For a long time I’ve been in the “keep government out of the bedroom” camp, but homosexuality has been overtly politicized lately — so much so that it seems to be the #1 social cause of the Obama administration. As the gay revolution becomes socially dominant, I’m losing my patience with it. It’s an issue that concerns at most maybe 3% of the population, but it takes precedence over matters that affect far more people’s lives. Lately, I’ve been thinking of it as a boutique cause that elites can support with no inconvenience to themselves. On reflection, I’m pretty sure that’s why it’s so popular amongst the nomenklatura. If you’re obscenely rich because of an unfair economic and social system that is stacked against the common man, supporting homosexuality is a way to make yourself seem righteous and progressive while doing nothing to improve the lives of the majority of people, and even while making things worse for them.
So I just thought I’d point out one blatantly hypocritical aspect of it that nobody seems to mention.
Why is it that when a man gets a woman pregnant because he had unprotected straight sex he is a rogue who must pay, while a gay man who has anal sex with some anonymous guy in a bathhouse and gets AIDS is a victim to be pitied, and by extension paid for by the rest of us?
If children are a blessing, then shouldn’t that soften our attitude toward the man who knocks some girl up? AIDS has no social benefit whatsoever, but the guy who gets it isn’t blamed. No, instead he becomes some sort of special victim, all because he couldn’t keep his pecker in his pants. And isn’t that the argument for forcing straight men to pay for unwanted pregnancies; that they didn’t have to screw the girl?
So, as it stands today, unwanted results of straight sex are bad and punished, while unwanted results of gay sex make the unlucky dude a victim?
Can someone explain how that makes sense?
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
“So, as it stands today, unwanted results of straight sex are bad and punished, while unwanted results of gay sex make the unlucky dude a victim?
Can someone explain how that makes sense?”
Sex that can result in babies (straight) is being discouraged in favor of sex that can’t result in babies (gay).
Elsewhere, termination of babies before birth has been promoted for 40 years.
Marital laws have been changed to discourage men from going anywhere near a woman and having children with her.
Child Support agencies have been set up that destroy men for having had sex that results in babies.
Men who like casual sex with women have been legally made helpless in court when faced with unsubstantiated rape accusations.
Men who live with women have been legally made helpless in court when faced with violence accusations. Make that any accusation.
It only fails to make sense when assuming the law is aiming to be just.
If instead one assumes that the law’s purpose is to reduce births, it makes perfect sense. It’s working too – in every Western country.
Why does AIDS = “Victim” but Pregnancy = “Your Fault?”
Because rent seeking bureaucrats and professionals in collusion with parasite women whom get unwantedly pregnant are better able to extract fees, dues, rents and monies from the fact of pregnancy than the fact of Aids.
Aids is an affliction centered around marginalized homosexuals, Africans, sexual predators, prostitutes and parasites. And none of these groups comprise as a demography whom are as sufficiently endowed economically as ordinary heterosexual males whom can as easily be bilked for fees, rents and wages of pregnancy.
As the above posters suggest, there are other more menacing profit making agendas in play surrounding pregnancy, that are not similarly in play surrounding aids. But you will find that wherever the afflictions of both pregnancy and the culpability of aids can be attributable to a man, pursuant to women’s and rent seekers profit and power objectives, then Aids takes on greater weaponry significance against the man.
Lots of interesting rumors floating around about the President’s sexual orientation. There’s Larry Sinclair, of course, and his outlandish claims. But then also Reggie Love, body man, and Barack’s recent Palm Beach vacation with Reggie, no girls allowed. Then Kal Penn, all the Chicago stuff – Man’s Country, the DLC at Reverend Wright’s church, Donald Young, the famous Occidental hand-holding roommate pic – and it goes on. All vicious smears no doubt but food for thought.
I will say these guys look genuinely happy. I’ve never seen that face on the Prez while Michelle’s around.
why? ~ a transfer of wealth, a perpetuation of slavery, why heterosexuality is a ‘social-construct’ and homosexuality is ‘in-born’, same as pregnancy being his fault; “He got her pregnant” a mindset which immediately defines her as a passive partner or victim and him the perpetrator… the same reason she has a ‘choice’ to become a parent and he is compelled to accept parenthood based on her choice… why she is a first class citizen and he’s a second and third class… it’s lucrative to the lawyers, judges, cops, jailers, probation officers, politicians, social workers, adoption agencies… and women…
It’s lucrative – specifically to AIDS the reason it’s framed as another victimology is that the medical establishment and the insurance industry are making boat loads of money ‘treating’ these ‘victims’ of a deadly disease. ‘Treating’ cancer ‘victims’ brings in a bunch of money as well… finding a cure breaks the source of income acquired from the process of treating the symptoms. Pregnancy has it’s own natural conclusion which results in life in most cases. AIDS has a natural conclusion of death and that makes the ‘victims’ much more willing to spend everything on a remedy. Therefore AIDS ‘victims’ are more valuable than pregnant women t0 the medical establishment and pregnant women are valuable to the judicial system…
Possessing and dealing with drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine,…is in most countries illegal. Yet the private use of them, as long as there is no danger for others, is not sanctioned. Thus in countries with a general public health care system like the UK, Germany,…everyone has to pay indirectly for the health related problems drug users inevitably will encounter.
The more areas the government controls of your private life, the more injustice you will encounter. The regulation of an issue goes hand in hand with generalisation.
Do i pity someone who gets infected with HIV because he or she has unprotected sex and should be aware of the dangers of random sexual encounters? No. But i am truly sorry for those who got infected because of blood transfusions, like it happened back in the late 1980s.
In thirty-two US states, there are laws on the books where it is illegal to knowingly spread HIV to someone else.
Shouldn’t homosexuals know that there is no such thing as consequence-free sex just as heterosexual men are these days very well aware that sex comes with dire consequences? By this point, I’m surprised there aren’t more MGTOW than there are given that heterosexual males are blamed for every outcome of heterosexual sex.
Ok, three facts you are desperately trying to ignore:
1) We supposedly have the freedom of speech in this country. What some people advocate is their right (for now at least) and that we can advocate for the civil and human rights of men is ours. You got a problem with this, there are plenty of countries that make sure homosexuals have no rights at all, you are welcome to see how the men there live too.
2) AIDS doesn’t care if you are gay or otherwise, all those heterosexual victims of the disease would take issue with your ignorant ranting.
3) The ’3%’ sounds like you got it from the department of Posterior Extraction since Wikipedia puts the number much higher. Let’s take your wildly deflated number for the truth (it’s not) and let me pose a different question – should a minority lose it’s right to civil liberties based on being a smaller demographic than yours?
Quit your hatemongering, you’re starting to sound like a feminist.
@Charles Martel: “I will say these guys look genuinely happy. I’ve never seen that face on the Prez while Michelle’s around.”
Let’s be fair, who would be happy around her?
>>all those heterosexual victims
Give us the number, please. It turns out claims of wide spread AIDS among heterosexuals was deliberately exaggerated by the lying scheming MSM in hopes of getting a lot more money for AIDS. The ole’ “The end justifies the means” Bravo Sierra.
Next, no one denies the right of homosexuals to lobby for what they want. The problem is, when the rest of us are told we are evil for not agreeing with them, that is, lobbying for something opposite.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. Anyone with an i.d. can type anything he/she wants on there. Also, if you check out the rules, it is all taken from other works. It is specifically prohibited to put independent research on Wikipedia. If I were to count the number of houses in my Mexican village, and put it on Wikipedia, they would remove it because I provide no other source. They have a name for things that are stolen from the work of others. That is pure Wikipedia.
Gays have attempted to tell anyone who ever engaged in any sort of erotic behavior with another same-sex that they are hopelessly and forever gay, thus hoping to get more sex partners. So, much higher figures are bandied about, pure politics.
This sort of thing does not work well on a board like Spearhead where people will speak up when you type nonsense.
I despise atheism and modernity but the root of this is what Nietzsche would call “slave morality”.
Liberalism is a secular religion and one of its basis if slave morality.
The motto is:
“If it is bad, it is good and if it is good it is bad, all while believing that there is no such thing as bad and good.”
Bad is far more difficult to engineer and can crash on its own, so you need mass media, laws, lawsuits and a huge government force backing it up to sustain it every single time and every single day.
It’s like being blindfolded. You cannot take it off or you will see the light.
That’s why liberalism counts on big corporations, NGOs and big government. It needs something big to implement is objectives because truth/beauty/good can never be killed or hurt, it can only be hidden.
Made up numbers, homophobic ranting, and of course censorship.
Mr Price, your official membership for the sisterhood is in the mail.
What piercedhed said.
As a gay man, let me tell you that every gay dude I’ve ever known has agreed that, if you go barebacking around town and catch HIV, it’s your own damn fault. We may have sympathy, but no one loses sight of that culpability. And as a libertarian, I do not agree with taxpayer-funded programs to provide support to the HIV-positive. Should a cure be researched? Absolutely, albeit not with money forcibly extracted from citizens.
My point is, it’s a straw-man tactic to take what is obviously a minority, politicized pundit viewpoint (HIV victims) and act like that’s the official stance of the zeitgeist. Like any other rent-seeking, it’s a few people trying to get others to pay for them, and making a big fuss in the process.
Oh, and why are gay rights so prominent in the media? Because it is the essence of stupidity to deny them. Gay person = person. Granted, as you correctly observe, there are much more significant issues we should be focusing on, like the fiscal cliff and the steady erosion of civil rights in general.
And because I’m a libertarian, I have to say it: if the government weren’t involved at all in these things, would it be a fight? Not likely.
Ex-actly.
The whole “gay rights” movement is just another tool of the Marxists to destroy Western society to make way for global totalitarianism (also known as global communism). Ironically, the guys who funded the early movements (the Soviets) are now legislatively banning homosexual propaganda in their own country. They have seen the destruction that the homosexual movement has done to countries like the USA, and they want no part of it.
For all of you gay guys reading this, or for that matter, EVERYBODY reading this – you are fools to support homosexual “rights”. Why? Because if you look very carefully at the countries of the world which have been the most tolerant toward their homosexual communities, you will notice that they are mostly Christian or post-Christian societies – Europe and the Anglosphere. The Chinese, for example, don’t tolerate open homosexuality. The Muslims sure as HELL don’t tolerate it (other than the boy raping). The Africans (even the non-Muslim ones) don’t tolerate it. In many parts of the world, open homosexuals are imprisoned or put to death. The traditional attitude toward homosexuality in the US, rather than being the most dangerous to homosexuals in the world, actually represented the more tolerant attitude in the world.
Now, with the “homosexual rights” movement in the US, you necessarily have the accompanying destruction of traditional mores and family structure. This is by design. But when that destruction leads to moral anarchy, and that moral anarchy leads to widespread criminal behavior (as it has now), and that widespread criminal behavior leads to societal disintegration and collapse (as it will soon), you will then find a society in which the old respect for rule of law and morality is gone, and along with it will be gone all of the protections and peace that homosexuals enjoyed here.
In other words, by supporting homosexual rights at the expense of society at large, you are cutting your own throats (and all of ours). Homosexuals may be angry that they don’t get to have everything they want, but who does? Keep going down this road and things will get worse for you, not better. And the “homosexual rights” clowns are no friends to the men’s movement either, as evidenced by the fact that their greatest supporters are feminists and assorted Marxists, the same people raping men in family courts and chucking men in jail on a whim.
LOL @ Kevin who wrote,
The ’3%’ sounds like you got it from the department of Posterior Extraction
and
Wikipedia puts the number much higher.
In the same sentence, even!
There’s a reason no reputable academic institution above the kindergarten level accepts Wikipedia as a valid source. It’s the digital equivalent of graffiti.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc
And by the way, there’s no such thing a “homophobia.” It’s a nonsense word used to stifle debate by painting people as mentally unbalanced. A “Phobia” is an irrational fear. Nothing W.F. Price wrote gives any indication that he has any irrational fears about sodomites.
As a father, you should understand better than anyone why these words are most important when they protect people who nobody likes:
1) Equal protection under the law for all.
2) Equal protection of government for all.
Either you believe that sexuality is a choice, or you believe that it is an identity.
If it is a CHOICE, then you should (the reader) have no problem making a rational choice to change to same sex partnerships, if the world becomes hostile to opposite sex partnerships.
If it is an identity, then the only words you have to remember are:
1) Equal protection under the law for all.
2) Equal protection of government for all.
@Antz
That’s pretty much my point. I don’t care whether homosexuality is a choice or not (I really don’t think it is, though), but sex is always a choice (unless it is rape). So why is it that the choice to have sex is punished in one case but accommodated in the other? Both incur public expense (this is the justification for CS orders), but only one incurs liability.
What’s “equal” about that?
I believe that anyone who shares who they are having sex with is not an adult, and should be shunned as such. I do not care what anyone does in their bedroom, beyond saying that those who brag about it should be excluded from any serious role in society.
The main problem I have with the gay rights issue recently, is that it is creating a role for government where it should have none.
HIV is an industry like so many other things. Why cure a disease if you can keep making money from the treatments?
And with all that we’ve known to protect ourselves the past two decades from getting it (safe sex can be boring, but you get to stay HIV free) no one should be getting it. There are no “victims”.
Sex offender registrration people who disappeared in Hurricane Sandy are hunted as aggresively as suspected terorists Drudge Report.
.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/28/17129349-sex-offenders-disappear-in-wake-of-sandy?lite
Look, I’m sorry, but if you have sex of any kind and you’re not raped, meaning it’s a willful and conscious decision on your part, then YOU are responsible for any consequences. Can aids be eradicated, actually, yes it can by either abstaining or choosing responsible sexual habits. Is that realistic, not really, but – just saying. That may include refraining from homosexuality. Oh golly, can’t say that. But, we must. Both homosexualism and feminism are running rampant in our culture right now and at the same time so is the belief that one is not responsible for their actions. First, I’ve heard the whole “correlation doesn’t mean causation before”…yes, I know snake bites and ice cream consumption. But true to form, that’s an irresponsible response. Why, because it might be true from a strict PC perspective (but then again that makes everything not correlated?) but from a non-PC perspective the connection is abundantly clear and very telling of our current condition as a society. Mind you all of us are paying for both hetro and homo promiscuity either through handouts and programs to single mothers, research grants and foreign aid for aids and, very soon, compulsory contraception so that poor ole repressed and held back law students at georgetown can finally have their much needed sex. ??? Shoot, we’re even paying for convicts to have sex changes? In terms of elites treating gays like their little projects, well, first there is much evidence that this is a marxists/socialist tactic. Second, I can’t help it, but what a horrible group of people these elites are…to focus on people whose only issue is the kind of sex they prefer? Meanwhile something like 40% of adult Black men are unemployed? Can you say we have our priorities off?
I too agree with the notion of “what you do in your own bedroom is your own business”…to a point. A very grating aspect of the current homosexual movement is the insistence for everyone to “accept” them. Meanwhile, gays throw their sexual excesses in our faces demanding we all watch them in their bedroom? I’m all for tolerating people, meaning, live and let live. However, looking at the demands from the gay movement on aggregate you can’t help but conclude that these people are trying to force us to…like them, worse, even praise them?
Here is the truth – what people do when no one else is around IS the surest insight as to who they really are, period.
And, you can’t force people to “accept” each other, that’s a massive violation of individual rights. I’ll determine whether or not I like someone after I observe them (get to know them), but, this idea that just because someone is gay automatically makes them a great person is just nonsense. Additionally, you are (or maybe were) able (at least at one point) find your own friends in life. That said, people choose to be friends with people they can relate too, simple enough right? I mean, Red Sox fans tend to be friends with other Red Sox fans and, importantly, tend not to be friends with Yankee’s fans. Over simplified but bear with me. Can you expect an MRA to get along with a feminist? Of course not. Similarly you can’t expect people to look beyond the fact that a gay man partakes in sodomy, you can’t. But don’t expect me to pretend it’s meaningless that this guy likes it in the rear. That doesn’t mean I dislike gay people, I’ve liked many, but not for their gayness. Will it matter in how I look and judge them, absolutely, but many outspoken gays are extremely judgmental in their own ways. Another thing, I saw the Morrissey said gay men would never kill each other? Really? Well, Morrissey, boy george will duct tape you to a wall rape you repeatedly and keep you there for days sedated on drugs. If memory serves me, george got community service.
To be honest; I think this issue is smoke and mirrors; like the bread tossed to the mob in the Ancient Coliseum of Rome. Merely something to muddy the waters of what is really going on.
Let’s face it, even the most staunch liberal comedians who devoutly speak praise of gay people mock them in their routine. In the movies, the gay always seems at least a little out of place. Like the straight father being labeled the stupid dupe, fully incapable without the mother present to watch his own kids without harming them. So is the effeminate homosexual as an object of laughter and derision in public. Yet a hallowed victim of reverence in private political halls?
Yeah sure, and Barney Frank and friends were all invited to all the socials that the media was not akin to I’m sure.
Let’s be real; the loudly proclaimed scientific discovery of a gay gene in 93 was retested and thoroughly debunked. Only those who have family or friends that are gay, and especially those that are gay themselves defend it. The rest of us don’t hate them as they are human beings; but we could care less if homosexuality got swept back into the closet it came out from.
We only stopped fighting it as in the eighties and before because we got tired of fighting them. Eventually, I suspect an version of rreal old school conservatism will reappear; and homosexuals will fight it. Even though the writing will be on the wall.
As usual, about homosexuality in the public eye, it is not funny haha ; just funny queer.
well said you couldnt say it better, one thing i would like to add, Why is it that everyone is blaming the man for having sex with the woman? when is reality it is the woman who have to say yes or no to the sex, The man cannot stick it in with out the woman’s permissison or that would be rape. She said yes and then the man have sex with her, How is that the man’s fault, Also if it is the woman’s body then she should protect her body from getting pregnant. everyone is overlooking the truth, so men should not have to pay for unwanted pregnancy.
As a heterosexual male, I will defend the right of men having sex with other men. So what? If anything, it just lets women know that there are defined men who don’t need or care about women.
As to the AIDS stuff, it was overblown (pun intended) and the radical gays
proved themselves to be jerks.
A recent Gallup nationwide poll found that about 3.5% of responders said that they were gay:
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-people-really-3-5-population-175103902.html
So, the best data available shows that Mr. Price was almost exactly right.
Interestingly, it also states that over 10% of the responders in Washington, D.C., were gay. This may explain why there is so much pro-gay legislation and propaganda coming from the feds. They are even trying to get the US Supreme Court to overturn bans on gay marriage by individual states, which seems to me to be a very clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. Of course, that’s been virtually shredded already by an overbearing federal government.
It would *really* be a legal overstretch to overturn amendments to the constitutions of individual states, recently passed by popular vote, to enforce a ‘right’ that was never, ever considered to be guaranteed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.
If children are a blessing, then shouldn’t that soften our attitude toward the man who knocks some girl up? AIDS has no social benefit whatsoever, but the guy who gets it isn’t blamed. No, instead he becomes some sort of special victim, all because he couldn’t keep his pecker in his pants. And isn’t that the argument for forcing straight men to pay for unwanted pregnancies; that they didn’t have to screw the girl?
————————————-
Because our society has a hatred of normal male sexuality nothing less. More examples: If sex outside of marriage is acknowledged as a social norm then why is prostitution illegal? If a woman is old enough to have an abortion without her parents consent why should men be arrested for having sex with her?
The reason that the birth rate is collapsing is that our society refuses to acknowledge the reality of female hypergamy. If people do not believe that one of the major purposes of men working is that they can extract status out of working and have families then no amount of social engineering will matter at all. If people think that identity politics, Aids awareness campaigns by people engaging in behavior likely to result in aids infection, bailing out insolvent financial institutions and other foolish things are more important than allowing men to have families then we are looking at several lost generations anyways. What we consider philanthropic goes back to what we value in life the most – it has a religious component to it. I remember arguing with a feminist online once and saying I am not against compassion – I think we should help each other I even think the government should help people – I am against you using your compassion as my private property.
Society will use any tactic to force producive males to host parasitic females; same reason why the girl is always the victim: victims are entitled to receive; men are the victims who must pay.
Another aspect of the Princess Principle of Privileges, Preferences and Payments, a/k/a the Special Snowflake Syndrome LOL.
Women are obsessed with gays because they triumphantly view them as pre-neutered males; it gives them a sense of power. They could go to the gym and lift weights to get the same sensation, but they are too lazy.
If AIDS had had its origin in heterosexual males, we would have never heard the end of it. Gay males are a protected class right now.
Gay rights is another distraction. Any man can suck any other man’s dick in private on a consensual bases. Full, complete rights right there. End of story.
Society is truly an insane asylum as Nietzsche observed. As a young man I read in the news how NYC cops would break open the heads of guys at gay bars. I thought, “WTF Why commit such violence just because a guy likes another guy?!” Later in life, I was blocked from crossing 5th avenue because being gay was celebrated in the parade. I thought “WTF, why do I have to cheer just because a guy prefers another guy’s ass over a woman’s?!”
In my early days, being gay was officially a mental disease. Now one is considered mentaly ill if one does not admit that he is gay, “curious” or whatever.
Correction to last post:
“men are the TRANSGRESSORS who must pay”
The answer is simple. Social exchange theory: if you view sex as a resource which women provide and which men consume, then everything makes perfect sense. The man must pay because he must give something in return for the sex. He is expected to pay. Meanwhile, the value of the man’s sex to the woman is nonexistent. Any study of heterosexual relationships, from marriage, dating, to prostitution, corroborates.
See: Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange
in Heterosexual Interactions, Baumeister and Vohs, Personality and Social Psychology Review
2004, Vol. 8, No. 4, 339–363
As for the popularity of homosexuality in modern discourse, it’s a tenet of the religion of progressivism. In essence, anything that disfavors people who believe in a stable, traditional, and viable value system is a weapon for progressives. Beneath the pious posturing, progressives unknowingly worship Thanatos. You will find population decline in any country in which Progressivism has taken root. The more progressive, the faster the decline. Conversely, countries that are still in the grips of traditional family values (what progressives derisively refer to as “patriarchy”) have higher population growth. The question remains whether the death of civilization is the ultimate goal of progressivism, or merely a side effect.
The purpose of supporting homosexuality is nothing more than undermining traditional family values, and thus, population growth. There is nothing else to it except the fog of memetic war. It is necessary that they obscure their real objectives, lest there be a pitchfork and torch day as the plebs discover the monster in their midst.
AIDS is a big business that makes a lot of money. It could be consider an industry unto itself. So gay males could be consider the golden cash cow.
“Society is truly an insane asylum as Nietzsche observed. As a young man I read in the news how NYC cops would break open the heads of guys at gay bars. I thought, “WTF Why commit such violence just because a guy likes another guy?!” Later in life, I was blocked from crossing 5th avenue because being gay was celebrated in the parade. I thought “WTF, why do I have to cheer just because a guy prefers another guy’s ass over a woman’s?”
Raiding gay bars is what got us into this mess. If the police left the gay distinct alone, the gay movement would have never started.
AIDS is almost entirely preventable by avoiding high risk behaviors (unprotected sex when you don’t know if the partner is STD free or not, intravenous drug use). Instead of spending untold sums trying to cure this disease, we should set money aside to help defray the cost of treatment for people who contracted HIV through rape (obviously not the rapist, though), blood transfusion, needle stick while working in a hospital, etc. That’s why whenever I see some talking head on TV whining about needing to win the fight against AIDS, I have no sympathy. We all know about this disease and how it is spread. If you consent to engage in high risk behaviors and contract the disease it is your fault. But, much like blacks in this country, gays are a “protected” group and it’s almost illegal to tell them “no” when they want something.
Like the author, I’m also getting fed up with the gay lobby in this country. They don’t just want you to tolerate them (which, by law, we must, and most of us do anyway.), they are DEMANDING acceptance. I don’t think people choose their sexuality, but for a group of people who will claim to be proud they were “born that way”, they seem awfully insecure about how the rest of us perceive them. And I hate all the f*g hag types who love to humble brag about their gay friends. I’ve known a few like this and let me tell you, they do it for the perceived status they get by having gay friends, but deep inside they feel uncomfortable around gays.
I don’t give a damn who you consensually stick your penis into,as long as they are an adult. More power to you, but I am sick and fucking tired of these assholes trying to shove their shit in my face or praise them. I rarely praise anyone, even people I admire and agree with. I don’t remember a time when a gay guy praised me for pounding a chick or two,I think it’d sound downright weird (or queer,if you prefer) if they ever did.
People talk about “gay rights”. Nobody gives a shit in the wider society,as a straight male. Just like with women’s rights, I have a sneaking suspicion gays will elevate their own rights above my rights and leave me standing there with my dick in my hand. Ideologically,I have nothing against giving gays all the rights I got,which is very damn few, but I’d have to see a movement seriously able to rival the gay rights movement to protect my own rights before I support theirs. The typical leftist bullshit about “all of society is engineered towards straight white males” doesn’t apply because every idiot who makes that argument knows damn good and well that nowhere are my rights as a straight white male protected explicitly in writing separately and especially.
Straight white men set society up to benefit everybody, not just the majority. I can prove it very simply. If society was set up for the benefit of the straight white males who ran things when it was set up, there’d be no protections for non-Christians to worship as they please, since in addition to being heterosexual and Caucasian,the majority of them were also fundamentalist Christians.
As usual, egotistical fuckheads have to make everything about them.If you aren’t hostile to heterosexual relationships or marriage,let me see a bill protecting us firmly and explicitly along with your gay marriage bill, and I’ll be the first to vote for it. But, as much as I admire many of the gay men in the manosphere,I have to say that I don’t think that will happen, because I think their representatives DO want to harm heterosexuals and they think gay marriage will accomplish this and that is the ONLY reason they are demanding it.
After all, nobody is targeting gays for arrest or segregating them from society here in America. Why is it so damned important that they get their gay marriage right now?
The poster above who said supporting the gay rights agenda is tantamount to cutting your own throat, even if you’re gay,is correct. If these radicals who speak for the gay marriage people succeed, the environment created by heterosexual white males, the one that attempts to extend pretty much the same rights to everyone except when it makes no sense, like a gay parenting bill,will cease to exist. If the gay rights movement succeeds at undermining the white nuclear family, your rights will cease to exist, along with everybody else’s. Then, just like it is in the rest of the world, not only will you not get to marry, but you’ll probably be burned at the stake for being gay, as was the custom 400 or 500 years ago in most of Europe.
We’ve had a pretty good thing going, and not just for white people, for the last 100 years. For the latter half of it, blacks actually got to move freely into the middle class,gays were celebrated for their creativity rather than impaled on stakes as a warning to others,lots of good developments. Why do people insist on fucking things up? We were already moving in the right direction if equality and prosperity is your goal.And if supremacy is your goal, then fuck you, I’m not supporting you.
And if Kevin thinks gays,people who only fuck members of the same sex, make up more than 4% of the population then I want to talk to his dealer,because that is some good shit he’s smoking. It’s a mathematical impossibility that gays make up even as much as 10% of the population,the human race would be extinct by now.