Denmark Vesey: The Myth of Homosexual Animals & Other Mind Control Techniques of The NWO

Friday, November 21, 2008

The Myth of Homosexual Animals & Other Mind Control Techniques of The NWO

"A homosexual man or woman has as much choice in the matter as a beaver has choice in building dams or a spider has choice in spinning webs. To even imagine otherwise given the evidence of non-human animal parallels for homosexual behavior, and, the human cultural sanctions imposed on homosexual behavior by backwards cultures - is simply ridiculous on the face of it."

Take your pick homie!!!

CNulan

"a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, though not necessarily sex,

“ Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the

interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. [3 The Animal Homosexuality Myth by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo]

Kit (Keep It Trill) said...


Bushshit, Denmark. I've had some gay assed dogs, male and female.
CNulan said...


rotflmbao...., whew!!!: DV, DV, DV....,

You must not be feeling well brotha.., cause I know that if you were your usual self, there's just no way you'd come this hella weak. no way. I'll check in on you tomorrow magne after you've had some camomille tea and a good nights sleep. Hopefully you'll be feeling better and back to your usual A game.; Denmark Vesey said ... A Game?

LOL. CNu ... One of us ... is stone cold crazy.

One of us ... is a stone cold fool. Let's find out who.

The High Priests of Radical Secularism have created the pseudo-religious myth of gay wild animals that perform homosexual "sex" and you subscribe to it with ecclesiastical devotion. Some homo Phd candidate at the University of Manitoba says he observed gay dolphins having sex under water and it soon becomes temporal canon.

Trill. Your girlfriends Lhasa Apsa humped your leg. He aint gay. You are. How you know he wasn't making you his bitch? Could have been some dominance thing.

Where in nature are wild animals having homosexual sex to the point of orgasm? None of this stuff about affectionate baboons or male birds caring for young. Where is the male horse turning down horse punany to bone another stallion in the poop shoot? Aint happenin'.

26 comments:

Kit (Keep It Trill) said...: Bushshit, Denmark. I've had some gay assed dogs, male and female.; Nov 21, 2008, 10:41:00 PM
CNu said...: rotflmbao...., whew!!!

DV, DV, DV....,

You must not be feeling well brotha.., cause I know that if you were your usual self, there's just no way you'd come this hella weak.

no way.

I'll check in on you tomorrow magne after you've had some camomille tea and a good nights sleep.

Hopefully you'll be feeling better and back to your usual A game.; Nov 21, 2008, 10:46:00 PM
CNu said...: One of us ... is stone cold crazy.

If you standing by a mirror you can see him DV..,

now google up "evolutionary theory of homosexuality" and educate yourself.

Given your Palinesque selective skepticism about science, I'm not trying to either educate or convince you concerning the biological roots of homosexuality. There's an overwhelming body of evidence in support of that fact - whether you acknowledge it or not.

I'm just spitting it back to you as a question of political power. Having observed the gay community and its progression toward political power and inclusion in this society, and compared and contrasted that with the exclusionary bib-tard traditionalists - drawn from the same demographic pool that denied our parents civil rights and would do so to this day if they could get away with it - I've elected to side with the lesser of the two political evils.; Nov 22, 2008, 12:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: This is a bullshit analogy. Humans have free-will. Animals are driven by instincts. Humans can control their sexual drives. Some people choose to be virgins. Others choose to be celibate. What we have here is a bunch of hedonists seeking a biological rationale.; Nov 22, 2008, 5:59:00 PM
CNu said...: It is possible for a human being to acquire will. You can count on one hand the number of such folks you know of (not know personally) Anon.

What we have in general is collection of instincts that we rationalize in post hoc fashion. What is distinct about you humans is simply your capacity to NARRATIZE what you do. i.e., to explain and justify it to yourself and to others.

Take for example, the exclusionary, normopathic instinct which drives your collective urge to bully and ostracize homosexuals. Why, you've made up fantastic just so stories in which your exclusionary bullying is God's will, moral, upstanding and true.

For centuries in the U.S. governing elites had a large percentage of the populace tricked through exploitation of that instinct to believe that Black people are sub-human and therefore eligible for the mistreatment that is the stock-in-trade of the normopathic bigot or bully.

Different day, slightly different story, Black folks ought to know better.; Nov 23, 2008, 8:06:00 AM
Hawa Bond said...: Let me start by admitting that I consider myself a Christian free from the disease of Big Hat Church Attendance. In other words, I believe in God, I trust in Jesus, but I don't subscribe to the religious tom-foolery that goes on in many churches.

Now, first, I have a problem with Christians who single out a single "sin" and pick on the population that exhibits the behavior. I once brought an entire discussion of gays adopting children to a halt when I asked the simple question, "So should parental screening include other sins like lying and overeating?" C'mon. Homosexually didn't even make the Top Ten Commandments (that Moses delivered on tablets).

Let's say that we agree homosexuality is a sin. Lying, gossiping, overeating, dishonoring our parents, sex before marriage, and drinking too much exist on that list. Where is the public outcry for these behaviors?

The divorce rate is astronomical. We party. We have sex before marriage. We make snarky remarks about our neighbors. How does one single out homosexuality and ignore these others?

Some argue that homosexuality was not the sin that burned Sodom and Gomorrah. Promiscuity and decadence did.

No matter the biblical arguments, I'm still not satisfied that public law should always reflect Biblical principals.

Homosexuality involves two consenting adults. Unlike murder and gossiping, the rights of another aren't violated.

I'm not satisfied to live in a Theocracy. Homosexuals want the right to love who they want and to enjoy the rights of other couples - including certain legal rights such as leavibg their Social Security benefits to a legally recognized partner.

I don't want other Christians, who may believe differently than I do, to limit my choices in life. So who are Christians to limit life for those outside the faith? I'm a deeply committed heterosexual, but I know homosexuals who love their mates.

Render unto God what is His. Render undo Caesar what is Caesar's.

Hawa, author of
Fackin Truth Blog (Personal Blog)
and
Cleanse Master Remix (Health Blog); Nov 24, 2008, 6:31:00 PM
Intellectual Insurgent said...: Let's say that we agree homosexuality is a sin. Lying, gossiping, overeating, dishonoring our parents, sex before marriage, and drinking too much exist on that list. Where is the public outcry for these behaviors?

Hawa,

Here is where I think things go off track.

If liars created a lobby, designated themselves as liar-Americans and insisted that they were born liars and were just looking for acceptance and tolerance of their "lifestyle preference", would you buy it?

If overeaters created a lobby called Overeaters Legal Defense Alliance, referred to themselves as "big-boneds" and insisted that anyone who believes eating properly and exercise is normal and healthy be labeled a bigot for not accepting the big-boned lifestyle choice, would you buy it?

If overeaters and liars wanted to teach your children that they were born that way and, because they were born that way, their lifestyles should be part of diversity week (Overeater-Americans and Liar-Americans Out Of The Closet Week), would that be cool with you?

No one cares what anyone does behind closed doors. You want to lie, overeat or toss salad, have a ball. But why does anyone who thinks those are unhealthy behaviors become a bigot?

The law discriminates against lots of behaviors. If "what I do in the privacy of my home" were the standard, drugs would be legal. So why aren't the homosexuals fighting for Drug-Addicted-Americans for the right to do what they have the urge to do behind closed doors?; Nov 24, 2008, 9:02:00 PM
CNu said...: So why aren't the homosexuals fighting for Drug-Addicted-Americans for the right to do what they have the urge to do behind closed doors?

Folks with chemical deficiencies ARE waging the good and effective fight, particularly serotonin deficients in California who have been achieving leaps and bounds as against the theocratic knuckle-dragging of the so-called War on Drugs.

Your analogies all fall flat as the simple rotten fish in a dirty diaper type of gedanken common among conservatives to rationalize and evangelize their bigotry.

Homosexuality is a biological imperative. If you can't tolerate the fact of how someone else's organism is wetwired, bad on you.

Frankly, I'm sick to death of arguing about it, and look forward to the moment when this escalates - fundaligionists and bigots are a drag on human evolution in general - and need to be dealt with.; Nov 24, 2008, 9:51:00 PM
Michael Fisher said...: Are liars and overeaters respectively allowed to marry each other?; Nov 24, 2008, 11:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Why is there always this focus on 2 men? As if THIS is the pertinent issue destroying Black families? There is HARDLY a BLACK FAMILY left. Why? Let's talk about MEN not taking any RESPONSIBILITY. Let's talk about ILLEGIT KIDS. Let's talk about all the people who don't marry and never marry each other. The baby daddy/mommy syndrome. The wifey complex. The excuses that are made for young Black girls being preyed on and sexually abused in the Black community. The low self esteem and apathy.

What Adam & Steve do with each other DOES NOT EVEN COMPARE.

Yet, that LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY and LACK OF MORAL LEADERSHIP amongst BLACK PEOPLE is never discussed here with equal representation.

You didn't even have a problem with R. Kelly raping a 13 year old. You made a joke out of it.

You also state your choice of lighter Black women as a preference instead of acknowledging it for racism. If you can have preferences then so can everyone else and they should be given EQUAL DEFERENCE.

Now what kind of excuses are you going to continue to make to belittle or debunk this?; Nov 25, 2008, 6:56:00 AM
Hawa Bond said...: If overeaters created a lobby called Overeaters Legal Defense Alliance, referred to themselves as "big-boneds" and insisted that anyone who believes eating properly and exercise is normal and healthy be labeled a bigot for not accepting the big-boned lifestyle choice, would you buy it?

As we speak, medical groups are working to identify a genetic link to overeating. Overweight people (who are allowed to marry, by the way) also fight against discrimination in the workplace based on their weight. And I'm sure some win.

This isn't about personal acceptance of a lifestyle. It's about what role "personal preference" should play in limiting the rights of others. I disagree with lots of personal decisions (e.g. abortion as routine birth control), but I'm not prepared to limit another's personal choice.

I hate the word "slippery slope," but I must admit it's dead-on.

I'm not deeply and personally invested in seeing gay marriage pass. But I am deeply interested in some of the dangerous thought processes that the argument exposes.

Hawa, author of
Fackin Truth Blog (Personal Blog)
and
Cleanse Master Remix (Health Blog); Nov 25, 2008, 9:35:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: Good stuff Hawa.; Nov 25, 2008, 10:38:00 AM
Denmark Vesey said...: "You also state your choice of lighter Black women as a preference instead of acknowledging it for racism" Robotrock

Um. Um. Um.

Apparently reading comprehension is a bigger problem for our people than is the collapse of the family.

Robotrock, I'll Pay Pal you a $1,000 if you can link to anything I've said close to that bit of ridiculousness you just stated.

This post is not an attack on homosexuals.

It is an attack on fanatical neo-liberal mind control techniques that demand we think of people who practice homosexual behavior as a distinct, independent GROUP of people whose rights are predicated upon their sexual behavior.

I submit there is no such thing as "Homosexual People" or "Heterosexual People".

There are only people.

The rights of people should be predicted solely upon their humanity and their citizenship, not their sexual impulses.

Secondly I submit that this type of group identity politics is a dangerous booby trap - a Pandora's box - designed to further balkanize and fracture Americans into small controllable groups - some (like Jews and Gays) with more rights than others (Blacks, & Christians).

Thirdly suggesting a disparate group of people whose only common denominator is a sexual perversion is on par with African-Americans as a group is disingenuous at best and intellectually lazy at worst.

Identifying people by their "sexual preference" is stupid. The concept of a 'Gay man' is as ridiculous as the concept of a 'Doggy Style man'.; Nov 25, 2008, 10:40:00 AM
CNu said...: You were doing so well DV, until the green ichor of your anti-homosexual bias came frothing out at the corners of your mouth.

Thirdly suggesting a disparate group of people whose only common denominator is a sexual perversion is on par with African-Americans as a group is disingenuous at best and intellectually lazy at worst.

Homosexuality is biology, no matter how many rotten fish you pack into the dirty diaper of your thoughts on this issue.; Nov 25, 2008, 11:06:00 AM
Michael Fisher said...: DV...

"Robotrock, I'll Pay Pal you a $1,000 if you can link to anything I've said close to that bit of ridiculousness you just stated."

Yo, DV. Can I get that grand too?; Nov 25, 2008, 1:58:00 PM
Intellectual Insurgent said...: Hawa, you missed the point. This is where you started the discussion -

Now, first, I have a problem with Christians who single out a single "sin" and pick on the population that exhibits the behavior.

As my response to you illustrated, there is no other group of sinners labeling themselves as a "minority" group, demanding special rights based on that status and demanding that we all "tolerate" it. You're stuck on the marriage issue and you still haven't explained why one group of sinners gets special rights for being a "minority". Would you be ok with "liar-Americans"?

This isn't about personal acceptance of a lifestyle. It's about what role "personal preference" should play in limiting the rights of others.

If homosexuals have the "right" to marry whomever they want, why doesn't the sister and brother have the same right? How about a 50-year-old and an 8-year-old?

I disagree with lots of personal decisions (e.g. abortion as routine birth control), but I'm not prepared to limit another's personal choice.

Does the baby have any choice in whether it should get to live? Is the aborting mother infringing on the baby's rights?; Nov 25, 2008, 2:14:00 PM
Intellectual Insurgent said...: Homosexuality is biology, no matter how many rotten fish you pack into the dirty diaper of your thoughts on this issue.

Please explain. How is it biological?; Nov 25, 2008, 3:17:00 PM
CNu said...: It's biological in exactly the same way your heterosexual behavioral orientation, or, your natural language-use behavioral orientation is biological.; Nov 25, 2008, 3:25:00 PM
CNu said...: That means you have an innate predisposition to express those more complex behaviors. Absent that innate predisposition - you would find yourself unable to instantiate their expression.; Nov 25, 2008, 3:28:00 PM
Intellectual Insurgent said...: Assuming evolutionary theory as a baseline - with the notion that traits that ensure reproduction of the species survive - you think massive numbers of men and women have an "innate predisposition" to have sex with people of the same sex?; Nov 25, 2008, 4:10:00 PM
CNu said...: Obviously Dina.

That's why there numbers assume an evolutionarily stable level over all times and in all places within and across human societies.

Please look up evolutionary theory of homosexuality. Homosexuals serve a considerable and valuable set of functions in majority heterosexual society and should be understood and valued as an adaptive and altruistic benefit - rather than as a deviant perversion.

It's not that hard to understand if you make the effort.

From a strictly game theoretical perspective, it would not have been possible for homosexuals to be as prolific and stable as they are in human populations were it not the case that they confer survival advantages on the groups in which they appear.

God don't make mistakes.... (Genetic Omni Determinism); Nov 25, 2008, 4:18:00 PM
Hawa Bond said...: If homosexuals have the "right" to marry whomever they want, why doesn't the sister and brother have the same right?

I never said the sister and brother didn't have the "right."

How about a 50-year-old and an 8-year-old?

I haven't taken the time to go back, but I believe I qualified my statements under "two consenting adults." Nobody on the planet would classify an 8-year old as an adult. (I'm having this "debate" in other places, so forgive me if "two consenting adults" was omitted here).

You're stuck on the marriage issue and you still haven't explained why one group of sinners gets special rights for being a "minority". Would you be ok with "liar-Americans"?

Somehow, I think you're missing my point. The only reason many of those other "groups" haven't 'banded together' is because they haven't been openly singled-out for limitations.

If anybody who ever dishonored a parent (10 Commandment sin) suddenly wasn't allowed to marry... you bet they'd band together and fight.

If anybody who ever lied had to pay higher taxes (well, besides those who lied to the IRS lol), they'd band together and fight.

Who called who out first? Gay Bashing emerged and gays had to fight. Somehow I suspect that homosexuals only wanted the freedom to have the same attention-free relationships that heterosexuals enjoy (e.g. without the controversy). Special treatment was never the goal. (Just ask the folks who got stomped by "don't ask, don't tell.")

Hawa, author of
Fackin Truth Blog (Personal Blog)
and
Cleanse Master Remix (Health Blog); Nov 26, 2008, 12:29:00 PM
Big Man said...: CNulan

I've heard the argument that homosexuality is a check on population growth.

The weird thing is that we don't see that same thing in animals. Even animals that display homosexual behavior will still mate with animals of the opposite sex to reproduce. And it's not just because animals have natural predators to keep down their populations, because many large mammals do not.

I'm leery of the genetic argument towards homosexuality. I wonder if a genetic trait that causes you to engage in behavior that makes it harder to reproduce is really a good thing.; Nov 26, 2008, 3:01:00 PM
CNu said...: I wonder if a genetic trait that causes you to engage in behavior that makes it harder to reproduce is really a good thing.

Big man, in order to answer that kwestin, you'd have to do an assay of altruistic behavior across a variety of species. If you elect to do so - I think you'll find literally hundreds of examples of individual altruistic behavior maladaptive for the individual animal in question, but powerfully beneficial for the group to which the individual animal belongs.

Think for example of the individual bee and what happens to it when it stings something in defense of the hive.

Homosexuality is one such behavior conducing to altruistic conduct by the individual toward the kin group in which it arises. You know good and damn well wouldn't be no music in the Black church, for example, without homosexuals!!!

Viewed thusly, in addition to my 1.) certainty about the biological underpinnings of the homosexual urge, 2.) the lesser of two evils politics of the homosexual community as compared and contrasted with the fundaligionist bib-tard community, you've now taken me across the novel threshold off concluding 3.) bigotry toward homosexuals is not only maladaptive, but contrary to GOD's will (Genetic Omni-Determinism).; Nov 26, 2008, 4:19:00 PM
Anonymous said...: If being sexually active with one's one gender is simply a matter of choice, then every single heterosexual is a latent homosexual. And is it sex or emotional feelings or both that lets us label humans as "gay"? What about men who occasionally like to have sex with other men, but are bonded emotionally only to women? Or men who only want sex with women but are bonded more closely to other men?

A quote from Teddy Roosevelt's daughter Alice: "How presumptuous of human beings to know. Perhaps homosexuality is God's natural way of keeping the population in balance?; Nov 27, 2008, 2:42:00 PM
Denmark Vesey said...: "A quote from Teddy Roosevelt's daughter Alice: "How presumptuous of human beings to know. Perhaps homosexuality is God's natural way of keeping the population in balance?"

Perhaps ...

Perhaps incest, pedophilia and genital mutilation are other examples of 'God's natural way of keeping the population in balance."

But we do not attempt to "normalize" (indoctrinate people to view dysfunction as healthy and normal) nor do we "politicize" pedophilia by pretending there exists a distinct group of people, on par with Blacks, Jews and Italians, called ... "Peds" ... who are victimized because of the way they use their genitals.; Nov 27, 2008, 3:16:00 PM