of genetics, and nothing can be done (another slip: why should
anything be done if homosexuality is not undesirable?) about it.
Apparently,
psychology, medicine, sociology, media and many politicians, are still
remarkably low in the evolutionary ladder.
The blacks’ genetic athletic superiority is undisputed, but their statistically lower performance in non-athletic fields is not genetic. It is the “collateral damage” from social, political, and cultural postures superimposed by the racists, race exploiters, and self-destructive warpaths of anti-white militants.
Where there is an act of will, from political/moral posture to life-styles, genetics play a marginal role, if any.
Genetic
characteristics are transmitted through heterosexual reproduction, which would
ultimately eliminate “homosexual genes”, if any., by the non-reproductive nature
of homosexuality.
Nature created sex for reproduction, with sexual pleasure as its
inducement.
Homosexuality is a behavioral deviation from normal sex, as an
alternative outlet from unsatisfied cravings or other compulsions.
The junk science of homosexuality’s genetic origin deprives gays of free will and excuses simultaneously.
Special “natural rights” to homosexuals or
dispensations for genetic reasons, therefore, could extend to “victims”, such as
pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, fetishists, sadists, rapists, serial killers and
other “genetic” compulsive deviants…
Furthermore, neither intense
heterosexuality nor homosexuality prevents responsible celibates or various
believers, priests, nuns, monks, ascetics from satisfactory abstinence.
Natural rights are survival and reproduction, not homosexual anal, oral and manual gratification.
When homosexuals paraded militancy in the
past, society rebelled and gay behavior went into closet privacy, like onanism.
These cycles occurred in many cultures and times, and may reoccur.
We were indoctrinated into ignoring history;
therefore we are condemned to repeat it.
We are reliving the temporary
phenomenon of Sodom and Gomorrah, where deranged leadership spun debauchery
tolerance and deviations into virtues and rights.
Media and
politicians are trapped in holding the tails of insatiable dragons like
anti-white racism, homosexual militancy and anti-family feminism.
Moreover,
insecure religious groups are updating their traditionally sacred beliefs into
the same cultural decomposition.
**********************************************
The ensuing reaction -only by
homosexuals- was so out of proportion, and with so many personal insults and
tacky hostility, by signed and anonymous gay readers who all paraded and
repeated my full name, middle
initials and last name, with so similar insults, all similarly avoiding
my argumentation, that one could not help concluding that the response was
organized.
That, really, made my point.
Surprisingly, the same newspaper who asked me to avoid
any form of "incendiary language" and addressing persons by name in
any letters to the editor (which I complied with punctiliously) allowed those
hate-mongers to insult and display my name in a
manner that could be considered like “hate crime”.
The most vicious attacks were signed "Name Withheld" and vituperated me by full name repeatedly. The editors who meticulously opposed any "anti-homosexual innuendos" (whatever that meant), allowed the heterophobic excesses of the homosexual and pro-homosexual attackers.
Any
publication that allows "Name Withheld" heroes to attack (so revoltingly "ad hominem") one who is censured and not allowed to answer in kind may justify the
expressed suspicion that notoriously hostile insiders used that ruse themselves
(with conspiring editorial permission).
Some of them have repeatedly been my
welcome dinner guests in my home.
My shock was not that squeaking mosquitoes were
frantically trying
to roar like a legion of raucous lions, but that my argumentation was so provably
successful that they devastated themselves in irrationality beyond decency.
They
want to condemn and silence the normal people who have always judged and will
continue to judge them.
My reasoning reflected the overwhelming majority in USA, the most reliable evidence and the world prevailing convictions, religions, customs and morality.:
1)
The excuse of
homosexual genetic helplessness is false for many reasons.
First, genetic factors are
normally transmitted only in heterosexual reproduction, as I have explained in other
letters.
Therefore, that factor would have progressively eliminated
homosexuality for good, or reduced it to a 0.01% or similar insignificance.
Even far fetched
distortions of the genetic concept are untenable, for many reasons that cannot
be articulated here.
If homosexuals recognize that, they can help themselves or be
helped, if they really want.
2)
The claimed 10% homosexual
percentage (truly less than 2%) of the total population is a pathetically false figure.
It goes back
to distortions implicit in the methods and environment of research of Dr. Kinsey
(he was a z0oologist, by the way, not MD), who had himself abnormal tendencies.
The
determining majority of his "research" subjects were inmates of mental
institutions and criminal detention.
That was in the 1940s, when sex was inextricably tied with morality.
Kinsey was literally obsessed by his messianic goal of
"liberating" sex from morality.
His famous statement that "We cannot use anyone
afraid of sex", in that period, favored research interviews with homosexuals as
his ideal subjects, because of their typical exhibitionistic eagerness to openly
legitimize themselves. Kinsey himself was obsessed about legitimizing his own
abnormalities.
Under such circumstances, the percentage of homosexuals, among those he interviewed, could have been, say, up to 15% or more...
The revelation of homosexual numerical and genetic
insignificance is
frantically opposed by the gay militants, because it would convince politicians
that the homos are not a significant vote source worth pandering to.
There are
many books on the subject (check with Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com, or
other
good book stores).
Just a few of the best known are:
"HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH", by Dr.
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. , Baker Books, (280 p.)
"HOMOSEXUALITY, A FREEDOM TOO FAR", by Dr. Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Adam
Margrave Books, (321p.); "Homosexuality
and American Public Life", by Christopher Wolfe, Spence Publishing,
(298 p.);
"ALFRED C. KINSEY", by James H. Jones,
W.W. Norton & Co., Ltd (937 p.)
3)
The homosexual
strategy of claim-jumping the institution of marriage is so anti-nature that a
movement has started nationwide to propose a constitutional amendment that
traditional marriage is only allowed between male and female, and for the
purpose of heterosexual reproduction (check
www.allianceformarriage.org).
The structure (formal and natural) and purpose of marriage have
been so obvious for over 5000-10000 years at least, that a constitutional amendment that must
confirm it would be as ridiculously unnecessary as to decree that genital
differences between male and female cannot be scrambled.
Homosexual militancy and general apathy ("silent majority") have made the unthinkable possible and
necessary.
Probably the amendment will fail only for the reason that we should be ashamed
that we have not reacted to pressures that now can only be countered with such an
amendment.
4) The recent strong
objection of homosexual militants against “Mother Day” because it may offend the
sensitivity of gay couples needs no comment.
Would we be allowed to call it “Motherphobia”?
5)
And what about the
menaces of gay boycott against companies that don’t advertise their products
with pictures exhibiting homosexual love acts “because homosexual love is
officially recognized as normal”?
Who can really believe that homosexual love is "officially recognized as normal”?..
6) Academics, media pundits, sycophantic editors, politicians and others who depend on "political correctness" keep the reality of primordial ("chthonic") non-reproductive sex under wraps.
Without its
reproductive and motherhood functions, sex could only be brutal power, not love,
because its main fulfillment is male performance, pleasure and orgasm.
There, both homosexual men and hyper-feminists have a twisted oxymoronic stance.
Pure male homosexuality has no possibility of natural love, which is
intrinsically feminine, reproductive and maternal, and as such it conquers male
devotion to woman and children.
Therefore, it desperately needs the appearance of (unnatural) conjugal love,
artificial paternity and ersatz maternal love: obscenely phony.
Hence: the at-any-cost gay militancy for gay marriage, which is the epitome of "oxymoronicality"
(the word deserved to be created ad hoc).
Feminazism purports
to favor lesbianism, but it goes too far beyond it in its hatred of family and
heterosexual man.
It ascribes to the heterosexual man the sadistic erotic hostility many (from de
Sade to Freud) consider intrinsic of homosexuals and deviants.
Detailed explanations here are unnecessary... (go again to Amazon or Barnes &
Noble, etc.).
The above and many more objections to homosexual militancy (which also preaches unmitigated hatred of “homophobes”, as they call anyone who dares to object to any aspect of their agenda), is not to condemn or persecute homosexuals, but to find a way to live with them and help them out of their troubles, if they are incurable as the militants claim.
T.he psychological pattern could suggest that they hope we fear the worst from them (that is: the homo-militants, not the average "closet" homosexuals) against those they cannot silence.
I know they would protest that I exaggerate, and I would wish they are right.
************************************************************
*************************************************************************
Pro homosexual politicians who want the presumed “10%” (a well contrived lie) homosexual votes expect the “heterosexuals” (at least 98% of mankind) to literally hide in the closet to defend the traditional family and heterosexuality, which are mankind’s only defense against extinction.
Demographically distributed militancy (that is, percentage of
supposedly anti-homosexual normal people against the opposite) should show at
least 50 “homophobes”against one “heterophobe” .
The opposite is true.
Meaning: the relative insignificance
of “homophobic” militancy shows comfortable tolerance of traditional
homosexuality.
Homocranks rant about “homophobia” victimization
and need it desperately to justify homosexual militancy.
When unable to counter
opposing argumentation, they fall into ad hominem attacks to provoke a hopefully
ugly reaction.
Self-important homosexual operetta peacocks attack normal men
psychotically.
Now, they cannot deny their published statements and remain with
both their feet in their mouths.
I don’t care about those who pick their nose,
masturbate or do purely erotic stuff (homo or normal) in private.
Those
activities have existed, anatomically or otherwise typified, from time
immemorial.
It is their feverish demands of legally imposed rights and
privileges for their debauchery that offend our morality and culture.
Many “closet” homosexuals have achieved superb results in art, science,
literature etc.
I doubt that they would have achieved anything if they had
adopted the typical militant homosexual eroticism, which would have hollowed
them culturally, as it does now.
Militant homosexuals demand legalization of homosexual marriage,
as well as outlawing of any heterosexual religion or association.
Yes, you read it right:
outlawing of any heterosexual religion or
association.
They are fighting to eliminate Mothers’ Day because it offends the
homosexuals.
There we have the motherphobes.
One of them asked me defiantly why I wouldn't induce my son to marry a
homosexual man.
That would deny me the healthy wish and right to
have grandchildren...
No stretch of imagination is necessary to label it as "gaynazism" or
"homonazism".
I also read a statement by another homosexual militant that reproduction equate us
heterosexuals to
"rabbits and pigs".
Rabbits and
pigs certainly outperform homosexuals in reproduction and continuity.
They themselves extract the realization that, in that respect,
homosexuals cannot even rise to the level of rabbits and pigs...
I must precise that I
am referring to the bellicose militants, not to the "closet" homosexuals who do
not provoke such odious comparisons.
One overlooked factor is that lesbians and male
homosexuals are conventionally bundled together.
That is an intentional or
misinformed distortion of reality.
First, the basic difference is radical: a lesbian can still be a normally biologic and nurturing mother
almost like a heterosexual woman.
However, she would deprive her children of the
paternal influence and formative experience.
A truly homosexual man cannot be a normal
biological and functional father. Period.
Ask gays what their spermatozoa are for.
They typically discharge them into another male's rectum, which is undeniably made
for excrement. That is quite a match.
A simple and simultaneously complex reality is that a male homosexual can be
typically so hyper-promiscuous that he cannot raise children or nurture a normal
family.
With rare exceptions, statistics show that male homosexual marriages would depopulate the country and
increase the number of divorce lawyers astronomically with their frenetic
(adulterous) promiscuity.
As to cultural history, overtly lesbian literature, from the Greek Sappho (ca. 600 b.c.) to today’s many, is quite impressive, whereas male militant homosexual writers are so insignificant that one must seek among the “closet” ones.
The postmodern interest in destroying the
Western culture fits almost ideally with the homosexual contamination when the
deconstructionists advocate the total equivalence of Bugs Bunny's “What’s up
doc?” with Shakespeare’s “There is a tide in the affairs of men…” with Goethe’s
“Es was ein Koenig in Thule…” , or Dante’s “Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra
vita…”.
Anyone could show off hundreds or thousands of other examples. Just copy them;
you don't even have to translate them.
Do we want another dictatorship to again herd
and massacre homos, minorities, independent unions and other “differents”?
The
worst “differents” are those who dress up a vice into a virtue, and manipulate
provocation to justify hatred.
Some publications with one-dimensional editors bite the bait.
I oppose ignorant and abusive majorities and
minorities, I defend unpoliticized religion and oppose the weird definition of God and Jesus
as homosexuals in some universities and carnival churches.
I respect opponents
who discuss without insulting.
Many honest “enemies” are future friends.
I am as much a “homophobe” as a Martian lesbian telephone pole.
The homosexual militants end up hurting and ridiculing the
"traditional" homosexuals the same as the black racists have done and are still
doing with normal blacks, with the difference that the normal blacks have no no
trouble debunking the super-racial claims that Cleopatra was black, Socrates
and Aristotle stole Egyptian philosophy, that melanin makes the blacks superior, and so on.
Without the phony statistics, the "genetic" ghost, the lies and distortions by
the abnormal zoologist Kinsey, etc., the homosexual militants will have to face
what they frantically reject now.
The Lavender Mafia
2002:
Beside the fact that Catholic priests are dying of AIDS at
higher rate than other males, the Catholic Church is now seriously
embarrassed by revelations of an unsuspected number of depraved homosexual
relationships between priests and male "children" .
The press and other media have long tried to avoid focusing on the fact the
the phenomenon is primarily and eminently homosexual. Therefore
they insist
on derailing the public attention from "homosexuality" to "pedophilia".
The American Catholic Church considered religious priesthood candidates not on the basis of their being
normal or homosexual, but on the basis of their faith and decision to overcome sexual
gratification ("straight" or "queer") in favor of celibacy, abstinence and chastity. Therefore,
homosexuals and normal candidates in U.S.A. were said to have the same chances of becoming devoted and chaste priests.
Failing this premise, the American Catholic Church was contaminated by active homosexuals
and "collateral damages" of their typically uncontrollable behavior.
Note:
- "Affairs" between (heterosexual) priests and young (or older) women are hardly
mentioned, or -at least- rare.
- Considering that homosexuals are maximum 2% of the American population (the
fabricated "10% of the zoologist Kinsey has been debunked), and that the
Roman Catholic church is
adamantly against both active and "closet" homosexuality, the homosexual Catholic priests should be
surely less that 0.01-0.5%, against 99.5-99.99% normal (heterosexual)
priests.
Conclusion: statistics would suggest that for every "affair" between a homosexual priest and young (or older)
male, at the very least 100 "affairs" between normal priests and young (or
older) females should have occurred.
This calculation would be correct, but mind boggling.
May 2002.
Lo and behold: we (the puppets) are informed that
the official truth we have been dished out so far is a colossal fraud.
Reliable (well, sort of) magazines like Newsweek, Time, etc. now assert
and/or believe that "35 to 50% of the priests are homosexual". Hopefully, they
mean both overt and "closet homosexuals", which is still shocking anyhow, but the number of
cases points to a virulent and active homosexuality.
Initially, the exposed phenomenon was described as "pedophilia", or abuse of children
("pre-pubescent youths"), which was thought to be common to homo- and
hetero-sexual perpetrators, in order to protect homosexuality's "reputation".
What is really happening is unqualified homosexual debauchery with adult males
(both priests and laymen) and "ephebophilia", or sexual perversion with
"post-pubescent" young adult males by homosexual priests.
The term "pedophilia" is only a futile attempt to divert public attention from
the scourge of militant homosexuality.
Laity and clergy are now scurrying to tighten all
restrictions and rules against the admission of active open or crypto homosexual
students in Catholic and protestant seminaries.
Obviously, \the restrictions apply also
against single sexually active heterosexuals, but the typical percentage of the
hyper-promiscuous homosexuals is embarrassingly overwhelming.
The perversion problem was not with the Catholic and Protestant Church
as such, but exclusively with the homosexuals and homosexuality who have
contaminated the Churches with their mere presence.
The Church's grave mistake was the hope that covering it up would do some good
to the religious community.
As to the churches and denominations who accept homosexuality
or even homosexual ministers, a new dilemma is creeping in: to be politically
or morally correct.
Psychologists, physicians, teachers, politicians who previously yielded to the
menacing homosexual pressures, are now wondering whether they can return to what
they always knew before.
The Rev. Andrew Greeley, leftist clerical gadfly, calls
"Lavender Mafia" a secret network of homosexual priests.
Michael S. Rose's book "Goodbye! Good Men" describes the stunning phenomenon of
a gay subculture in the American Catholic Church: "You find [active
homosexuality] among... conservative orders, and in places you'd not expect
it... You don't know where to turn".
Rome has strongly opposed the ordination of homosexuals since 1961 or before.
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, top official in the Vatican, Pope's spokesman
Joaquin Navarro-Valls and many others reiterated that homosexuals should not be
admitted in seminaries.
As to the the militant gay lobbies, Dr. Fitzgibbons, only one of many, says, "We
have to protect our young. The protection of children and teenagers is more
important than the feelings of homosexuals." Millions would certainly say the
same and more.
April 22's "National Review" also writes, "...a return to the basics has to be a
big part of a comprehensive solution... a conservative reform - replacing
dissenting or milquetoast bishops with solid, no-nonsense men; making the
seminaries safe places for heterosexuals loyal to Church teachings; and
restoring the priesthood to a corps of chaste, faith-filled disciples - would
result in a tide of good men seeking holy orders.
This has already been happening in dioceses like Omaha, Lincoln, Neb.; Denver;
Peoria, Ill; Fargo, ND; Arlington, VA"
June 3's "N. R.": In Jason Berry's "lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children", we read that only 2 of 50 homosexual priests stated that they were abstaining from homosexual activity, "60% said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. 90% strongly rejected mandatory celibacy... and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks".
Reverend Paul Shanley advocated the connection between sexual
abuse and an openly "queer" culture in addressing the convention that led to
founding the NAMBA (North American Man-Boy Association).
The nightmarish reality are the desperate but futile efforts to convince the
public that the phenomenon is a "church problem" rather than a diabolical
betrayal by homosexuals who deceived the church with the promise inherent in the
priesthood ordaining that the homosexual would commit themselves to the same
absolute celibacy as the normal (heterosexual) priests.
Now, think and shudder with the image of what would have
happened to the Boy Scouts if they had yielded to the leftist pressures to
accepting homosexuals in their organization...
How long before we realize again that militant homosexuality is
a social, moral and cultural AIDS?
One of the indestructible attributes of history is
imperturbable patience.
****************************************************************
A Biblical Abomination
July 2001. After an anonymous phone-caller
accused me of “homophobia”, because of one of my published articles, he felt
unforgivably insulted by my reaction: “are you a homosexual”?
A homosexual reader (courageously anonymous) accused me (by name) of “referring
to homosexuality as an incurable misfortune” (incorrect) and “a deviation to be
corrected” simultaneously. Then he explained genetics by muddling it up,
attributed to me the homosexual anxiety about their population percentage, and
other nonsense.
Male homosexuality practices and advocates anal and oral sex between males, which is at least statistically abnormal, much more than adultery. The moral potential adulterer handles his temptation with abstinence, self-gratification or psychotherapy.
There are many more potential adulterers than homosexuals, and adultery is much more chastised than homosexuality.
Homosexual couples display such mind-boggling
promiscuity that, if married, they would avalanche divorce courts, and divorce
lawyers would outnumber all other professions.
Consequently. homosexual “marriages” would need such special laws that they
would differ from normal marriages as much as skunks from violins.
And they shouldn’t fear that the normal men would claim-jump them, a privilege no heterosexual would crave for.
Reproductive family is the proven natural nucleus of society.
The homosexual intercourse is anti-family (or family hijacking) because of its very nature.
Sexual pleasure without the connected capability of reproduction has no chance of normality, because it has no biological justification.
Whereas the normal reproductive intercourse inspires the stable and indissoluble family, homosexual intercourse without the functions and attributes of the reproductive family is unnatural and misleading.
Its
pretension to raise children with two fathers or two mothers is not only
paradoxical, but also conducive to human extinction or decay.
The male semen is destined to be introduced into the life-generating female
body, not into the male rectum, which has only defecating functions. Oral sex
between males is just as revolting.
Not even religion
is needed to explain why the Bible calls homosexuality “abominable”.
Besides, most religions and cultures consider the sin abominable, not the sinner
who can be helped, although lynch mobs and bigots think differently.
As to the “10%” homosexual population (truly under 2%), it was Dr. Kinsey’s (himself statistically abnormal) extrapolation from his abnormal subjects, therefore statistically fraudulent. [349]
The manic persistence of homosexuals to perpetuate a bellicose defense against hypothetical “homophobic” attacks shows that they must even invent heterosexual hostility in order to play the warring victims who are ostentatiously proud of being homosexual.
Their claim that homosexuality is a genetic immutability not only presupposes that they are being challenged by people who don’t give a damn, as it has been for millennia, but it shows a guilt complex without which their claim is totally irrelevant.
On the other hand, we could consider that psychopaths, sadists, kleptomaniacs, pedophiles, nymphomaniacs, and armies of deviants or victims of any unorthodox tendency could adopt the same genetic claim. Therefore, one of their main purposes is to be recognized “normal” and “10% of the population”, as “stated in books” without any professional or historical value.
Serious pollsters
and scientific investigations have found no more than 1-2 % "genuine"
homosexuals. Anyone can find such evidence in serious research.
A responsible census would confirm the truth, but they avoid it.
Sorted persons don’t proclaim a “normality” or genetic factors hardly anyone
ever worries about. Nor would I ever go to seminars, conferences, conventions
for short people.
If I did, I would make a ridiculous problem out of a factor of insignificant
size compared with life reality, purposes and achievements.
Should a pebble or diamond feel inferior to a
rock? It depends on arbitrary perspectives.
Confine homosexuals on an island,
and they will be extinct in one generation.
Does it disturb them? Then, go, get a heterosexual partner and procreate artificially, because homosexuality is as sterile as masturbation, and incomparably worse to boot.
Now, who is proud of that and wants to couple with another of the same sex and adopt children and be “role models” to those hapless children?
And there are churches that sanctify that...
It is a free country with people who have the
right to oppose or accept it.
Militant homosexuality is as globally disliked
as militant masturbation. [323]
Now the gays openly fight the Christians, especially the Catholics, Evangelists,
Mormons, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, also the Orthodox Jews and Muslims,.
Crypto masochism waiting for backlash?
If they win, is it homosexual belligerence or cowardice of their opponents?
Even some universities are afraid to concede that heterosexuality could be considered morally or evolutionarily superior because their sexual intercourse is the only survival of mankind, whereas homosexual sex is characterized by sterile anal and oral intercourse.
Where are philosophical, theological, historical
or specifically cultural foundations of homosexuality?
Even official recognition
by pro-homosexuality organizations lacks serious foundations’ integrity.
With the present cowardice of the politically correct religionists, bureaucrats and officials, the gays will probably win, and their victory will be sustained for one or perhaps more generations in limited areas.
Yet the gays would remain unhappy often toward a suicidal level.
The reason is that the religionists appeal to the numbers of paying volatile church members, rather than to the devoted loyalty of true believers who would give even their lives for their beliefs.
We cannot have good believers to defend our faith, culture, fatherland, children, family and morality without it.
A prominent citizen told me during dinner, “I would refuse friendship of those who would die for their beliefs. Are you one of them?”
Would I yield under menace of death?
Probably not, if I dread more the horror of my betrayal for the rest of my life.
My guest was not under torture and he was of those who could be worse as friends than as enemies.
On the other hand, many are unable to bow to people who have attributes we don’t have.
We should, just like short people who recognize that tall athletes are better for basketball.
That doesn’t make short people inferior, but would they still create a basketball league for shorties and demand parity with the tall?
They could succeed. But for how long?
I also defend the right of smokers to smoke, but not in an enclosure where they smoke and I breathe. [337]
*****************************************************************
The Civil Rights Humbug Marriage
Never, in known history, there was any doubt that marriage was
and epitomized the conjunction of man and woman to reproduce, form a family and
the nucleus of society.
The idea that a male could "marry" a male -of female a female- was a perverse
joke.
On the other hand, what use or necessity was -or is- there to even joke about
considering such oxymoronic concept?
Homosexual marrying? What need for it?
Don't they pair and live together if they want to?
They can even sign a partnership contract with many more choices than any usual
marriage contract.
The trouble is that the homosexuals want much more, because they know that they cannot be considered normal and equal to normal people unless the heterosexual attributes are forced down to the level of homosexuality. That cannot be done if the radical and inevitable difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality (obvious if the reproduction function is considered) can not be reduced to the superficial differences between races that can be easily obviated with simple civil rights legislation and enforcement.
Solution?
Could we do the same as the feminists, who bypassed the unavoidable differences
between genders by classifying the man/woman distinctions as unjust "civil
rights differences"?
It just happened that a relatively acceptable (not quite) result was obtained,
for the women, with the wrong means.
So be it, until something more and better can be done for the fair gender.
As to the homosexuals, the problem of allowing the same marriage
between homosexuals as between normal people is vastly different and downright
preposterous.
First, creating a homosexual marriage like the normal one is a profound moral,
natural and civilization problem, absolutely not a "civil rights" question.
Considering that the main distinguishing characteristic of the homosexual
marriage is oral and anal sex between male and male and oral/genital stimulation
between female and female, in all cases completely devoid of reproduction
purpose or result, we are confronting a social, cultural, moral and legal
oxymoronic abomination.
Finally, by rendering the sexual, gender and erotic differences between
homosexuals and heterosexuals as superficial as between races, the "civil
rights" reclassification of the gay goals eliminates the gender/moral questions
from the political spectrum.
Consequently, objections against the consequences of gay marriage, homosexual
morality, promiscuity, lewd and hostile exhibitionism, child molestation,
religion contamination, Sodom/Gomorrah problems... become taboo in the name of
the sanctity of "civil rights".
The overwhelming majority agrees on the above, but they don't dare to speak up
and act in politics, business, community activities, schools, entertainment,
academia...
Are they cowards, opportunists of some sort, or what?
History proves that we must act logically or suffer ominous
consequences when it is too late.
Do we deserve them?
Please click here to send a comment or suggestion
040320