VARG VIKERNES Is A Free Man!

[Bathory Killcraft]

hitler was gay though so....but hitler does not represent all gays. there are books on it if people need to see the evedence i can link.

I'd really like to see that "evidence"

[Bathory Killcraft]

It's called discrimination.

Really? How about reverse discrimination, affirmative action, so on and so forth...

[JensJohansson]

hitler was gay though so....but hitler does not represent all gays. there are books on it if people need to see the evedence i can link.

I'd really like to see that "evidence"

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the historical record of Hitler ever having penetrative heterosexual sex. Not an anecdote, not an audio recording, not even anything on youtube. You'd think there was a picture or something at least, of Hitler in the middle of bukkake. But nooooo. And there must be thousands of pictures of Hitler, if not tens of thousands. I mean, how much more evidence do you need!?

Also, he liked hanging out in this small bunker with a bunch of sweaty (and male) soldiers. Case closed I think. (or should that be "case closeted")

Really? How about reverse discrimination, affirmative action, so on and so forth...

I always wondered what the criteria are exactly for distinguishing between "reverse discrimination" and just "discrimination". It seems to me even using the term "reverse discrimination" is somehow a tacit acknowledgment of "discrimination".

It's a similar situation to when people claim that there is no God but that they still are the servants of Satan (another entity who inseparably belongs in the same belief system as God).

What the fuck do I know. Maybe I'm gay. (But then on the other hand I can't be, because Hitler was gay but didn't drink and I have a beer in my hand!?!)

Conclusion: beer protects against both Satan and gay Nazis.

skål,

[Bathory Killcraft]

Hmmm, someone had a few beers too many tonight

Hitler had a chick. That, you can find pics about albeit of no good quality
Not that I care. If he was gay so much the better!

Reverse discrimination is something no one really touches as opposed to discrimination. Of course they are the same thing.

Satan is indeed very christian. Satanists are christians since they are buying into a concept that is a fundamental part of the christian doctrine.

Now, "conscious" satanists would most likely say they chose satan as a denial symbol, not as part of the doctrine. In most cases they are just confused drunks anyway

Btw Jens, you mentioned Swedish law prohibiting certain types of public rhetoric, if I am correct. That's very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

[Mormegil]

What the fuck do I know. Maybe I'm gay. (But then on the other hand I can't be, because Hitler was gay but didn't drink and I have a beer in my hand!?!)

I'm guessing that's not your first beer tonight.

[JensJohansson]

Hmmm, someone had a few beers too many tonight

Hitler had a chick. That, you can find pics about albeit of no good quality
Not that I care. If he was gay so much the better!

Btw Jens, you mentioned Swedish law prohibiting certain types of public rhetoric, if I am correct. That's very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

Only second (and last) beer ..

Googling for "Swedish hate speech laws" gives for instance this.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm

It mentions the Åke Green case in some detail..

Naah, Hitler pretended to have a chick! I can't find any penetration pix on the net. This means in all probability Hitler was gay as a trombone

[icecab21]

it is not that you are gay......IT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR "GAYNESS" THAT COUNTS.

This is one quote that I found in another forum that I liked.

[Stealth]

Hitler was gay but didn't drink and I have a beer in my hand!?!)

Conclusion: beer protects against both Satan and gay Nazis.

I don't drink and I'm gay about it. At least in the 2nd and 4th meanings of gay according to Encarta:

2. merry: full of light-heartedness and merriment

4. carefree: having or showing a carefree spirit

I'm sure Hitler was also full of merriment.

Btw Jens, you mentioned Swedish law prohibiting certain types of public rhetoric, if I am correct. That's very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

Interesting how you keep asking people to elaborate on things, you ask me to tell you why I defend gays and yet you still refuse to give an answer. Stop asking people to elaborate or explain things and answer the questions I asked you on the previous page! You haven't said anything about that and you keep changing the subject. Of course you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but don't expect to avoid the questions and maintain your credibility.

[hiro23]

I in full conscience cannot discriminate against anyone as I too have been a target of discrimination and therefore would be a hypocrite if I did.

Secondly I really could never hate anyone unless they'd done something to me or someone I loved.

[Ragehead91]

Jesus fucking Christ Bathory Killcraft! Would you please stop to avoid our question and telll us WHY YOU HATE GAYS AND WHY THEY ARE SO EVIL?

[Hubble86]

I don't think you should expect any answers. The guy is only provoking us the best he can and he has succeded. I think he is laughing his ass off...

[eagledreamr]

Btw Jens, you mentioned Swedish law prohibiting certain types of public rhetoric, if I am correct. That's very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

It's the same in France, if you have sexist, homophobic, racist acts or speeches.
Not hiring someone because it is a woman/a gay person/a colored person is condemned by the law. Now it's starting to be the same for the elderly.

Affirmative action is bullshit in my opinion, they put it in place some years ago, I don't know if it's still effective...

Let's just be equal, that's enough!

[Bathory Killcraft]

I don't drink and I'm gay about it. At least in the 2nd and 4th meanings of gay according to Encarta:

2. merry: full of light-heartedness and merriment

4. carefree: having or showing a carefree spirit

So can we call you gay then? Are you okay with it? At least when you're happy?

[Bathory Killcraft]

Jesus fucking Christ Bathory Killcraft! Would you please stop to avoid our question and telll us WHY YOU HATE GAYS AND WHY THEY ARE SO EVIL?

I'll answer don't worry. It's just that I'm a little busy atm bashing some more gay people around . As I said I 'll be all yours after that

Not in that way you cheeky little...eeehm happy person

[Bathory Killcraft]

I think he is laughing his ass off...

[Stealth]

Yes, you may call me gay when I'm happy and full of merriment.

And making jokes about how you are busy bashing gays and laughing your ass off is a failed attempt at trying to show what a rebel you are because you don't care what other people think of you. Btw, I don't feel provoked. I just feel that your "renegade" tactics are lame because 1) They don't make you look cool, 2) They explain nothing about your statements on homosexuality.

Now go look cool in front of girls (I hope you have a motorbike and a HammerFall cd).

[NeonVomit]

Yeah, an explaination would be interesting. Since you asked for one from my point of view, I have no problem with gay people, and like colour of skin or religion it's not a trait I'd judge someone on. I look at intelligence, character attributes and how good a person I feel they are.

So I see hating gays because of their sexuality as similar to hating all black people or all Jews in simply because of their race/faith respectively. That's just what it comes across as, if I'm mistaken please correct me.

And also, you said yourself it's not a conscious decision and that people are either born gay or not, so it's not like hating someone who's taken bad decisions.

So why the hate?

[Bathory Killcraft]

And also, you said yourself it's not a conscious decision and that people are either born gay or not, so it's not like hating someone who's taken bad decisions.

So why the hate?

Maybe it is after all

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:IQ ... lr=lang_en

[Bathory Killcraft]

No one is going to read the shit that follows but its ok at least it will piss you off lol.







-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The following article is adapted from the author's recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.
In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
Homosexuality is irreversible;
Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]
Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."

-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"

Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]
Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:
Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]
-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States

To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior
Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]
Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]
Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]
Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."
Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man
Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:

Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]
Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:
It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]
Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]
The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]
The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.
Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

From Science To Mythology
Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:

Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...[21]
To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...[22]

Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]

Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"[24]
Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]
Conclusion
In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Conclusion...don't be gay

[icecab21]

many articles make claims and give evidence to back them up, I wonder why this one does not give evidence for every claim?

[Ragehead91]

Okay, homosexuality isn't something we're born with. So what? Where is the reason for not being gay? Where is the reason for hating gays? People become gay by choice, what is wrong with it? Give us answers! Don't tell us about clichés, made-up lies or post pseudo-scientific or scientific reports. Give us a reasonable explanation! Oh! I'm right, you can't do that because there isn't one! Why am I even putting up with this shit?

[Stealth]

Bathory: You are right, I didn't read what you posted. I don't care about some long scientific or pseudo-scientific explanation that you got from I don't know where. I don't know if you think I'm impressed by the length of what you posted, so let me tell you right now: I'm not. More is not always better. Just give us your own concise answer. I gave you an answer and it didn't take me 300 paragraphs. Oh and by concise I don't mean one sentence, like "gays suck because they are evil".

So far, the only possible conclusion is that you don't have an answer.

[icecab21]

Under what reasoning would hate be a virtue rather than a vice? under what reasoning could hate be seen as a moral value to hold? i could see hate at most as a irrational defence against the irrational or a irrational defence against the rational, if not a irrational offence against rational or irrational.

[Bathory Killcraft]

I started writing some crap but really got bored 'cos there's quite a lot in it
I'll do it never the less. And it's not the unsolicited "gay people are nice, I know few of them" or the even worse "as long as they stay away from my ass I'm ok with it" type of defence.

You know also, lately some of you sound more pro-gay than gay people themselves:) I wonder if this is something you're doing out of some kind of sense of social responsibility or just out of pity. Or maybe it is the gay inside you

There is no biological purpose for being homosexual; someone could call it nature's birth control mechanism but then you red brigade, would call them genocide advocates. A living organism is primarily defined by its capacity to procreate. That's what reproduction mechanisms are in place for, that's what male and female anatomy evolved for.

Reading more on the subject it seems that the cause for homosexuality is a bit more complex than just biological disposition. A whole lot of factors come into play, many of them biological but for the time being I 'll stick with a primarily biologically (I won't use "genetically" 'cos there is no study that proves genetic defects or mutation of any sort) predisposed inclination even though there is a variety of non-biological factors that come into play.

Now, there's a shitload of other things I could mumble about but I'm bored - that's not the real problem anyway. The problem is what they do with what they have, as someone said earlier.

The answer is, not a lot.

I won't mention gay promiscuity which is statistically higher than heterosexual hence statistically yields increased STD probability. Don't get me started with that, most people of same sex preference I know (I know quite a few actually) have been through STD phases or even worse HIV. Then there is the unprotected sex element which again is statistically higher between gay individuals than heterosexual.

Then we get bi-sexuality, a curious derivative of homosexuality which some people conveniently label bi-curiosity or experimentation and most recently metrosexuality - if someone is not familiar with the latter just google "D.Beckham." Sometimes, it involves wearing your girlfriend's g-string in bed

For some reason also, these days it is only gay men they who "understand women", have a good taste for fashion, colour and style.

The advocacy and embrace of homosexuality, bisexuality and metrosexuality of recent times is in my opinion a guilt reaction of the hetero majority and most likely stems out of pity or compassion and the responsibility of "righting a wrong" that has been perpetrated and perpetuated through the ages. Same as with racial discrimination which resulted in affirmative action laws in the US and elsewhere.

The result is a relentless pro-gay discourse, disproportionate to the actual population(yes counting the closet ones too ) including popular culture, literature, fashion, design, music; everything that pertains modern living in general.

Same sex education these days starts at preliminary age and you get questionaires including questions such as "do you see yourself growing out of heterosexuality in the future?" and other shit in primary schools.

You also get spongebob and his (male?) friends singing "we are a happy family." Priceless

Even worse, gay activism these days is more aggressive and intrusive than ever. I don't really know an organised group of people pushing their agenda more forcefully and radically than gay. Gay parades and other pro-gay events bordering to pervert becoming the norm and relentlessly promoted throughout the world.

Gay behaviour is also statistically more radical and revolves mainly about sex. Just walk outside a gay bar and you'll see what I mean (yes I know you 've done it and no one bothered you right? ) They also tend to stir any discussion whatsoever to sexual preference (from experience again) and stuff their orientation to your nose. Be you bothered or not.

I won't say they are always hitting on anything male or female (depending on orientation) but often they won't respect the simple fact that the majority of the population is hetero.

I've wrote all that shit and I still feel I haven't even started.

Coming to answering the question, homosexuality is a degenerative state of human affairs which serves no purpose in procreation or advancement of human societies. The people-carriers are not the ones at fault, however we are presented with two courses of action; a) wash out the trait (if caused by biological disposition) or eliminate the possibility of "homosexuality by choice" or as a lifestyle by improving social standards, ideals and role models.

Conclusion...don't be gay

[Ragehead91]

That still doesn't answer why it is a bat thing.

Why is it bad that it has no biological purpose? Don't see why this is bad. Why does it need to have a biological purpose? Is this some kind of religious bs? "Thou shall not have sex for fun" or what?

I dunno the statistics but HIV can happen to ANYONE not just gays. It happens more to gay people, so what? Still see no problem.

Bi-Sexuality. Nothing bad about that either. Don't see the problem.

The whole "Only gay men understand women" is one big cliché. Sadly a lot of women really seem to think so, so I kinda get your point here.

This is actually wright. Homosexual have been treated very badly. And I see no problem why we should not accept them.

Oh come on! Again, I don't know where you live but here "Faggot" is still an insult. I know we accepted them and don't treat them like they're some sort of lower live form anymore but there is still more then enought gay-hate out there.

Again, I see no problem there. Children get taught that homosexuality is something completly normal and that there is nothing wrong with it. And then again, in primary school I wasn't asked those questions. We didn't talked about homosexuality at all. I think it is a good thing that they talk about it now, not a bad thing.

Okay, this is just ridiculous.

Again, what is wrong with gay-parades and pro-gay events? They get promoted worldwide! And thats a good thing. Nothing wrong with that.

Okay, and there is no such behaviour in heterosexuality? There is no sex-for-fun in heterosexuality? Again, another big cliché. And well, you had bad experience, but again, just because some gays are arseholes doesn't mean all of them are.

You say that we're pro gay because we pity them. Well, yes, a lot of us are. Because let's face the facts here, until recent past gays have been treated really badly. They're actually "becoming normal" nowdays (I used the "" because they were normal all the time, they were just looked at as un-normal) . It is great to see that the modern society actually is so accepting towards them nowdays. And I see nothing wrong with that since they're just normal people like you and I exept the fact that they prefer the same sex. Although it has no biological purpose, I don't see what is so wrong about that. If 2 men or women love eachother I see no reason to forbid that just because they can't reproduce. Most of the examples you used are clichees. Gays are not just a bunsh of always-horny-and-aids-ridden-egotistic bunch. Of course there are gay arseholes that fit your description but not all of them are.

Conclusion...You still gave us no good reason to hate them.

[hiro23]

it's no use, he's going to think what he's going to think, in the end we might as well be screaming at a lamppost.

[rikkertje]

Being gay is NOT a choice. You are born gay.

[rikkertje]

Ragehead said:

"You say that we're pro gay because we pity them. Well, yes, a lot of us are. Because let's face the facts here, until recent past gays have been treated really badly. They're actually "becoming normal" nowdays (I used the "" because they were normal all the time, they were just looked at as un-normal) . It is great to see that the modern society actually is so accepting towards them nowdays. And I see nothing wrong with that since they're just normal people like you and I exept the fact that they prefer the same sex. Although it has no biological purpose, I don't see what is so wrong about that. If 2 men or women love eachother I see no reason to forbid that just because they can't reproduce. Most of the examples you used are clichees. Gays are not just a bunsh of always-horny-and-aids-ridden-egotistic bunch. Of course there are gay arseholes that fit your description but not all of them are."

+9000!!!

[Ragehead91]

I think someone might as well could just close this topic. We won't get anything out of it but more clichees and we're too far off-topic now.

[icecab21]

If we are talking about eliminating, how about eliminating hate and other violent thoughts?


Metrosexualy has nothing to do with sex with guys, its just trying to make men depend on materialism and buy beauty products for self worth, making it destructive in it’s own right.