Posted on May 15, 2011 at 20:25:58 EST
by Stalfos Conner.
Copyright © 2003-2014 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.
Nearly everywhere in the West, liberals have thus far nearly succeeded in making homophilia (also known as "homosexuality", an alleged "sexual orientation" (even though there is no scientific proof for that)) "equal" to heterosexuality.
Anyone who claims that homophilia is a "sin" or is immoral, unnatural or in any other way speaks critically of it, is highly likely to be accused of a combination of the following: "homophobia", bigotry, prejudice, hate, discrimination or whatnot.
Is it also bigotry, prejudice, hate or discrimination to oppose pedophilia, zoophilia, incestophilia or necrophilia? Apparently, it is. In fact, it's just a matter of which liberal is accusing you.
There are groups such as NAMBLA (in the USA) and Martijn (in the Netherlands) which advocate for – what they call – "pedophile rights". There are of course also groups which support "incestophilia rights", "zoophile rights", and so on. Needless to say, all of those groups are liberal groups, though that does not mean that all liberals support exactly the same thing, but that only liberals (or more specifically, leftists) support giving special rights to people because of their sexual orientation – which they deem social "progressivism". As with "gay rights", liberals apply the same tactics of accusing others of bigotry, prejudice, hate, discrimination, and so on, in order to achieve their goals.
Leftists are also the only ones who support tax increases, collective ownership (which is a particularly big issue to them), big government in general and so on.
However, when it comes to "gay rights", there is an exception to that rule as some libertarians also support "gay rights" as well. According to these libertarians, your sexual orientation is your business and therefore, they see it as an individual right.
Obviously, for as long as you aren't hurting anyone, whatever you do in your bedroom is surely your business. But that's not what giving special rights to homophiles is about.
Liberals first demanded "equal rights" for homophiles and other perverts in the 1960s. Almost three decades later in 1989, the first same sex marriage occurred in – not surprisingly – a Germanic country, Denmark. Then, almost two decades later, in 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that homophiles have the right to adopt a child. What's next?
If you have children and something awful were to happen to you, making you unable to take care of your children, they may end up being adopted by homophiles. Rather, that is what may happen if you live in one of the many countries in the West, such as Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, United Kingdom or some parts of Australia, Canada and the United States of America. That alone makes homophilia no longer an "individual right".
So with homophiles having gained special rights, such as being able to marry just because of their sexual perversity or being able to adopt children and raise them according to their own beliefs and values, what's next?
Legally declaring the Bible to be hate speech (as in San Francisco, in 2008), of course! But why? Because the Bible disapproves of homophilia and considers it immoral.
Wait, aren't we supposed to support freedom of speech? If we should support people obtaining supposed "equal rights" due to their sexual perversity (or alleged sexual "orientation"), shouldn't we support equal rights (as in freedom of speech) for those who disagree with giving special rights to others due to their sexual perversity?
In 2008, in China, a man was caught having sex with a bench. Should he now be given special rights? Should he be given the right to marry that bench? Is it bigotry, prejudice or discrimination to be against giving him the right to marry that bench?
What makes homophilia so special? And what makes homophiles worthy of being given the privilege of marriage or the privilege of adoption of OUR children?
What makes homophilia so special that freedom of speech, a HUMAN RIGHT, should be restricted so that homophiles (and homophilia) are not allowed to be criticized?
Keep in mind, you are "homophobic" if you are against homophilia or "gay rights" or anything else that starts with "gay" for that matter. Yet, "homophobia" is a typical liberal term, which literally means "fear of the same", since, in Greek, "homo" means "the same" and "phobia" means fear. Nobody is afraid of the "same" and homophilia is certainly not the same as heterosexuality.
First of all, the male anatomy and the female anatomy are different. In fact, the vagina is shaped for a penis to fit inside it. The anus is not. Sure, the anus may be considered a sexual organ but injecting sperm into an anus is not going to impregnate anyone, especially not a man. Injecting sperm into a vagina, is going to impregnate the woman (unless there are certain medical complications, of course).
Thus, nature made us into two genders for a very specific reason. However, by no means does that imply that if something is natural, it is inherently and automatically "good".
There is no "gay gene" as liberals claim. Yet, despite being so desperate to prove homophilia to be natural and equal to heterosexuality, liberals attack the very same facts that prove homophilia to be against human nature, claiming that that is a naturalistic fallacy. Of course, in reality, claiming that homophilia is natural because there is a (non-proven) "gay gene" is a naturalistic fallacy by definition.
Heterosexuality cannot merely be considered "good" because it is natural. An act of heterosexuality among relatives (incest/incestophilia), for example, is wrong despite the fact that heterosexuality is natural. Incestophilia is wrong because sex between two family members is against human nature and there is scientific evidence to prove that it is against (human) nature. Namely, children born out of an incestuous relationship have higher chances of physical and health defects, including reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability, increased genetic disorders, fluctuating facial asymmetry, lower birth rate, higher infant mortality, slower growth rate, smaller adult size and loss of immune system function. Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the aforementioned types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, individuals resulting from the first generation of inbreeding are more likely to never live to reproduce than those who are born of two unrelated parents.
Likewise, the differences in the anatomy of males and females, as well as from a psychological standpoint, exist for the purpose of sexual reproduction and therefore, anything counterproductive to the purpose of sexual reproduction (between consenting adults or not) is against human nature and is sexual perversity.
Natural selection acts on the phenotype in a way that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. Homophilia does not even fit into the process of natural selection, as it simply does not produce anything, especially not children. Natural selection, in short, is about the survival of those fit enough to survive. There is nothing "fit" about homophilia in any sense of survival. Again, homophilia does not result in children.
For the reasons mentioned above, homophilia is immoral and is sexual perversity. Needless to say, anything immoral should be rejected as any kind of "normality". Otherwise civilization turns into savagery. A line must be drawn somewhere.
In the "Leftism and the West" article, the leftist obsession with equality is perfectly explained.
Leftists are so desperate that they even claim that homophilia is good for helping to solve the problem of "overpopulation". In countries where homophilia is accepted and is an excuse to receive special rights, there was never a problem with overpopulation until plutocrats and leftists began their internationalist plot to kill the national sovereignty and indigenous cultures of these nations through the use of cultural relativism (a.k.a multiculturalism) together with mass immigration from the Third World, including that of theocratic fascists from Islamic occupied territories. In general, these people are overwhelmingly against homophilia. In these countries, there is in fact a major problem with a decline of the native population which is so serious that it has made the natives literally extinct species in their own countries. At the same time, the theocratic fascist populations are reproducing up to 8 times faster.
Whatever the religious concept of marriage may be, if marriages should exist, they should exist for the purpose of providing children with a lawful arrangement between their parents to ensure a safe and healthy upbringing for them. There is no other purpose to a marriage. People can love each other and live with each other without having their union legally recognized.
If the purpose of marriage is anything else, then there is no purpose for marriage at all – a line must be drawn somewhere. What's there to stop a group of polygamists or two or more related people from marrying if marriage is to be extended to all consenting persons? Marriage would have no meaning other than to form civil unions, which homophiles have widely demonstrated against, as they refuse to settle for anything less than the privilege of marriage instead.
Two relatives, such as a brother and a sister, can, like other heterosexuals, produce children but inbreeding is against human nature and natural selection – as explained before – and therefore incestophilia is immoral. Incestophilia couples are therefore unsuitable and unfit to raise children. Very fortunately, incestophilia marriages are (still) widely opposed in the West. And yet, homophile marriages are widely supported.
Same sex couples are not meant to produce children and therefore they cannot produce children. Homophilia – as explained before – is against human nature and doesn't even fit into the process of natural selection. Therefore, homophile couples are unsuitable and unfit to raise children.
Similarly, people suffering from a disease or a disorder that will make them unable to raise children, are therefore by default incapable of raising children, despite what the "possible" outcome may be. The end does NOT justify the means. Likewise, people suffering from a disease or disorder that will be inherited by their children at birth are by default not suitable to bring children into the world. An AIDS infected person who gives birth to a child is, in most cases, giving the child a death sentence by birth – not that liberals particularly care. Children don't deserve that. Neither do children deserve to be killed before they are born – abortion is yet another one of those liberal policies that is presented as an individual right, with its supporters declaring themselves to be "pro-choice" (from the perspective of the parent in question).
A liberal may claim that some (questionable) studies (by fellow liberals) have shown that there is little difference between children who are raised by heterosexual parents and children who are raised by homophile parents. Yet, those studies fail to mention that there are also perfectly normal and successful people who have been raised in violent families. So, does that justify violent families? These studies also fail to mention that there are also highly unsuccessful people who have been raised in peaceful families. So does that make peaceful families unjust?
Our survival depends on our children, thus, not on homophilia but on heterosexuality. Therefore, our children shouldn't be brought up thinking that the opposite is correct.
Often, homophilia is gender confusion. Physical attraction to other men's bodies, for example, is to due to profound weakness in male confidence, creating a feeling of inferiority and also isolation from other males.
Often, homophiles lack one parent, such as a father in case of a male. In this case, the male homophile will often seek a partner to be his father figure. In other cases, the homophile will seek a feminine male to feel more secure about himself.
Almost all homophiles are therefore liberals. Liberals put the collective above the individual (collectivism) and want to establish an egalitarian society in which nobody is to be considered superior to them. Standards have to be lowered to meet theirs.
There are also very few homophiles who are libertarians (and thus, individualists – the opposite of collectivists – (there was such a homophile politician – Pim Fortuyn – who was murdered in 2002 by a collectivist, for his individualist views)).
Various types of collectivists (i.e. communists, fascists, liberals, etc) seek to have standards lowered by various means. All forms of leftism are forms of collectivism.
Liberals (it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of homophiles are liberals) seek to eradicate morals and values, replacing them with delusions such as "pro-choice" (abortion – in other words, giving parents the right to murder their own unborn children). These delusions make liberals look like they support liberty and freedoms in doing so.
Fascists, such as the Nazis, favor the practice of eugenics. Eugenics is the study and belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons that have genetic defects or are presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits ("negative eugenics") or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits ("positive eugenics") and the practice thereof.
The Nazis campaigned through the use of mass media and violence to eliminate anyone who was not Germanic or otherwise did not fit into their image of an egalitarian "master race", identifying them as "life unworthy of life". People such as criminals, Jews, (at one point) homophiles, the mentally insane, the mentally disabled and some others were targeted for elimination from the chain of heredity. That is a disgusting violation of individual rights and yet, hippies and liberals have successfully labeled Nazism as being "far right". Rightism is individualism, which is in opposition to collectivism.
The LGBT ("Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual") movement, which is a collective term to describe the sexually perverse, is trying to achieve the same collectivist goals as the Nazis, only without employing eugenics (for now).
Nazi leader Adolf Hitler became convinced (while in prison) that Germany could only become strong through eugenics and "racial hygiene" – which implies the selection by government of the putatively most physical, intellectual and moral persons to raise the next generation (selective breeding) and a close alignment of public health with eugenics.
Liberals wage war through the use of mass media, the education system and the law to ban anything in opposition to them (including free speech, such as in the aforementioned case of trying to label the Bible as "hate speech"). Anyone who doesn't fit into their image of egalitarianism is simply made an outcast, labeled as a bigot, hate monger or whatnot.
In the Netherlands, parents take their children every year in August to watch the Gay Parade, an event where homophiles and other liberals parade half naked (naked in some cases), celebrating their homophilia and their rights to adopt children and to marry. In fact, as of recently, the Dutch have also allowed and even encouraged "gay" children to join the parades.
The Nazis did the same, creating – like the LGBT would later on – their own flags, customs of marching down the streets or channels and of course, their own tactics and methods of discrimination against anyone opposing them.
In Nazi Germany, any opposition against fascism was met with heavy criticism and even murder. Being against Nazism was considered "racism" (because it was considered a racial ideology) and yes, even bigotry.
Germany's capital, Berlin, had the biggest LGBT movement in the world before the rise of the Nazis. There were many homophile bars, drag bars (transvestite bars) and whatnot in Germany at the time. Germany was a very liberal country.
Liberalism is a (generally) non-extreme form of collectivism. Adolf Hitler, took it one step further by introducing a more strict form of collectivism, namely, fascism (another example of a strict form of collectivism would be communism). In this form of collectivism, anything collectivists support in general (i.e. groups above individuals, collective ownership above private property, equality above diversity, etc) is enforced with an iron fist. In this form of socialism, everybody must fit into the image of the collectivists in charge. In the case of Nazism, that comes down to their idea of a "master race" (which they equated with Germanics (the Dutch, Germans, Swedes, etc), whose countries were also later on the first to legalize "gay marriages" and gay adoption of children, and even now remain almost the only countries that have done so).
Since homophilia doesn't produce children, homophilia was outlawed as it was counterproductive to their idea of a "master race" – only for that reason. However, many Nazi members were, in fact, homophile (the entire leadership of the SA was homophile). As a matter of fact, Hitler didn't order the persecution of homophiles until he began to view some of the homophiles within his own party to be a threat. Since Hitler also needed the support of Italy, he had to prove himself to be anti-homophile to Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini first, who was "disgusted" by the homophile behavior of Nazi members during a party.
The homophile community has silenced anyone and anything on the history of homophilia within the Nazi party, in order to prevent homophiles from being viewed in any sort of negative way. In doing so, they shift their faults on others by claiming them to be "far right" and/or "Nazis".
Be it homophilia or necrophilia, it doesn't matter, as what matters the most to collectivists is the eradication of anything they see unfit under the excuse of "equality", in order to justify immoral behavior for their own (selfish) needs (i.e. racism in the collectivist ideology of Nazism; sexual perversity in the collectivist ideology of liberalism; religious discrimination in the collectivist ideology of Islam, etc).
There is no major religion in the world that approves of sexual perversity, such as homophilia (unless the religion is collectivist, such as Islam, whose founder was in fact a pedophile who even married a preteen girl when he was in his fifties). Most religions try to teach morals and values, often through blind faith (atheists reject the latter). Collectivists have always fought to eradicate religion and sought to replace it with a big government to govern the collective. The same applies to the followers of Islam (which is theocratic fascism), which seeks to eradicate all religions and non-Islamic states to govern the collective through Islamic laws. All communist states are atheist states, seeking to replace religions with the worship of the state – exactly what Nazism, Showa Nationalism (Japanese Imperialism) and Italian Fascism sought to do and what liberals (including the LGBT movement) are trying to do.
Whatever you do in your bedroom is your business, for as long as you aren't hurting anyone. Taking it anywhere else is immoral, unjust and destructive for our very survival – in particular when children are involved. Demanding any kind of rights for any of such behavior is simply insane. Parading it about naked in front of children should simply be answered with hospitalization in a mental hospital.
If we allow homophiles to marry, adopt children and receive other special rights – leave alone the same "rights" as heterosexuals – what is there to stop related people from obtaining the same rights for committing incest?
There are already pedophiles campaigning for the same rights that heterosexuals (and now homophiles) have now. Of course, the main difference between homophilia and pedophilia is consent; in light of that, pedophilia should be punishable (whereas homophilia between consenting adults should not). Yet, there are liberals who are campaigning for "pedophile rights". According to them, sex between an adult and a minor is good for the minor as it teaches the minor about sex. That's their justification.
There are even liberals who are campaigning for zoophile rights. According to them, animals actually enjoy being raped by (or, as they call it, having "sex" with) them.
Leftists don't care about the consequences of their actions. They don't draw lines. Their policies usually set us all on a slippery slope for their primary concern is to "equalize" everything and otherwise advance their agenda of demoralization and ultimately tyranny. If they can't justify it by consent, they will justify it by making up another excuse.
As part of their idea of "diversity", the homophile community in the Netherlands has launched a new radio station, called Gay Radio. In other words, the liberals feel that homophiles are not only in every way equal to heterosexuals, but are even considered to be a diverse (and almost ethnically distinct) group, in that their sexual perversity is not just limited to their sexual perversity, but that it determines their musical preference too. In fact, there is also a "gay" TV station in the USA, a "gay" olympics, a "gay games", a "gay" this and that; basically everything heterosexual is subverted into a "gay" version.
Liberals claim to support diversity and yet, they don't support freedom of speech when it is used to criticize their view of "diversity" (which is perversity), although they support it for themselves against those who are in favor of diversity but not perversity.
Diversity is a good thing, but when you put people with different backgrounds, religions or whatnot together, they are bound to disagree with each other on many issues. That, however, is not anti-diversity, as liberals claim, but pro-diversity as it allows different people to respect each others' opinions and freedom of speech.
Homophilia is not diversity. To claim that someone is born "homophile" and therefore equal to heterosexuals is like saying that people who are born with the Down Syndrome, for example, are equal to healthy people. Does that mean that we should have a Down Syndrome parade? An awareness campaign to make people aware of Down Syndrome, in order to raise money to help people suffering from it, for example, is awesome; but saying that those people are equal (in every way) to others is simply disrespectful to their problems. Even worse is to parade and celebrate Down Syndrome.
Anyone can be a homophile. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to engage in homophile sex. However, whether or not it is pleasurable is not any sort of proof or justification that it is healthy, sane, rational or otherwise "right". A pedophile wouldn't rape children if it wasn't pleasurable to him. That doesn't make pedophilia right. It certainly doesn't mean you are born to commit such acts.
People can develop an attraction to anything, including the same sex. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are born with that attraction. Liberals claim the opposite. The see no problem in homophilia; and instead, they simplify their view on it, seeing it as something that you are "born" with – even though there is absolutely no evidence for it. Thus, they see it as a heroic deed to support it and convince others of being "closet" homophiles. That idea alone, with enough support and advocacy, can cause confused people to engage in homophilia.
In turn, the number of suicides of people (especially minors) who engage in homophilia is 13 times higher than that of heterosexuals (as concluded by researchers). Liberals then claim that they commit suicide due to discrimination by "homophobic" heterosexuals.
However, liberals don't care about facts, science or anything like that. They care about equalizing everything, such as equalizing the economy through collective ownership. They try to cover up their own shortcomings by supporting the shortcomings of others under the umbrella of "equality". Anything else becomes – in their view – anti-equality, which is, to them, equal to bigotry. All of a sudden, they stop supporting your freedom of speech to criticize them, but they never stop supporting their own freedom of speech to criticize you back for criticizing them or others.
Yet, liberals have taken all of this to a whole new level: sex change operations. Just because a male may "feel" female or a female may "feel" male does not mean that either of them should undergo an expensive surgery, in order for the male to chop off his penis or for the female to install a fake dildo. You are who you are. If you were supposed to be a male, you are a male. If you are supposed to be a female, you are a female. If you "feel" different, it means you are not "equal" to the opposite sex (as liberals would like you to believe). It just means you are a different. There is nothing wrong with diversity.
The term "transsexual" makes as much sense as the liberals who coined this term and claim that sexuality is something you are born with. The term literally implies the "transformation" to another sexuality. By this very definition, it implies that the "transsexual" is not born as such, but has "transformed" his – or her – sexuality to another. It perfectly demonstrates the irrationality behind leftism.
On the other hand, transvestism is not a sexual orientation either. At most, it can be a (very perverted) fetish to some people but it is not a sexual orientation in any case. That does not change the fact that it too indicates quite a serious mental problem.
If science gets to a point where you can be transformed into a dog, if there are liberals around, there is no doubt that there will be people who will get convinced – or will convince themselves – that they are actually dogs. We will see hundreds or even thousands of people who will claim they were born human "by mistake" and therefore need "trans-species" surgery – much like there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people who suddenly, since the 1960s (when leftism in the West was disguised as liberalism and hippieism, instead of the fascism and communism that it was known for), have been claiming that they have been born male or female "by mistake" and therefore need a "sex change" operation.
As mentioned before, there are even "gay olympics"! How exactly do homophiles differ physically from heterosexuals? Why do they "need" a special olympics? There are special olympics, called the Paralympics, for physically disabled athletes, also known as people with special needs. Do the "gay olympics" alone indicate that homophiles are people with special needs? The very existence of the "gay olympics" speaks for itself.
Categories: "Freedom go to Hell", America: Red, Red & Red, Barack Hussein Obama, Big Brother on the March, Christianity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism vs. Individualism, Communism, Conservatism, Democrats, Demoralization, Divide and Conquer, Equal rights for you, more rights for me, European Soviet Union, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom Returns Fire, Globalism, Hollandstan, Internationalism, Islam, Judaism, Leftism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Minarchism, Naziturkistan, New World Order, North Pakistan, One World Socialist Hell, Plutocracy, Republicans, Rightism is Right, Socialism, The Global Gulag, The Globalist Axis, The Threat from Within, United Socialist States