Three World Wars

[James98]

Gay Rights?
By Stalfos Conner
http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=15


Nearly everywhere in the West, leftists have thus far nearly succeeded in making homosexuality "equal" to heterosexuality.

Anyone who claims that homosexuality is a "sin" or is immoral, unnatural or in any other way speaks critically of it, is highly likely to be accused of homophobia, bigotry, prejudice, hate, discrimination or whatnot.

Is it also bigotry, prejudice, hate or discrimination to oppose pedophilia, zoophilia or necrophilia? Apparently, it is. In fact, it's just a matter of which leftist is accusing you.

There are groups such as . (in the USA) and Martijn (in the Netherlands) which advocate for – what they call – "pedophile rights". There are of course also groups which support incest rights, zoophile rights, and so on. Needless to say, all of those groups are leftist groups, though that does not mean that all leftists support exactly the same thing, but that only leftists support giving special rights to people because of their sexual orientation – which they deem social "progressivism". As with "gay rights", leftists 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 homosexuals is about.

The leftists first demanded "equal rights" 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 homosexuals have the right to adopt a child. What's next?

Thus, 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 homosexuals. 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 homosexuality no longer an "individual right".

So with homosexuals having gained special rights, such as being able to marry just because of their sexual orientation 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 homosexuality and considers it immoral.

Wait, aren't we supposed to support freedom of speech? If we should support people obtaining special rights due to their 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 orientation?

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 right to marry that bench?

What makes homosexuality so special? And what makes homosexuals worthy of being given the privilege of marriage or adoption of OUR children?

What makes homosexuality so special that freedom of speech, a HUMAN RIGHT, should be restricted so that homosexuals (and homosexuality) are not allowed to be criticized?

Remember, you are "homophobic" if you are against homosexuality or "gay rights" or anything else that starts with "gay" for that matter. Yet, "Homophobia" is a typical leftist 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 homosexuality is certainly not the same as heterosexuality.

First of all, the male autonomy and the female autonomy 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.

Any kind of sex other than heterosexual sex is obviously, for the reason mentioned above, against natural selection (and nature, itself), including both heterosexual Anal and oral sex. Yes, 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. Homosexuality 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 the fittest. There is nothing "fit" about homosexuality in any sense of survival. Homosexuality, again, does not result in children. For the reasons mentioned above, homosexuality is immoral and 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.

For that reason and just for that reason alone, homosexuals shouldn't be given special rights or even considered to be "equal" to heterosexuals, since (again) heterosexuality is in no way whatsoever equal to homosexuality.

In the "Leftism and the West" article, the leftist obsession with equality is perfectly explained.

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.

Two relatives, such as a brother and a sister, can, like other heterosexuals, produce children. However, incest marriages are widely opposed in the West. And yet, homosexual marriages are widely supported.

Again, relatives are not meant to produce children together. There are serious health risks involved, which, again, are due to natural selection. For those reasons, incest is immoral.

If two people of the same sex are capable of raising children, shouldn't they be allowed to adopt children?

If they are capable of raising children, they would be capable of producing them too.

A leftist may claim that some (questionable) studies have shown that there is little difference between children who are raised by heterosexual parents and children who are raised by homosexual 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? And 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 homosexuality but on heterosexuality. Therefore, our children shouldn't be brought up thinking that the opposite is correct.

In the Netherlands, parents take their children every year in August to watch the Gay Parade, an event where homosexuals and other leftists parade half naked (naked in some cases), celebrating their homosexuality 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!

That brings back memories of the Nazi parades in neighboring Germany, with 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. "Nazi" stands for "national socialism" as in a nationalistic form of socialism (with ambitions of world conquest, but only by a "superior race" or nation). The LGBT ("Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) movement, on the other hand, is an international movement, as in, a more classic form of socialism (which pretty much describes communism as well). The Nazis campaigned through the use of mass media and violence to eliminate anyone who was not a Germanic or otherwise did not fit their image of a "perfect" national socialist. The LGBT movement does the same, with the exception that they wage war through the use of mass media, the school system and the law to ban anything in opposition to them (including free speech). Anyone who is not a "perfect" socialist in support of "gay rights", is simply made an outcast, labeled as a bigot, hate monger or whatnot.

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.

Speaking of which, Germany's capital, Berlin, had the biggest LGBT movement in the world before the rise of the Nazis. There were many homosexual bars, drag bars (transvestite bars) and whatnot in Germany at the time. Germany was a very liberal country.

Liberalism is a mild form of leftism. Former leader of Germany, Adolf Hitler, took it one step further by introducing a more strict form of leftism (in this case, specifically, a type of socialism called corporatism), namely, fascism (another example of a strict form of leftism would be communism). In this form of leftism, anything leftism supports 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 socialists 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 the first to legalize "gay marriages" and gay adoption of children, and even now remain almost the only countries that have done so).

Since homosexuality doesn't produce children, homosexuality was outlawed as it worked counterproductive to their idea of a "master race" – only for that reason. However, many Nazi members were, in fact, homosexual (the entire leadership of the SA was homosexual). As the matter of fact, Hitler didn't order the persecution of homosexuals until he began to view some of the homosexuals within his own party to be a threat. Since Hitler needed the support of Italy, he had to prove himself to be anti-homosexual to Italian . leader Benito Mussolini first, who was "disgusted" by the homosexual behavior of Nazi members during a party.

The homosexual community has silenced anyone and anything on the history of homosexuality within the Nazi party, in order to prevent homosexuals from being viewed in any sort of negative way.

It's not so much about the fact that leftism supports homosexuality or vice versa. Homosexuality is immoral behavior and sexual perversity. Only leftists support immoral behavior over moral behavior, for as long as it fits into their image of "equality". Be it homosexuality or necrophilia, it doesn't matter, as what matters the most to leftists (especially leftist elites) is the eradication of anything they see unfit under the excuse of "equality", to justify immoral behavior for their own (selfish) needs (i.e. racism in the leftist ideology of fascism, sexual perversity in the leftist ideology of liberalism, denial of private property in the leftist ideology of communism, etc).

A line must be drawn somewhere. It is one thing to have homosexual Anal sex (or whatever other type of sex between consenting adults) in private, but quite another thing to get special rights for it – or "equal" rights for that matter.

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. 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 homosexuals 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 homosexuals) now have. Of course, the main difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is consent; in light of that, pedophilia should be punishable. Yet, leftists 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 leftists 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 drawing lines. Their primary concern is to "equalize" everything. If they can't justify it by consent, they will justify it by making up an excuse.

As part of their idea of "diversity", the homosexual community in the Netherlands has launched a new radio station, called Gay Radio. In other words, the leftists feel that homosexuals 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 orientation is not just limited to their sexual orientation, 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.

Leftists claim to support diversity and yet, they don't support freedom of speech when it is used to criticize diversity, although they support it when they need to criticize those who criticize anything within diversity.

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 leftists claim, but pro-diversity as it allows different people to respect each others' opinions and freedom of speech.

Sure, there are people who are actually born homosexual (there was even a good homosexual politician – Pim Fortuyn – who was murdered in 2002 by a leftist, for his non leftist views), although there are very few of them as compared to the number of people who engage in homosexuality.

Of course, there are also people who are born with Down Syndrome (among many other diseases). 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.

Anyone can be a homosexual. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to engage in homosexual 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. Leftists claim the opposite. The see no problem in homosexuality; and instead, they simplify their view on it, seeing it as something that you are born with. Thus, they see it as a heroic deed to support it and convince others of being "closet" homosexuals. That idea alone, with enough support and advocacy, can cause confused people to engage in homosexuality.

In turn, the number of suicides of people (especially minors) who engage in homosexuality is 13 times higher than that of heterosexuals (as concluded by researches). The leftists then claim that they commit suicide due to discrimination by "homophobic" heterosexuals.

However, the leftists don't care about facts, science or anything like that. They care about equalizing everything, such as in the economy with 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, the leftists 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 dildos

The term "transsexual" makes as much sense as the leftists 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 fetish to some people but it is not a sexual orientation in any case.

If science gets to a point where you can be transformed into a dog, if there are leftists 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 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.

There are even "gay olympics". How exactly do homosexuals differ physically from heterosexuals? Why do they "need" a special olympics? There are a special olympics, called the Paralympics, for physically disabled athletes, also known as people with special needs. Do the "gay olympics" alone indicate that homosexuals are people with special needs? In other words, the whole existence of the "gay olympics" speaks for itself.

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

The Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC)
http://atcoalition.com/