What are your arguments against homosexuality?

[Oblisk]

This is a question for members who are against or sympathetic to the causes of eliminating or reducing homosexuality throughout the human species.

Why do you believe homosexuality is not a healthy and benefitial progress throughout the human progression? Are its (harmful) inflictions passed onto third parties? What are your arguments against homosexuality?

[Jimbo Gomez]

I wonder who'll be the first one to make a pain in the ass gag.

[Holly]

I see you start some good posts Oblisk but I wish you would give the gay thing a break. My view is homo is a moral rot and if everyone was gay that would destroy the species.
People can do or think what they want in private, when they push it on the public as gays do is when counter action needs to be taken, I think it is much like a bad disease, if no cure is found then gays should either be isolated or eliminated.

[shanemac]

People rationalise too much these days. My disgust at faggots is a completely visceral, gut-feeling emotion. Their faggotry makes me feel sick, and I would like to see it pushed back into the closet.

Why? That's just how it is.

Our tendency to over analyse and scrutinise everything for fairness and equality these days is what is leading us into all kinds of unnatural societal directions. We tolerate everything, because to be intolerant is "hateful", and we can't find reasons to justify our intolerance. So we end up tolerating every kind of weird shit there is... which leads to a kind of moral or societal corruption and decay.

As a society, we don't know what we are anymore, because we refuse to set any boundaries.

Where should those boundaries be? Well, a good place to start is with good old fashioned gut-feeling. Our gut feelings are natural inclinations to a certain biologically determined norm. The field of evolutionary psychology has barely been explored, and so a lot of this stuff is just not generally known about. So to argue against intolerance is easy (because logic can be employed), whereas arguing for it is difficult (because it's difficult to back up one's argument if the scientific reasoning is unknown). In other words, gut feelings are healthy and natural, but we just don't really know why.

If gut-feelings were generally adhered to, all the weird and disgusting crap (faggotry, dykes, females as bosses, multiculturalism... etc) would not be tolerated, and we would indeed go back to normal healthy human societies (like back in the '50s).

[HELLSTAR_trek]

Why? That's just how it is.

You can do better than that.


[...] would not be tolerated, and we would indeed go back to normal healthy human societies (like back in the '50s).
You're supporting your position so poorly that you are almost arguing against it. You can do better than that. If one particular decade was normal, then you are using the word "normal" to describe what is exceptional if not unique.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Homosexuality should be kept to a minimal level in the society. If homosexuality is practiced at all, it should be subordinated to male bonding rituals akin to the practices in Japan, Sparta, and Medieval Europe. These practices were nothing like the feminine, submissive, and disgusting nature of modern bourgeois homosexuality.

Why do you believe homosexuality is not a healthy and benefitial progress throughout the human progression?

No, but in some forms homosexuality is not inherently unhealthy or weak.

Are its (harmful) inflictions passed onto third parties?

Yes. Those who don't participate in homosexuality, but may be raised by homosexuals find themselves feeling out of place, scorned, and often suffer from various types of mental illness.

What are your arguments against homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not harmonous. Many types of modern homosexual practices are also steeped in immorality, submission, and an inversion of male spirit. Mental illness, chemical imbalances, and hormonal balances also play a crucial role in the formation of homosexuality. All of these factors make homosexuality questionable as being beneficial or natural.

[shanemac]

You can do better than that.


You're supporting your position so poorly that you are almost arguing against it. You can do better than that. If one particular decade was normal, then you are using the word "normal" to describe what is exceptional if not unique.

Feel free to argue against any of the points I made.

The period between the end of ww2 and around 1965 is what I mean by "the 50s". That was what I would consider the golden age of white civilisation. But society was healthy and natural at all times up until about 1966.

[Crowley]

Homosexuals have the right to exist in communities that welcome them and communities that wish to ban them also have a right. Radical decentralization of community control is what we need in all things. Of 50 states surely there is room for people who are born with a certain affliction to exist, especially considering homosexual are often actually talented in many ways. Ridiculous as homosexuality may appear to outside onlookers it is still the work of nature, and there is always a family of heterosexuals surrounding individual homosexuals who will most certainly go to war to protect their loved ones.

[Keystone]

Stick them back in the closet, for the good of the rest of us.

They can practice their perversion at home, or in discrete clubs like they once did. No more gay pride parades, gay adoption, gay "marriage", gay apologist books in our schools, etc...

Enough.

[Insidium]

If gut-feelings were generally adhered to, all the weird and disgusting crap (faggotry, dykes, females as bosses, multiculturalism... etc) would not be tolerated, and we would indeed go back to normal healthy human societies (like back in the '50s).

If "gut-feelings were generally adhered to," civilization would not have advanced beyond simplistic tribes. This sort of emotional drivel has no room masquerading as an argument.

Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it is observed in other species, and there is obviously some biological factor involved. But whether something is natural or not cannot determine its moral value.

I have no problem with homosexuality, but the culture and ideology that exists for it today is revolting and despicable. It glorifies haughtiness, flirtation, obsession with meaningless shiny things, all those mildly irritating, but tolerable characteristics of women, and magnifies them beyond reasonable proportion. It is attention-whorism incarnate.

Politically, it is a non-issue as far as I am concerned, though.

An argument against homosexuality could be the fact that HIV transmission among them is vastly above average. Or that they are raped at 4 times the rate of heterosexuals. However, I have no desire to interfere in the love lives of other people.

[Keystone]

If "gut-feelings were generally adhered to," civilization would not have advanced beyond simplistic tribes. This sort of emotional drivel has no room masquerading as an argument.
I agree with shanemac. There are gut feelings that are perfectly reliable and always have been. Revulsion at homos is a good example.
Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it is observed in other species, and there is obviously some biological factor involved. But whether something is natural or not cannot determine its moral value.
Dogs will hump your leg, as well. We put it down as animal behavior and push them off.
Men traipsing about, boning each other up the butt, "marrying" each other and adopting kids is quite beyond that. Way beyond. It shouldn't be tolerated in public.

They haven't found a gay gene, as far as I know.
I have no problem with homosexuality, but the culture and ideology that exists for it today is revolting and despicable. It glorifies haughtiness, flirtation, obsession with meaningless shiny things, all those mildly irritating, but tolerable characteristics of women, and magnifies them beyond reasonable proportion. It is attention-whorism incarnate.
No one would agrue about the harm in shallow consumerism and narcissistic behavior, but fags today want to change the basic structure of our families.

[Keystone]

Politically, it is a non-issue as far as I am concerned, though.
Politics be damned.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

I agree with shanemac. There are gut feelings that are perfectly reliable and always have been. Revulsion at homos is a good example.
What's your gut feeling about the thought of having sex with a very ugly black woman? If it's revulsion, then what policy measures do you propose? If a black man marries a black woman who is, in your opinion, very ugly, then should his marriage not be legally recognized?

Perhaps you should research ancient Roman attitudes towards homosexuality. You may find evidence suggesting that anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization were adopted from a certain ethnic group that has used the Hebrew language.

[Keystone]

What's your gut feeling about the thought of having sex with a very ugly black woman? If it's revulsion, then what policy measures do you propose? If a black man marries a black woman who is, in your opinion, very ugly, then should his marriage not be legally recognized?
What the hell are you talking about?
Perhaps you should research ancient Roman attitudes towards homosexuality. You may find evidence suggesting that anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization were adopted from a certain ethnic group that has used the Hebrew language.
One up for the Israelites, I'd say.

[shanemac]

If "gut-feelings were generally adhered to," civilization would not have advanced beyond simplistic tribes. This sort of emotional drivel has no room masquerading as an argument.

Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it is observed in other species, and there is obviously some biological factor involved. But whether something is natural or not cannot determine its moral value.



I don't think you really understand my argument. In the past, people felt a natural revulsion toward fags and outlawed faggotry. They didn't feel the need to justify this, or examine whether or not it was "fair"... they just decided that it was unnatural (or a sin against "God", as they put it), and laid down the law.

In the past, it seemed natural to most people that men should be in charge. Nobody went through the statistics, and decided that systematic sexism was keeping women down, and that this was unfair... it just seemed absurd that a woman would be a mayor, or a police officer, or whatever. So, women accepted their biologically imperative role as mothers and caregivers. Unlike today, where they spend their lives trying to emulate men, and end up distorting the system so that they can (affirmative action quotas, etc).

Generally, people accepted that mature, straight men were the people most able to make rational political choices, so only men could vote. And they generally elected people who made things run well, and who made progress possible.

All the progress that was made up to the 1960s was made under societal conditions where people acted according to gut feeling, instead of trying to justify and analyse everything. That's how they made so much technological progress.




I have no problem with homosexuality, but the culture and ideology that exists for it today is revolting and despicable. It glorifies haughtiness, flirtation, obsession with meaningless shiny things, all those mildly irritating, but tolerable characteristics of women, and magnifies them beyond reasonable proportion. It is attention-whorism incarnate.



You point out the effect (societal decline), but fail to see the cause.

Nature made us have certain gut feelings about how things should be. We're not entirely sure why the abnormalities that our gut-feelings object to are bad, but adhering to our gut-feelings provides us with the moral standards we used to have. We have come to ignore such gut feelings, and what you describe here is the result.

[Hippias]

Perhaps you should research ancient Roman attitudes towards homosexuality. You may find evidence suggesting that anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization were adopted from a certain ethnic group that has used the Hebrew language.

That may be so. But tracing the origin of anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization does not tell us whether such policies are good policies. Anti-homosexual policies in the West may have originally been adopted by Jews and may incidentally have social utility. In short, if you are arguing that the origin of anti-homosexual policies in the West discredits those policies, you are committing the genetic fallacy. You can, as you say, do better than that.

[Starr]

Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it is observed in other species, and there is obviously some biological factor involved. But whether something is natural or not cannot determine its moral value.

We can recognize that it is natural and for a small percentage of people, while also recognizing that it is not natural or normal for the vast majority of society. The most important thing is that we desperately need to stop celebrating it and we need to let go of this idea that it is nothing more than an alternative lifestyle "equal" to and as normal as heterosexuality. Homosexuality is just one part, but an important part of a lax in moral standards, all together.

[Keystone]

That may be so. But tracing the origin of anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization does not tell us whether such policies are good policies.
Anti-homosexual policies in the West may have originally been adopted by Jews and may incidentally have social utility.
Star Trek was trying to bait me as a jew-hater, else he wouldn't have stuck that bit in. No matter. I don't admire the homosexual tendencies of the Greeks or Romans, regardless of what else they did. The Israelites (later Judahites--Jews) were spot on about homosexual behavior, and I applaud them for their insight.

[shanemac]

Star Trek was trying to bait me as a jew-hater, else he wouldn't have stuck that bit in. No matter. I don't admire the homosexual tendencies of the Greeks or Romans, regardless of what else they did. The Israelites (later Judahites--Jews) were spot on about homosexual behavior, and I applaud them for their insight.

I don't actually believe the ancient Romans and Greeks actually tolerated faggotry as much as people these days seem to believe. There may have been some isolated incidents of it that became famous, but these have been blown totally out of proportion, by means of 2,000 years of Chinese whispers.

I've read research that strongly disputes the belief that faggotry was accepted in ancient civilisations... can't remember the details at the moment though.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

All the progress that was made up to the 1960s was made under societal conditions where people acted according to gut feeling, instead of trying to justify and analyse everything. That's how they made so much technological progress.

I suspect that the people who developed new ideas and methods in science and technology did analyze things and did not simply act according to gut feeling. On the other hand, it's hard to see how technological progress is relevant to this thread.

[Keystone]

I suspect that the people who developed new ideas and methods in science and technology did analyze things and did not simply act according to gut feeling. On the other hand, it's hard to see how technological progress is relevant to this thread.
He's talking about social structure, not science. You'll be bringing up George Washington Carver in a minute.

I was there, at the turning point. One minute you felt safe and happy----the next minute you didn't. That began around 1970-72 in my city.

The reason why you felt safe and happy, is because you were. White folk ran things and life was orderly. I thank the Powers everyday that I was raised when I was.

[shanemac]

I suspect that the people who developed new ideas and methods in science and technology did analyze things and did not simply act according to gut feeling. On the other hand, it's hard to see how technological progress is relevant to this thread.

Of course where technology and science were concerned people analysed things and applied scientific reasoning. However, the morals of the day were governed by people's simple gut-feelings.

Technological progress is relevant because it is one of the measures we can use to gauge how successful the society was.

[<access denied>]

Pure homosexuals (not bisexuals) should all be rounded up and exterminated. Period. They are degenerates.

[Insidium]

I agree with shanemac. There are gut feelings that are perfectly reliable and always have been. Revulsion at homos is a good example.

How do you tell which gut feelings are reliable and which are not? We have to apply reason to our gut feelings and compare them to what we know about nature.

Dogs will hump your leg, as well. We put it down as animal behavior and push them off.
Men traipsing about, boning each other up the butt, "marrying" each other and adopting kids is quite beyond that. Way beyond. It shouldn't be tolerated in public.

I am aware that this is your position. You have not yet explained why, though.

They haven't found a gay gene, as far as I know.

The fact that this behavior is conserved throughout the animal kingdom implies that there is a genetic basis, even if the specific gene is as of yet unknown.

No one would agrue about the harm in shallow consumerism and narcissistic behavior, but fags today want to change the basic structure of our families.

They wish to redefine what a family is, but it's unlikely that this would have any effect on your or anyone else's family.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Argument 1: It's an insult to the Creative Principle, God's purpose, and the intent of nature.

[Evil_shah]

What's your gut feeling about the thought of having sex with a very ugly black woman? If it's revulsion, then what policy measures do you propose? If a black man marries a black woman who is, in your opinion, very ugly, then should his marriage not be legally recognized?

Perhaps you should research ancient Roman attitudes towards homosexuality. You may find evidence suggesting that anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization were adopted from a certain ethnic group that has used the Hebrew language.


That is why the media today is constantly praising homosexuals and sticking one in each television show they can

[New Scientist]

This is a question for members who are against or sympathetic to the causes of eliminating or reducing homosexuality throughout the human species.

Why do you believe homosexuality is not a healthy and benefitial progress throughout the human progression? Are its (harmful) inflictions passed onto third parties? What are your arguments against homosexuality?

My take on homosexuality is that its the extreme end of adaptive bisexuality which i see as the mediator of sex ratio.

There are different kinds of homosexuality arising from type r and K pools. type K pools pass on genetic selections for variations in hormone leves such as the female conversion of testosterone to estrogen. So females can become physically robust while retaining femininity. Women from colder climates seem to correlate with this. Monogamy itself (a type K trait) twists masculinity of each successive son born from the same mother.

type r pools mainly create homosexuals by environmental influences such as pre natal testosterones masculinizing effect on women. Type r dominance cultures increase T so that sexuality becomes a relative idea. males from a type K pool has difficulty competing when entering a type r pool. (such as an oriental entering into europe.)

I ought to add that anyone with any sense would not argue against homosexuality if the analysis of systems reveals it to be nothing more than natural self regulation and wastage.

What i am saying, is that the subject is not even percieved correctly. Till it is, it will be a very lowbrow topic.

In type K it is gene pool hormone regulation. In type r it is environmental wastage.

.

[New Scientist]

That may be so. But tracing the origin of anti-homosexual policies in Western civilization does not tell us whether such policies are good policies. Anti-homosexual policies in the West may have originally been adopted by Jews and may incidentally have social utility. In short, if you are arguing that the origin of anti-homosexual policies in the West discredits those policies, you are committing the genetic fallacy. You can, as you say, do better than that.

It has to be considered that those groups most fanatically anti-homosexual might have innate homosexuality they are trying to rid themselves of. This ends up preserving gay genes. And there are some. Notably a deficiency in the female conversion of testosterone to estrogen requires on enzyme.

[Oblisk]

Argument 1: It's an insult to the Creative Principle, God's purpose, and the intent of nature.

Unfortuneatly this argument does not work so well when arguing with atheists.

[Insidium]

Argument 1: It's an insult to the Creative Principle, God's purpose, and the intent of nature.

Why is it an insult to the intent of nature, when it is clearly a natural phenomenon?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Why is it an insult to the intent of nature, when it is clearly a natural phenomenon?
Nothing natural about it.
Unfortuneatly this argument does not work so well when arguing with atheists.
Well, for the hapless so-called atheist does anything work at all? They can all be homos if they want. They deserve it.

[New Scientist]

Nothing natural about it.

.


natural systems operate out of gentic twist and environmental pull. Homosexuality is an inevatible.

I've done a properly referenced project on this subject, but it needs revised.
In the meantime i recommend you read my summary.


"My take on homosexuality is that its the extreme end of adaptive bisexuality which i see as the mediator of sex ratio.

There are different kinds of homosexuality arising from type r and K pools. type K pools pass on genetic selections for variations in hormone leves such as the female conversion of testosterone to estrogen. So females can become physically robust while retaining femininity. Women from colder climates seem to correlate with this. Monogamy itself (a type K trait) twists masculinity of each successive son born from the same mother.

type r pools mainly create homosexuals by environmental influences such as pre natal testosterones masculinizing effect on women. Type r dominance cultures increase T so that sexuality becomes a relative idea. males from a type K pool has difficulty competing when entering a type r pool. (such as an oriental entering into europe.)

I ought to add that anyone with any sense would not argue against homosexuality if the analysis of systems reveals it to be nothing more than natural self regulation and wastage."



Of course you appear to be expressing a closed mind on the topic, which from your trailed URL's would be an expression of white nationalism.

Ive written stuff on white nationalism's homophobia being an expression of repressing a lack of full male expression. In other words its got a tendency towards a gay problem, which i highlight elsewhere by the massive amount of prohomosexual legislation passed on northern regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Homosexuality_laws_2.JPG

You also find a reverse phenomena with homosexuals being culled in the less than masculine orientals.

Racists, the eugenic, cultural preserve (exploitive racism)......

http://stormfrontpride.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-propose-two-distinct-types-of-racism.html

type are clusters of men who may have one or two female brain components. There are about half a dozen known major brain structures due to sex differences. SO just possesing one or two of the minor ones from the opposite sex, wouldnt make a racist gay, just that they would be veering towards exhibiting some female social behaviours, infused with a normal physiology. In fact racists are homophobic, but this is also considered to be linked to insecurity about oneself.

Homosexuals Sometimes Display Violent Homophobia

abridged from http://brainmind.com/Homosexuality1.html (http://brainmind.com/Homosexuality1.html)

[New Scientist]

I just noticed. There appears to be a polar phenomena with homosexual legislation.


Homosexuality laws 2.JPG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Homosexuality_laws_2.JPG

[Insidium]

Nothing natural about it.

Incorrect. If it occurs in nature, then it is clearly natural. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

Well, for the hapless so-called atheist does anything work at all? They can all be homos if they want. They deserve it.

For the reasonable atheist, reason works. :)

[New Scientist]

Incorrect. If it occurs in nature, then it is clearly natural. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)



For the reasonable atheist, reason works. :)

I always wonder why some people are so fanatical about homosexuality. They often cite the likes of "well they should at least keep it to themselves"..which isnt a reasonable expectation considering it looks like the majority of gay men have female brains.

[Thomas777]

Homosexuality isn't important, and the behaviors that homosexuals engage in hurt themselves and not other people (by and large). If people want to be self-destructive, I don't care.

Two gays (generally speaking) aren't going to shank you for your wallet or beat an old lady to death when they are fixing. Gays also aren't going to form paramilitary bands and terrorize people with random violence.

Homosexuality also isn't some progressive political tendency...its just a distasteful vice that afflicts some people that has been fetishized by secular-humanists.

[Janus]

Homosexuals should surrender their reproductive-abilities and should be allowed to live in segregated-areas.

EDIT: I rephrased my post.

[Thomas777]

Homosexuals should surrender their reproductive-abilities. Homosexuals should also be able to live in segregated-areas if they so choose.

Why? I would rather live next door to a law-abiding, racially-aware homosexual than I would some "normal" White liberal.

I've met plenty of gays who were racially aware and committed to the right sorts of principles...I wasn't about to invite them over for beers but I don't have a problem with people of that sort.

[Janus]

Why? Many people dislike homosexuals. They should be allowed to live in "gay-only" areas if they choose.

[Thomas777]

Many people dislike homosexuals. They should be allowed to live in "gay-only" areas if they choose.

The point is that homosexuality isn't an important issue. The fact that it is fetishized by the Establishment is just a symptom of overall social decadence, its not a cause.

Homosexuality is a vice...like alcoholism or drug abuse. Sure, it breeds pretty negative things, and yeah, its worthy of chagrin, but its just simply not that important.

I also am not going to pan a guy and advocate that he should be punished just because he has vices. I'd much rather see Ted Kennedy put on a cattle car than Justin Raimondo.

[Janus]

Homosexuality is a vice...Homosexuality is a trait.Sure, it breeds pretty negative things, and yeah, its worthy of chagrin, but its just simply not that important. Anything that creates "pretty negative things" is important, IMO.I also am not going to pan a guy and advocate that he should be punished just because he has vices. It appears that some individuals are more predisposed to vice than others. Those individuals should undergo negative-selection.I'd much rather see Ted Kennedy put on a cattle car than Justin Raimondo.Why?

[Thomas777]

Homosexuality is a trait.
These sorts of propensities can be overcome. I am sure that there are people alive today who have homosexual compulsions who do not act upon them.

Anything that creates "pretty negative things" is important, IMO.
Burgeoning demographic collapse, racial strife, the exploitation of the country by a hostile elite are all far more important considerations than trying to keep gays from cruising. I can't really see what sort of utility there is to trying to force homosexuals to behave themselves.

It appears that some individuals are more predisposed to vice than others.
That is true, but people aren't merely the sum total of their vices. A racially aware homosexual who is civilized and intelligent is a valuable person. Its not important that he indulges in vices. Sure, that is a mark against his character, but who cares? Nobody is going to force you to associate with those types intimately.
Those individuals should undergo negative-selection.
They do. Most gays don't reproduce and they tend to die young.
Why?
Because Kennedy has actively facilitated the demographic collapse of America and Raimondo has dedicatied his working life to combatting these sorts of destructive political tendencies. Its not important that Raimondo is a "fag".

[Keystone]

Nobody is going to force you to associate with those types intimately.
Not intimately, no. However their lifestyle is now considered acceptable where it was marginalized before. They can adopt children and have test-tube babies from "donors", making traditional marriage an even lesser institution than it has been. That is activist homosexuality, and it ain't good.

[Thomas777]

Not intimately, no. However their lifestyle is now considered acceptable where it was marginalized before. They can adopt children and have test-tube babies from "donors", making traditional marriage an even lesser institution than it has been. That is activist homosexuality, and it ain't good.

A lot of things aren't "good"...but once again, its a symptom, not a cause.

Are you going to run out and start taking it in the ass because TV says its a good way to spend your time? Probably not. I'm not either. I really don't care. In fact, the fetishization of this sort of thing by the ruling class tells me that they are really slipping in a major way and sort of makes me chuckle.

At the end of the day, a handful of fags adopting throwaway kids isn't going to bring down America. Some mentally retarded Black female who pumps out a litter of 8 represents a far more destructive tendency. Some Mexican donkey-theif who shows up in America with his 18 relatives is another case in point.

[Keystone]

Are you going to run out and start taking it in the ass because TV says its a good way to spend your time? Probably not. I'm not either. I really don't care. In fact, the fetishization of this sort of thing by the ruling class tells me that they are really slipping in a major way and sort of makes me chuckle.
I gather you don't care, but many people do, and they aren't from the ruling class.
I know you don't bother with religion, but that's under pressure from the gays as well. Practicing homosexuals wanting to be ministers, and having their "marriages" blessed by churches who's faith condemns homosexuals...That's just not a symptom, and there's still lots of white folk who take their religion seriously. It's an integral part of their lives, for centuries.

[Janus]

These sorts of propensities can be overcome. I am sure that there are people alive today who have homosexual compulsions who do not act upon them. Environmental-conditions are too inconsistent to allow potential-weaknesses to proliferate.I can't really see what sort of utility there is to trying to force homosexuals to behave themselves.There is utility in forcing other groups to "behave themselves". What sets homosexuals apart from other groups?Its not important that he indulges in vices.Vices are important, because they are often harmful to a society....that is a mark against his character, but who cares?Character is a very important aspect of an individual.Nobody is going to force you to associate with those types intimately. Are you clairvoyant?

We have already been forced (inasmuch as one can be "forced") to intimately-associate with members of other minority-groups.They do. The vicious appear to be very fecund. What evidence do you have for their negative-selection?Most gays don't reproduce and they tend to die young.What evidence do you have for that assertion?

[Thomas777]

I gather you don't care, but many people do, and they aren't from the ruling class.
A lot of these people would happily marry their daughter off to the descendant of some field-hand, ritually lambast 'racists', and diligently express their support for Israel...all the while getting up in arms about the imminent threat posed by "fags". People of that sort are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I would also like to know what sorts of great things the Papacy and the several Protestant congregations have done in order to roll back culture-distortion...as far as I can tell, they want to guarantee that mental defectives aren't aborted in utero, they want to keep the border wide open, and they want to keep Israel safe.

I know you don't bother with religion, but that's under pressure from the gays as well.
Its under pressure because Christianity in America has become Dr. Phil-style self help with a ghost story added. Gay activist types realize that the primordial tradition of it (and the attendant moral code) has been completely eschewed so they decided to grab at a piece of the pie in the Churches. Its not as if American Christianity was healthy and muscular until the gays decided to subvert it.

Practicing homosexuals wanting to be ministers, and having their "marriages" blessed by churches who's faith condemns homosexuals...That's just not a symptom, and there's still lots of white folk who take their religion seriously. It's an integral part of their lives, for centuries.

I'm an atheist, but I was raised Prestybyterian and attended a Jesuit university...so I'm reasonably well-versed in the Bible...and I don't remember anything in the NT that commanded the disciples of Christ to enter a building every Sunday, empty their wallets into a big pretty plate, and listen to some work-shy fuckwad explain to them how they should vote on election day.

[Thomas777]

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

[Ixtab]

Environmental-conditions potential-weaknesses intimately-associate minority-groups negative-selectionFirst the inverted comma, now the hyphen; what other punctuation mark will you assign a hitherto unheard-of use to - the period, the comma, the question mark ?

[Janus]

...what other punctuation mark will you assign a hitherto unheard-of use to - the period, the comma, the question mark ? You will have to wait and see. ;)

[Hippias]

The point is that homosexuality isn't an important issue. The fact that it is fetishized by the Establishment is just a symptom of overall social decadence, its not a cause.

The problem isn't homosexuality per se, nor is the problem homosexual acts, but rather the whole homosexual rights movement that seeks social acceptance of homosexuality. No-one here is claiming that homosexuality is a causal factor in social decadence. It is a symptom, as you correctly point out, but symptoms are treated.

[Thomas777]

The problem isn't homosexuality per se, nor is the problem homosexual acts, but rather the whole homosexual rights movement that seeks social acceptance of homosexuality. No-one here is claiming that homosexuality is a causal factor in social decadence. It is a symptom, as you correctly point out, but symptoms are treated.

Of course, but its a more benign symptom than others.

If a patient is hemmoraging into his brain, the doctor tending to him should not concern himself with the fact that the patient also has a broken toe.

Plus, its essentially a bourgoisie neurosis...its posh, deracinated weirdos with dreary lives that lack meaning trying to create some grand narrative out of their glandular impulses.

Given that you are a big fan of Burnham, you appreciate (I'm sure) that the mass media apparatus indulges in artificial value structuring that in many cases does not reflect the preferences of the silent majority.

The real life "Wills and Graces" are in for a rude awakening...I'm young, strong, and pretty well-armed and I know you are as well. Can they say the same thing? The future does not look good for these types...they aren't adapted for anything, beyond hedonism and languishing in salons.

[Hippias]

Of course, but its a more benign symptom than others.

If a patient is hemmoraging into his brain, the doctor tending to him should not concern himself with the fact that the patient also has a broken toe.

No, or the patient will die or end up like Truthseeker. However, I disagree that just because gay rights isn't as pressing a concern to us as Mexican immigration or the Jewish lobby's push for further Middle Eastern wars that we shouldn't concern ourselves with it at all.

Part of the reason homosexuality has gained social acceptance in recent years is that historic resistance to it has been based on prejudice. This is true also of historic opposition to civil rights and feminism. George Wallace, for example, didn't have an articulated racial philosophy to base his opposition to federally enforced integration on. Similarly, many object to the social norming of homosexuality on the grounds that it is "gross." This objection to homosexuality has been made in this very thread.

The first step towards reclaiming what has been lost is to recognize that the inroads made by the left in our culture is partly a result of the right's failure to recognize what its first principles are and to articulate them. We need to oppose homosexuality, not because many people consider it disgusting, but because it deviates from the telelogical function of the sex organs, and also because it is fundamentally incompatible with the social order we are trying to preserve, which is a white, patriarchal, aristocratic, culturally Christian society.

Plus, its essentially a bourgoisie neurosis...its posh, deracinated weirdos with dreary lives that lack meaning trying to create some grand narrative out of their glandular impulses.

Given that you are a big fan of Burnham, you appreciate (I'm sure) that the mass media apparatus indulges in artificial value structuring that in many cases does not reflect the preferences of the silent majority.

The real life "Wills and Graces" are in for a rude awakening...I'm young, strong, and pretty well-armed and I know you are as well. Can they say the same thing? The future does not look good for these types...they aren't adapted for anything, beyond hedonism and languishing in salons.

You are right. Their knowledge of cosmetics and skin care will not enable them to persevere long in the event of an economic collapse, or some other catastrophic event.

[New Scientist]

We need to oppose homosexuality, not because many people consider it disgusting, but because it deviates from the telelogical function of the sex organs, and also because it is fundamentally incompatible with the social order we are trying to preserve, which is a white, patriarchal, aristocratic, culturally Christian society.

Well i did try. Looks like a lot of people here need some real good education on what homosexuality is, and why it is. All we have here is base reaction to a blanket term "homosexuality". No real investigation or discussion if the subject, such as

1. Bisexuality as the more prevailent precursor to homosexuality. Homosexuality often being a polarized decision from bisexuality.

2. Social context of homosexuality. How the levels of Testosterone and sexual competition within an environment are relative to others and can polarize some men and women into homosexuality.

3. Different kinds of homosexuality.

Butch, passive lesbian, Butch dominant lesbian, femme dominant lesbian.
Butch passive gay, femme passive gay, femme dominant gay.

Notice how we do not have femme submissive lesbian or butch dominant gay, as these are straight.

Also femme dominant lesbian and butch passive gay are often bisexual and polarized according the T levels in their environment.

4. genetic and environmental components.

5. Homosexuality as a mediator of sex ratio within biological systems.

Going to begin another thread on this subject to present my research in depth real soon. From the above debate, i predict the fanatical here will be avoiding the quest for truth on the subject ostrich style. What should be staring them in the face is that supression of homosexuality keeps the genetic correlates of certain kinds of bi or homosexuality within the gene pool.