I'd like to preface this by saying that though I write a lot about it, the topic of homosexuality is of little personal interest to me. The reason I go on about it is that while a lot has been written about the jews, race, and feminism, little has been written about homosexuals outside of the "religious right," even though queers wield at least as much power as say, blacks or feminists.

So successful have been the queers in their campaign to legitimize their lifestyle that there are now school-sanctioned "GLBT clubs" in many junior highs, in essence telling kids who have just hit puberty that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice (as if puberty isn't confusing enough without having a bunch of queers telling you that it's "OK to be gay" and that it might take some experimentation in order for you to figure out your "sexual orientation").

Something I've been noticing about heteros who champion "gay rights" are the inherent hypocrisy and double standards in their positions.

For example,

• My mother, who sees nothing wrong with homosexuals getting married, was shocked when several years ago I said that I didn't particularly care if polygamy were to be legalized (this in response to a news story about Muslims in British Columbia pushing for the legalization of polygamy). How can you be for "gay marriage" but suddenly revert to being a supporter of traditional marriage when the suggestion of legalizing polygamy comes up?

[/*:m:35b9lfwq]

• My grandmother, who early on supported the idea of lesbian couples acting as foster families, a few years ago expressed outrage that the province of Quebec had legalized "swingers clubs." How can you be in favor of sexual deviants looking after children but oppose sexual deviants doing their thing among consenting adults in their own private clubs?

[/*:m:35b9lfwq]

• Fag the Bitcher (aka "Hunter Wallace") calls people who oppose the homosexual movement "haters" and "bigots" and feels that white nationalism shouldn't "lower" itself by being associated with such homophobes; yet according to him, it's important that we, as white nationalists, outlaw pornography. So let me get this straight, Fag -- as a grown man, I shouldn't be allowed to look at Miss January's tits if I feel like it (that should be for the state to decide for me), but if I want to pump jizm up another man's rectum, that's AOK and the state has no business interfering?[/*:m:35b9lfwq][/list:u:35b9lfwq]

All of these positions are inconsistent. If you're going to champion sexual freedom, you either do it right across the board -- in which case pornography, polygamy, and swinging should not pose a problem -- or you're pursuing a hidden agenda.

What could the hidden agenda here be? What I see in common between the three above things is feminism: porn, polygamy, and "free love" are all things which some women find threatening because they believe they disempower women. As Simon Sheppard has remarked on his website, in the battle between the sexes, women gain power by increasing the cost of sex, while men gain control by lowering it.

Both my grandmother and mother are feminists. In the case of Fag the Bitcher, I have a post of his from his old Odessa Syndicate blog in which he says the reason he wants to outlaw pornography is because it's "degrading to women." Needless to say, that's precisely the view of feminist anti-porn crusaders like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon (who in the 80s, tried to ban porn and were to some extent successful in Canada).

Anyone who disagrees with my assessment is welcome to put forward an alternate explanation that makes more sense, but to me it seems obvious that there's a strong tie between the feminist agenda and "gay rights."

Another thing I've noticed is how staggeringly dishonest heteros who champion "gay rights" can be when attempting to uphold their silly positions.

Once when I was having an argument with my cousin, I had him tell me that there was no connection whatsoever between homosexuality and AIDS. Um, yeah. Whatever. When a person makes a statement which is so blatantly false, you don't even know how to respond.

I had another guy tell me that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with having children and that nothing in the history of marriage would support such a view. WTF?

What motivates such otherwise intelligent people to take such absurd and untenable positions? Are they secretly queer? Are they protecting someone who is? Is the homosexual movement's propaganda really that effective? I don't get it.




The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/