To gay or not to gay? There is no question.

This is a relatively unstructured post, based on comments on Craig Murray’s site. His post gave some discussion to a recent Gallup poll about Muslims in the West. Link HERE. It will help to read his post first.
  

Can a person who is “25% Arab” be a racist? Of course. Genetic make-up isn’t a guarantee against being a racist. Is say, a black African, who has ‘no problem’ with South American natives, welcome the white Europeans, but disfavour the Chinese, a racist? Of course, but if that disfavour doesn’t manifest in anything then it’s trivial racism. I think most people are ‘trivially racist’. A room contains 18 people who can be classified by race.  3 whites, 3 Africans 3 Chinese, 3 Indians, 3 Aborigines, 3 South Americans. They are instantly placed in that room in a random fashion. What’s the chances they arrange/group themselves into race?

That is what I call trivial racism. What have you done when you see a room nearly full of your own ethnic group, and there’s been one foreigner? Have you ‘turned away’ from the foreigner, or have you made a conscious effort to speak to the other race? If the former, then you are displaying trivial racism. If the latter, then you are still displaying trivial racism because you had to artificially make an effort to engage with the person of a different race.

If your mind never at any stage had any effect on whether you talk to them or not, then I’d say such a thing is rare. But I can guess your mind will have flagged their race when first spotting them which I’d classify as sub-trivial racism. Purchasing goods from your own race without the conscious decision not to buy from other races is also trivial racism. Trivial racism is hardly ever discussed. It is ‘deliberately discriminatory’ or ‘prejudicial racism’ is the thing most of us should reject.

Time moves forward; What then of somebody who holds an idea that was commonplace 50 years ago but is uncommon these days. Is he ‘backward’. Are Luddites backward or do they have a case that innovations will cause a greater harm in the long term.

sexual irony - whose message is guaranteed to be misunderstood
 
Why do pro-gay people and liberals who ‘let homosexuality be’, attack Muslims and Christians and the theology they base their anti-Gay opinion on, but very rarely Jews and Judaism?

If sexual acts  between two (or more) men are OK, as the gay parade make out, then is having sex with your parents or your grandmother OK? What then is it wrong with have sex with two year old? A 12 year old? A person who is 15 years 363 days 23 hours old yet it is OK to have sex with a person 61 minutes older? Why is not OK to be naked in public? Why is it wrong to have sex in public on the No 14 bus or while waiting at the chippy?

These are serious questions. But they probably won’t be addressed by gays because it exposes the hypocrisy of pro-gay arguments and ties the liberal clergy in ‘knots’. The problem for them is the liberalism they deploy to justify their behaviour isn’t applicable to ALL and EVERY sex act (lets keep it simple and exclude ‘underage’ sex) say with your parents, brother or sister or the newly born kitten, and it will never be applicable without human restrictions. 

Fundamentalist liberalism which gays and pro-gays drivel out is a nonsense. All societies impose boundaries of social acceptance, because all societies recognise the need for these thresholds of behaviour. That some of these boundaries are solid and long established is seem by some as an irrelevance or even a point for attack. Traditional values which have aided fruitful societies, get cursed as ‘static’ and – probably deliberately – conflated with ‘badness’ and ignorance. Tradition is cast akin to an affliction. Yet all homosexuals will at some stage espouse ‘old’ moral principles that goes against the liberty they use to excuse their sexual acts. This shows their hypocrisy. Liberalism/liberty actually becomes self defeating at some stage.

Things aren’t bad just because they are old, but that’s the garbade the gay lobby churn out. And really, are humans and their needs so different now than what they were 4, 6, 8000 years ago? Do we no longer need food, shelter, security, the community? Of course not.

We are being asked to believe by the gay parade that traditionalists, either by theology or otherwise, are essentially “negative” elements of society. What then of the need for food, shelter etc? Funeral rituals, the formalities of a Japanese party or kissing the nipples of a tribal leaders daughters {as is the social norm in some societies}, or aboriginal rights of passage into manhood, birthday celebrations, New Years eve/day? Pass the liberal dustbin please darling.

The human mind is great at justifying human behaviour. We see this today with Bush/Blair/Rove/Cheney justifying torture. We see it in Palestine, with the bombing of women and kids and bulldozing they houses, making them give birth (and death) at a checkpoint because they are refuses leave to get to a hospital etc etc etc.

People do the same thing with gay sex. Gay sex is a mental choice. You don’t have to shove your penis in and out of a mans anus. If you like things in your bottom, then it doesn’t HAVE to be a mans penis, and from some X-ray’s I’ve seen, it sometimes isn’t.

And so the mind works on many fronts, citing homosexuality as “development” and “progression” (both those claims are preposterous and fiercely contestable) or that what they call ‘love’ but actually mean sex. NONE of their spins relate to the conscious decision to have your bottom poked by another, other than individual desire to engage in such acts.

Again, you can love your Mother and Father yes? The gay advocates position on same sex means you cannot argue against having sex with your parents. But of course you shouldn’t have sex with your parents – because it’s perverse. The word “love” is the cloak for ‘sexual acts’ and cloaks gay sex acts. The mind can easily be made to think there is nothing wrong with it especially when the mind determines for itself what is permissible and when the mind has decided that’s what it wants.
 
This mind bending doesn’t stop there, it’s evident in virtually EVERY part of human society. Monotheists recognise their minds are bent. They cannot argue with God. They have to put aside their quirks and follow the clear advice God has issued. That’s the essence of being a believer coined by the term Muslim – One who submits. Practicising Christians and Jews are also Muslims in that context.

And in regards to homosexuality, what could be argued is the Hebrew founded denunciation of homosexuality is passed over (via mind bend again) so that the Jewish condemnation of homosexuality never gets a mention. Of course not. It would invite the unwanted attention of the “you’re an anti-Semite!” spotlight.

In occidental looking countries, the mind game sees Islam and Christianity the soft targets to aim for. Christianity because these days it’s essentially legally powerless, and Islam for the same reason.

 Not that I want Judaism to be attacked for it’s correct stance of homosexuality, I’m simply pointing a case of where the mind self-censors and beguiles itself. Trivially: the mind has even thrown out the correct meaning of the word ‘gay’ – meaning happy.

Hope my spam filter’s working.

I have the fingers of one hand waiting to count the proclamations that Judaism is backward, and retrograde, and that practicing Jews are prejudiced who have a ‘problem’ and that they really must learn to conform to western values.

So I disagree with the execution of homosexual acts. But it seems to me, there are far more serious matters to concern ourselves with.

 Further reading: “Genetic Disorders Like S.A.D. Deserve Treatment, Not Acceptance – by George Kocan

(apologies for publishing the ‘scratchpad draught” of this earlier)

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “To gay or not to gay? There is no question.”


  1. 1 Edo May 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    “…it seems to me, there are far more serious matters to concern ourselves with.”

    I agree.

    I’m neither religious nor homosexual, but definitely believe religion causes more social upheaval, more conflict, more violence, more problems than homosexuality ever did.

  2. 2 lwtc247 May 8, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    It is a pity that the application and/or consequence of the parroted justification for homosexuality never gets an airing or the fact that the issue is used to attack almost exclusively, Islam and Christianity.

    As for “religion causes more social upheaval, more conflict, more violence, more problems than homosexuality ever did.
    – It is shocking how those who fall under the banner of ‘believer’ have allowed major manipulation of their religion to act as an excuse for human atrocities, but I think it’s only fair to apportion the majority of the blame for this on the power elite manipulating the name of religion, and not that much on the ‘Joe Bloggs believer’ type.

    I do think the world has come to the point now where it can easily see through the disgusting claims that religion justifies their actions e.g. murdering fraudsters such as Bush who claim it’s in the name of religion.

  3. 3 lwtc247 May 15, 2009 at 4:44 am

    This was in the spam container:

    URL-killed.com…

    And then there’ s public masturbation. From public restrooms to snow packed mountains, almost everyplace can be a’ special’ place. If you really getting into kink, try filming your public displays of self- affection. There are lots of guys getting turn…

    lwtc247 comment: I’m letting this spam through because it adds to the point I was making. Gays would presumably agree to some kind of standard on sex, e.g. NOT masturbating in public (or am I wrong on that?). Yet others who may want to publically sexually please themselves say would disagree. How then can the gay say those who would like to have a standard of not tolerating gay sex be wrong, yet the gay is right in applying the standard to those who want to do lewd acts in public.

    The gays fall foul of their own argument. They know the HUGE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE don’t want ‘total liberty’ to do what the hell they like in public, in relation to sexual acts or otherwise, so gays MUST agree to some standards. However the only thing in support of their own standards, is their own desire to indulge in their perversion and those libertarians who like Gays believe their own personal code of ethics is how the world should be run, which again tramples on those people for whom Gods Law is the ultimate ethos.

    Also, my predictions of an impending barrage of span proved correct. Thankfully the spam filter has worked wonders, cutting off large numbers of sex spam. Why the deluge of sex stuff? Why do so many websites now have soooooo many pics of “crikey you are damn beautiful” pics of fat free, spot free, sexually enticing, scantily clad and displaying sexually provoking poses – such women whose bodies are grossly unrealistic, but in true Edward Bernays style, have been given a Photoshop makeover and undergone body shaping regimen, are used (including using themselves!) to appeal to the things men physically want from women, at the near total expense of all other qualities. BECAUSE SEX SELLS. There’s money in sex and money attracts sex. People will do all sorts to justify their sexual practices Sex is IMHO the greatest weapon there is to make man stumble from a decent code of morals, in which exert different strengths of erosion to that moral code. Homosexual practices are one.

    I see the world as a religious world. One where Iblis whispers in our ears to pull us away from God. Every bad thing stems from those whispers. Gay sex is just one aspect of that. I think all of us fall foul of those whispers at times, but we have the choice to stop engaging in them and choosing to reject them, seeking the forgiveness of God afterwards.

    I hope I have demonstrated the hypocrisy of gay sex. It’s a perversion of the metal process to justify it. Bending to Western concepts of sex causd me a lot of misery in my youth. Sex needs to be confines of marraige between a man and a woman, and not blurte out throughout society as it has done.

    Damn the cover pages of the glossy mags, the skin whitening, spot removing products (all advertised by people with pale coloured skin and bodies in conformity with the established fake projection of what we as people should look like). Damn you! Damn you all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
May 2009
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: