Saturday, 27 June 2015

Sodomite Pride: Why are we forced to celebrate male perverts obsessions with men's bottoms (not to mention minge-eating lezzers)?

Today is pride day - rainbow flags are flying from public buildings, social media propaganda outlets like facebook are awash with the same.  In cities across the decadent west, sodomites and their female counterparts are dressed in their best bedroom gear, practically having sex in the streets as idiot liberals and their poor confused children cheer on a display of sordid sexual debauchery.  The police (those who aren't mincing about in bondage wear and pink færy costumes and themselves participating in the pride marches) are failing to uphold their legal requirement to protect the innocence of children, not arresting a single individual for public obscenity. 

One has to question what the whole pride issue is?  Homosexuality is very simply the fulfillment of a desire by people who have failed to leave adolescence and become healthy adults, to put their todgers into each others bottoms.  So gay pride must therefore be an overwhelming desire to shout to everyone within earshot (whether we like to hear or not), that these individuals take great pride in touching each others bums with their hands, penes, a variety of objects and of course tongues - taking great pride in the ability to swallow fæces and semen whilst dressed as one of the Village People or as Danny Le Rue (making pride in the 1970s part of their unwholesome perversion!)

Sexuality differs from person to person.  What one person considers normal, another may not.  What consenting adults get up to behind closed doors is their own business and no-one elses.  Taking to the streets in sexual costumes waving flags declaring that they are proud of their bedroom athletics makes their sexuality the business of everyone.  This invites interest in the over-representation of homosexuals in the ranks of the criminal pædophile fraternity.  It isn't just moslems who like to rape children.  Remove moslems from the statistics and the percentage of homosexual pædophiles rockets to the point where heterosexual pædophilia looks like a statistical anomaly.  Why aren't the pride marchers carrying banners of destroyed children, if being gay is something we should all admire?  If homosexuals were as 'good as you' and me (as they claim), then the number of pædophiles amongst them would be such as to make those who prey on children a very small minority.  Sadly, that isn't the case.

Homosexuals do not restrict their antics to the bedroom.  They have their own pubs and nightclubs and entire areas of various cities (including much of Brighton and Canal Street in Manchester).  That in itself isn't a problem really, and could be seen as a positive thing as it allows for people who wish to sodomise one another to meet amongst people who share this desire.  Creating a parallel society with no links to the majority population cannot be anything but a good thing.  The more separate they make themselves, the better.  Unfortunately, they do not want to be separate.  Gay pride is a euphemism; what they really mean is gay power.  The pride marchers are gay supremacists and they will stop at nothing to queer the nation to give them total control.

What is a problem with the gay agenda is that they operate in a manner which would make the Freemasons blush - when homosexuals gain positions of authority in the workplace, government or elsewhere, they use their positions to discriminate against people who do not share their proclivities.  Whereas heterosexuals don't generally give a damn about the sexual activities of others, homosexual managers make a point of demanding that only their fellow bottom-lickers are promoted.  When they achieve positions in government, they use their influence to push for legislation which discriminates against excellence and in favour of perversion.  A man can apply for a job he is woefully unqualified for and get it simply because he likes to suck cock.  Gay pride must surely include an element of arrogant pride in the stupidity of ordinary people in allowing for legislation to be enacted which denies them advancement in work unless they indulge in turd burglary and poo-eating.

Not content with having Civil Partnerships created to give homosexuals legal protection in old age, allowing for one 'partner' of a couple to gain the equivalent of Widow's Benefit in the advent of the other dying (forgetting that homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous and thus unlikely to form lasting relationships), gay power activists have taken it upon themselves to destroy the institution of marriage, which exists to protect children and families.  There is no need for gay marriage; civil partnerships are 'marriage' in all but name.  The fact that the name of marriage itself has been usurped is an act of political terrorism, with no benefit to the homosexuals, other than to make a mockery of real marriage.

In schools, sodomites have pushed through sex education classes which encourage underage boys to sodomise one another and to fall for the lure of predatory homosexual pædophiles.  The natural idea of one man and one woman marrying, living together monogamously, and raising children to do likewise, has been steamrollered to make way for the gay lifestyle of anonymous casual sex, with the accompanying increase on sexually transmitted diseases, depression, mental illness, inability to form stable relationships, experiments with race-mixing, fatherless bastard children and many other ills which are wrecking society.  Gay pride is a pride in creating misery for the rest of us and imposing a lifestyle which was previously (and correctly) identified as dysfunctional and borne of mental illness, upon society as a whole.

The rainbow flag should not be flown over public buildings.  To do so is to afford it recognition as one would a sovereign nation.  The rainbow flag is not a symbol of pride, but of supremacist gay power.  Perhaps though, this may be a good thing.  The more homosexuals insult us by demanding that we are denied employment so that they can get cushy jobs which they are not qualified enough to be entitled to; the more they use their control over government to subvert our laws, corrupt our children and make their dominance impossible to ignore, the more we will be able to identify them as a separate sovereign entity.  Perhaps a solution to the homosexual problem would be to accept their rainbow flag as a political symbol, and to embrace their separatism.  

Greece is financially ruined thanks to the bankers (including a good many gay power sorts).  Perhaps the pink mafia could use their financial clout to buy a couple of Greek islands, returning the lesbians to the region from which their name comes and taking the sodomites with them - obviously to a different island, considering how genuinely sexist they are (it is well known that gays hate women and lesbians hate men).  

Imagine a world in which all the sodomites have somewhere to live, to bum each other in the streets if they wish to, and where they can harm no one who doesn't enjoy the dubious pleasures of buggery?  Imagine a world where the lettuce-lickers of Hebden Bridge can join with their fellows from across the globe to wear their purple Doc Martens, shave their heads, strap on fake knobs and crack on with their perversions? A couple of decadent islands full of writhing sex addicts, gobbling down fæces and dressing as prostitutes of the opposite sex, would be a small price to pay for liberating the rest of the world from individuals whose lust for perversion comes second only to their lust for power.  Let their people go - please let their people go!

9 comments:

Jacob said...

"This invites interest in the over-representation of homosexuals in the ranks of the criminal pædophile fraternity. It isn't just moslems who like to rape children. Remove moslems from the statistics and the percentage of homosexual pædophiles rockets to the point where heterosexual pædophilia looks like a statistical anomaly. Why aren't the pride marchers carrying banners of destroyed children, if being gay is something we should all admire? If homosexuals were as 'good as you' and me (as they claim), then the number of pædophiles amongst them would be such as to make those who prey on children a very small minority. Sadly, that isn't the case."
Wrong, wrong wrong: http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/05/countering-heterosexist-arguments.html

Social-Freedom National-Justice said...

Thanks for the link - I have had a look at the site and its actually very informative. I am seeking answers, not beating the drum of dogma. Thank you for taking the time to read my article and for responding. I will look into the site you linked as time permits, giving it the attention which it does deserve (rather than just skimming through it). Thanks again.

Revelation said...

PART 1
Below is a full response to your essay here.

YOU WROTE: "male perverts obsessions with men's bottoms"

The emotive language used here is suggestive of a deviation from your professed rational approach to these issues. "Pervert" is a virtually meaningless word with a negative connotation that is consequently unjustified.


YOU WROTE: "sodomites and their female counterparts are dressed in their best bedroom gear, practically having sex in the streets as idiot liberals and their poor confused children cheer on a display of sordid sexual debauchery.... The police... are failing to uphold their legal requirement to protect the innocence of children, not arresting a single individual for public obscenity.".

This trend unfortunately continues. If you're attempting to single out LGBT people for criticism of street debauchery, then you should consider the World Naked Bike Ride or Mardi Gras, many videos of the former are on youtube and the latter also regularly features throngs of topless women.

Your reference to "public obscenity" literally reminds me of something I'd expect to hear from an Islamic State proclamation, an ideology which you appear quite critical of in other posts.

Regarding children's "innocence", are you able to define specifically what constitutes this innocence? Please do so. In my experience, it is a code word for "ignorance". There is a tendency among those who espouse this mentality to want to preserve children in a state of total ignorance concerning all aspects of sexuality, which, ironically, is among the factors which leave them most vulnerable to the sexual predation that you go on to decry.

It is unusual indeed for the rectification of ignorance to be a bad thing, whether those afflicted with it are children or not. The confusion you fear is also most likely to arise specifically from such ignorance.


YOU WROTE: "Homosexuality is very simply the fulfillment of a desire"

Sexual orientations are only sensibly defined purely by reference to attractions, rather than to their fulfilment. Why so?
a) We would still classify an adolescent who had not yet had the opportunity to act upon their attractions, or a celibate, as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
b) We would still classify a man who was raped by or who prostituted themselves to another man as heterosexual if they were exclusively attracted to women.
c) Involuntary attractions are therefore both necessary and sufficient to assign sexual orientation, while voluntary actions are neither necessary, nor sufficient to do so.
- Earls & David, 1989, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18(5), 401-419 details heterosexual male prostitution.



YOU WROTE: "to put their todgers into each others bottoms."

Furthermore, it is difficult to see how such a definition applies to homosexual females, let alone how it accounts for the fact that more anal sex occurs between heteros than gay men and that 20-50% of gay/bi men don't engage in anal sex.

D. T. Haplerin, 1999, AIDS Patient Care STDS, 13(12), 717-730:
"In terms of absolute numbers, approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse."

Bruce Voeller, 1991, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(3), 233-276:
"Considerably more heterosexuals engage in the act than do homosexual and bisexual men, not all of whom participate in anal coitus."

In a U.S. survey, 50% of men who had had a same-sex partner since age 18 had never had anal sex (Laumann et al. 1994, "The Social Organization of Sexuality" table 8.6, p318).
- The authors of the same study noted that "20-25 percent of the narrowest categorization of the men report never having had anal intercourse" (p320), regarding table 8.6.

Revelation said...


PART 2
YOU WROTE: So gay pride must therefore be an overwhelming desire to shout to everyone within earshot"

"Pride" is used simply as an antonym to "shame", the emotion that countless generations of LGBT people were made to feel by heterosexist society prior to the realisation of individual rights, starting with equality for women, then racial minorities and finally LGBT people.



YOU WROTE: "taking great pride in the ability to swallow fæces and semen"

You may find this interesting. Barker & Jones, 2005, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 99(2), 339-347:
"Many individuals may be unaware of the risk of air-borne dissemination of microbes when flushing the toilet and the consequent surface contamination that may spread infection within the household, via direct surface-to-hand-to mouth contact. Some enteric viruses could persist in the air after toilet flushing and infection may be acquired after inhalation and swallowing".



YOU WROTE: "Remove moslems from the statistics and the percentage of homosexual pædophiles rockets to the point where heterosexual pedophilia looks like a statistical anomaly."

Simply an unevidenced statement. I was hoping for a higher standard of argumentation. An unevidenced statement can be dismissed without evidence but I will share a couple of studies on the topic.

Jenny et al. 1994, Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44:
"In... 269 cases (of child molestation), two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian".
"A child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual".

Groth et al. 1978, Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 7(3), 175-181:
"All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation... The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

You can find half a dozen more on my website's main essay.



YOU WROTE: "homosexual managers make a point of demanding that only their fellow bottom-lickers are promoted."

Again, a completely unsubstantiated statement. There is no point in typing it if you can't prove it and doing so undermines your credibility.



YOU WROTE: "homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous and thus unlikely to form lasting relationships"

Same again. Here is a nationally representative UK study to disprove the absurd assertions of the image you included, which you, incidentally, did not source. I can share many other studies on this if required.

Mercer et al. 2004, AIDS, 18(10), 1453-1458:
"A total of 44.7% of men in 2000 who reported homosexual intercourse ever reported only one male partner ever... Among men who reported homosexual intercourse ever 53.9% had not had a male partner in the past 5 years... we limited further analyses to MSM, defined as men reporting at least one male partner with whom they had genital contact in the 5 years prior to interview... In the past year, 77.8% of MSM reported having had at least one male partner. The median reported number of male partners in the past year was one in both 1990 and 2000."

Revelation said...


PART 3
YOU WROTE: "gay power activists have taken it upon themselves to destroy the institution of marriage, which exists to protect children and families."

Homosexuality is no threat to heterosexual marriage as it does not require the divorce of heterosexual couples or loose them any rights, just as women's suffrage did not reduce the rights of men. Marriage has been repeatedly altered and redefined over time, with many of the changes actually improving upon the institution, not least when it comes to "protecting children", a concern you raised previously with particular reference to their sexual "innocence".

United Kingdom Parliament Website:
"In 1929... Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act".

McSheffrey, Shannon (2006). Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in late Medieval London. University of Pennsylvania Press, Page 17:
"Our best data come from the highest reaches of late medieval English society, the aristocracy, where women first married while young, between thirteen and eighteen, and men often only in their mid twenties or later (although some men, especially orphaned heirs, married very young)"

Clearly marriage was not historically an institution concerned with protected children, who's individual rights are also now far more valued, in keeping with the same ideology that has allowed LGBT liberation. Marriage was historically about a man (the father) giving away his property (a daughter) to another man (the husband) and remnants of this are still apparent today, with the tradition of fathers walking their daughters down the isle.



YOU WROTE: "sodomites have pushed through sex education classes which encourage underage boys to sodomise one anotherand to fall for the lure of predatory homosexual pedophiles.".

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion and again seemingly hypocritical, given that you condemn the alleged sexual debauchery of LGBT people and given the implications of your attempts to stigmatise it.

Goldfarb & Constantine, 2011, Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 322–331:
"There is a particularly strong need for sexuality education among traditionally underserved youth, including sexual minorities, youth with disabilities, and those in foster care".

Blake et al. 2001, American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 940-946:
"In schools where gay-sensitive HIV instruction was provided, GLB youths reported lower sexual risk behaviors".

Stigmatisation of homosexuality inhibits attempts to prevent child molestation. Watkins & Bentovim, 1992, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(1), 197-248:
"A variety of explanations have been advanced to explain the apparent under-reporting or under-detection of the sexual abuse of boys. Prominent among them have been the boy's fears of disbelief and of being labelled homosexual".



YOU WROTE: "The natural idea of one man and one woman..."

The use of loaded language isn't a tool of rationality. Many forms of medical care, such as the use of anticoagulants, are unequivocally unnatural.

Revelation said...

PART 4
YOU WROTE: "with the accompanying increase on sexually transmitted diseases, depression, mental illness, inability to form stable relationships, experiments with race-mixing, fatherless bastard children and many other ills which are wrecking society."

Many issues raised at once. I'll share a few example studies for brevity. I have literally tens of studies I can quote on each of these topics.

Ryan et al. 2009, Pediatrics, 123(1), 346 -352, DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-3524:
"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers (other LGBT people) from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection."

Homosexual relationships are not significantly different from heterosexual ones, though they do suffer from decreased legal and social support, relative to their heterosexual counterparts, American Psychological Association (APA), 2004:
"Research indicates that many gay men and lesbians want and have committed relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship... Survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. Researchers (e.g., Kurdek, 2004) have also speculated that the stability of same-sex couples would be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of social support and public recognition of their relationships as partners from heterosexual couples do."

Fatherless children etc are heterosexual issues... Far from equating to responsible procreation, heterosexuality is a factor that decouples and disassociates procreation from the desire to procreate. Heterosexuality exacerbates unwanted, unplanned and unbridled procreation, unlike homosexuality which enables total preparation for and willingness to engage in parenthood. Heterosexuals have to use contraception specifically to compensate for this.



YOU WROTE: "Gay pride is a pride in creating misery for the rest of us and imposing a lifestyle which was previously (and correctly) identified as dysfunctional and borne of mental illness, upon society as a whole."

There is no imposition and multiple studies have found attempts to classify homosexuality as a mental illness to be unjustified.

Thompson et al. 1971, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78(2), 237-240:
"Homosexuals did not differ in important ways from heterosexuals in defensiveness (and) personal adjustment".

Marvin Siegelman, 1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2(1), 9-25:
"For the total samples, the homosexuals, compared to the heterosexuals, described themselves as less well adjusted on four scales, better adjusted on three scales, and not different on six scales."

APA 2005:
"The decision to remove homosexual orientation from the list of mental disorders reflects extensive research conducted over three decades showing that homosexual orientation is not a psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz,Walston, & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980)."

Revelation said...

PART 5 (Final Part)
YOU WROTE: "The more homosexuals insult us by demanding that we are denied employment so that they can get cushy jobs which they are not qualified enough to be entitled to..."

Nick Drydakis, 2009, Labour Economics, 16(4), 364–372, DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2008.12.003
"Mailing pairs of curriculum vitae, distinguished only by the sexual orientation of the applicants, led to the observation that gay men faced a significantly lower chance of receiving an invitation for an interview."

Marieka Klawitter, 2011, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(2), 334–358, DOI: 10.1002/pam.20563
"The results suggest that gay men face an earnings penalty that varies significantly (though not sizably) across local areas, and that state antidiscrimination policies may decrease that penalty in private sector employment."

Overall your essay was rather disappointing as it isn't in keeping with your claimed objected of being rational and objective. It consists of a lengthy series of totally unevidenced assertions.

Social-Freedom National-Justice said...

Thank you for your lengthy response. Its time for me to perform a mea culpa on this issue. I try to write from a position of knowledge, but in this field I have complete ignorance. I have studied the links posted in the comments section, and to be honest, my emotive response is really little more than an echo of my conformity to papism, which I am obviously still recovering from. I will use your points to make a more balanced argument. I used to believe that the pope was infallible - but through a series of them, lying and distorting, I came to see the whole church for the instrument of control which it is. I came to see through their lies on globalism, on forced liberalism (turn the other cheek and surrender to anyone who disagrees with you), to the lunacy of denying victims of rape the right to abort the products of their horrendous abuse, yet I held onto the 'all homosexuals are evil' bit. Sorry. And thank you for taking the time to make your points and to help me see through the lingering papist mist.

Revelation said...

No problem. Thanks for taking the time to consider an alternative view. If you want any further information on this topic, my main essay, linked by Jacob, above, is quite extensive but feel free to ask if you have any doubts of queries.

Although I don't currently publish my thoughts on religion online in any essays I have quite a substantial personal document on that too.

On a slightly unrelated note however, your name and the thrust of your posts suggests a concern with morality, which is great - too many people are indifferent. With that in mind, here are the best two talks I've ever seen on morality.

Sam Harris's TED talk on Morality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Theoretical BS on Morality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk