Holly comments on my post about removing her blog from my blogroll.
"I find it telling that you defend straight pride as not homophobic, then spout off massive amounts of homophobia," she says.
The "homophobia" I "spouted" is simply a recitation of the things I've observed about the homosexual culture and lifestyle. The same way, I suppose, it is "racist" to point out that the majority of murders are committed by black men, it must be "homophobic" to point out the real failures of the homosexual lifestyle. She says, "...'straight pride' and 'white pride' as currently used are codewords, and you're showing it pretty clearly in this post, which reads to me as 'straight pride is no better or worse than gay pride... EXCEPT IT'S WAY BETTER BECAUSE GAYS ARE DISEASED PEDO PERVS.'" So let's just accept that, for the moment, and examine why I said "GAYS ARE DISEASED PEDO PERVS".
Holly says, "HIV and some STDs are proportionately more prevalent among gay men--which is unfortunate, but having safe sex and being selective about partners is just as good a prevention as abandoning your entire sexuality," but that neatly avoids the biggest problem with the homosexual lifestyle, which is promiscuous and anonymous sex
, frequently unprotected.
The real hardcore homosexuals don't
have safe sex nor are they exceptionally selective about whom they play with. The links I provided to Zombietime were meant as examples of this sort of behavior; and it has been a consistent type of behavior for a very long time. HIV/AIDS is as bad as it is in the United States because
homosexuals in the 1980s didn't wish to give up promiscuous anonymous sex. And by "promiscuous", I might add, I mean literal hundreds of partners per year.
Does every homosexual do this? No. There are plenty who don't. There are plenty of homosexuals who are monogamous; there are plenty who wouldn't dream of cruising a sex club or bath house.
But it's not the way to bet, and the statistics don't lie: if you're a homosexual man in the United States you are in the A-number-one risk category for HIV/AIDS, to the point that the Red Cross doesn't want your blood even though it's possible to test for the disease. It's not just HIV/AIDS; it's all
the STDs, and hepatitis besides. Homosexual men are not known for their self-restraint; there are plenty who won't touch another man without some kind of latex barrier between them--but these men are a minority, however slim the difference may be. If you engage in unprotected sex with a homosexual, bisexual, or "man who has sex with men" who doesn't
self-identify as homosexual, you are significantly
increasing your risk of contracting one or several STDs.
It's bad enough that if you are a heterosexual man who has sex with a woman who has had sex with a bisexual man, your risk of contracting STDs increases dramatically. So, "diseased"? Statistically speaking, yes. Check.
By the way: "Because a thing is dangerous does not mean it's debauched or disgusting or morally wrong; I don't see skydivers getting this kind of shit." A skydiver is only risking his own
life. One man jumping out of an airplane has a certain risk of dying; but his risk-taking does not increase (or decrease, in fact) the next guy's risk of piling into the ground at 300 MPH.
It's different with STDs. Condoms can break. Assuming you bother to wear one in the first place.
Holly also contends, "Exact numbers don't elude me! In a year-long emergency-room study, only 2 out of 269 cases of child sexual abuse were committed by a gay or lesbian adult."
An examination of emergency room statistics isn't much proof that I'm wrong about the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals. The study she cites claims 269 cases went to the emergency room; how many did not? How many cases of child sexual abuse occurred in the area serviced by the hospital? (And how many cases of child sexual abuse occurred in that area which were not even reported until years later?)
"Another study of 175 child molesters found that none of them had homosexual relationships with adults." It's a common tactic to say that homosexual pedophilia isn't true
homosexuality. If that's so, why aren't the child molestors having relations with children of the opposite sex? Why do they target children of the same sex? If a child molestor is truely not homosexual, shouldn't he (or she) prefer any
child? Shouldn't Joe Molestor's list of victims have an approximately random distribution of sexes, according to what opportunities he found?
With which adult sex do homosexual child molestors have sex, then? Saying they have had no adult homosexual relationships does not indicate they necessarily had heterosexual
relationships with adults. Joe Molestor likes little boys, but has Joe Molestor ever showed any interest in being with women his own age? And what do the statistics show?
It turns out that the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25% (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles.
Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78). That's anywhere from 10-25 times higher than in the heterosexual population, depending on what figure you accept for the prevalence of homosexuality among the general population. Among heterosexuals the incidence is only 1-3%.
Do I have to point out the existence of NAMBLA and its links to the homosexual community?
There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that: 'pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition…' (Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1-24.). There is an overlap between the 'gay movement' and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality. (Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)
Taken from here
because it's a good summation of some of the evidence I've considered over the years.
Or how about A Zomblog post about Harry Hay, NAMBLA, and Keven Jennings?
"Pedo"? Again, check.
I regard homosexuality as perversion.
All right, WTF, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of my business; I don't care.
I never have cared. Perverted behavior, in and of itself, doesn't bother me in the slightest...as long as it is carried out in the proper venue.
I could link the relevant Zombietime pages again; I could find other links to photographs of "gay pride" events. The point I'm trying to make here is that "the proper venue" is not a public place.
The stuff you see people doing on the Zombietime pages, for example, do not
belong on a city street, and it doesn't matter who is doing it--gays, straights, martians, whatever, regardless of who is present to witness the event.
In the case of "pride" parades it is somewhat worse. A "street fair" which is widely promoted as being a venue for fetis sex has at least a chance
of keeping children from seeing what's going on; but a "pride" parade typically showcases many of the same behaviors, slightly sanitized, where children can see it happening. And I strongly believe that sexuality--particularly fetish sex--is not something a child needs to witness.
But "for the children!" is not my main reason for being against such public displays. Children are more resilient than we give them credit for being.
I'm against it because it's not polite.
Part of having a functioning and healthy society is the maintenance of decorum
. Public drunkenness, for example, used to be frowned upon. Our society used to expect people to dress to a certain minimum standard; and we used to expect people to behave within certain parameters.
Some of those rules had
to go. But not all of them; and in the process of getting rid of the ridiculous and unfair ones, we got rid of the ones which we really should have kept.
I don't consider it polite to shove your sexuality in someone else's face. Hell, I don't consider it polite to shove your religion
in someone's face, either. I don't go around telling people with rainbow bumper stickers, "You'd better get straight, or you'll go to hell!" I've never hung over my girlfriend and licked her tonsils in public, or grabbed at her private parts. I behave this way because there is a time and place for such things and it's not in public.
The perversion that bothers me the most about homosexuality is the "public" and "anonymous" part. I keep coming back to that because it represents its single greatest failing; "anonymous" removes any emotional involvement from the action, giving it the emotional involvement of passing a stool: they do it for the relief, not because there is any attachment to the person they're with. People become nothing more than public accommodations. It is empty.
* * *
My attitudes toward homosexuality are not knee-jerk reactions, "OMG that's disgusting!", but considered opinions. I had to be forced into it; in my younger days I thought, "WTF, let 'em do what they want." And in fact, I still think that; but I have amended that to "...as long as I don't have to see it."
The statistics don't lie: the homosexual lifestyle brings with it a host of bad things, and ultimately it is destructive. I have never been offered any proof to the contrary; and Holly's comment did not change that trend.
My "homophobia", as she termed it, is the sin of noticing
these things and deciding
they are bad enough to warrant a disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle is not something to be proud of.
A man would be considered a skunk
if he anonymously had sex with a bunch of women and contracted diseases (and transmitted them) and fathered a slew of children out of wedlock and never bothered to wear condoms. Why is it okay for a gay man to behave that way? Why should the gay man be allowed "gay pride" for engaging in such destructive behavior?
If homosexuality consisted of people who like being with members of the same sex--if it didn't bring with it the disease and mental health issues and the other things--I would have no cause for concern. As I've said, I really don't give a rip about what people do in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else
--but that's the rub; it does
hurt other people.
Why? HIV. The spread of HIV could have been greatly slowed in the early 1980s. The CDC figured out that AIDS was caused by some kind of virus and wanted to contain the contagion by shutting down the bath houses and sex clubs where homosexuals did their thing.
A lot of the homosexual activists of the day claimed that AIDS was a "hoax". The homosexual community fought tooth and nail, and sued, and the bathhouses and sex clubs stayed open.
A city will shut down a hot dog stand if someone throws up after eating there, but we couldn't shut down the places which fostered the spread of a new, incurable, and fatal
disease because the homosexual community didn't want the party to end.
The government was allowed to do nothing
to stop the spread of the disease; HIV blew through the homosexual community like fire through a hayloft because "safe sex" hadn't been invented and no one was allowed to tell them to stop...and hundreds of thousands of homosexuals died of AIDS in the next decade.
...and before they knew they were sick, many of them donated blood. AIDS was around for years before the HIV test was developed, in 1986...and so many people who needed blood (or blood products) before then got HIV. And many of them
Would HIV have spread if the sex clubs and bathhouses had been shut down? If the CDC had been allowed to implement measures to prevent its spread? Yes.
But it would not be as widespread as it is...and a lot more gay men would still be alive today.
And a lot of other people who had needed blood from 1980-1986 would also still be alive today.
* * *
In summation, then: I make these points to lay out the reasons I have for not supporting "gay pride".
At the root of my complaint, though, is that "gay pride" is code for, "I'm here, I'm queer, and IF YOU DON'T LOVE ME FOR IT YOU'RE AN EVIL BIGOT".
I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle--I think my reasoning is pretty clear--but I am not about to insist that homosexuals have no right to be gay. I don't have a problem with gay people nor do I have any desire to prevent them even from expressing their pride. I am tolerant of them because I believe this is a free country and a person is who he is, whether I like it or not. I won't discriminate against someone because he's gay; if I were, for example, in the position to hire someone, his sexual orientation would not be a factor, the same way his race or sex would have no bearing on the issue. I would be very concerned with his ability to do the job I was hiring for; what he did with his genitals in his off hours would not matter. (It would only matter if he brought overtly sexual behavior into the workplace: getting a hummer in the supply closet from that cute twink in the mailroom is verboten
regardless of where you work.)
But according to many, my attitude of non-accepting tolerance is "homophobic". Homosexual activists have essentially defined it that way: if you are tolerant but not accepting of them and their behavior, you're a homophobe and a dirty nazi bigot.
If that's "homophobia", I guess there's not much I can say.