DEFINING HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUALThe "establishment" agenda is to destabilize and neuter us by encouraging homosexual behavior. They redefine "homosexual" as a "sexual preference" or "lifestyle choice" in order to entrap us. Never mind that the vast majority of homosexuals come from dysfunctional families or suffered sexual abuse as youths. Our reluctance to embrace homosexuality is considered "bigotry."
In response, let's take liberties with these definitions ourselves.
Having the right paradigm is the key to healthy behavior. Forget about what you normally think of gay or straight (same-sex, opposite sex etc.) Think of heterosexuality as monogamous and concerned with reproduction; homosexuality as promiscuous and concerned with sex for its own sake.
Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality.Homosexuality is arrested development due to an inability to form a heterosexual bond. As a result, homosexuality is characterized by sex for its own sake (divorced from love or procreation.) In these terms, society has become homosexual to a large degree due to social engineering e.g. the "sexual revolution," Feminism.
A perceptive reader recently wrote me: "If heterosexual sex outside of marriage is acceptable, if we eliminate the procreative aspect from sex, are heterosexuals any different from homosexuals in regards to the sexual activity?"Exactly. I know these definitions are not "politically correct." PC is propaganda, social engineering and mind control. PC is an old Communist Party (i.e. Illuminati) term.
I do not disparage gays. According to my definitions, the majority of homosexuals are actually "heterosexuals" like Hugh Hefner. And a small minority of homosexuals are monogamous and partake in heterosexuality.
Recommended By The Great HotMF Wax
33 comments:
Typo in your title. Did you mean "Destabilize"? rather than Destailize?
So, let me ask you this: Is there ANYTHING at all the "establishment" could say, do, or offer that would make you, one of your sons, or any other dude who likes women only to suddenly change their mind and want to be on the top (or bottom) of an all man sandwich?
I'll assume your answer will be an emphatic NO! So why are you tripping?
Also "Henry" is incorrect. Heterosexuality has nothing at all to do with "bonding permanently" (that would be monogamy). If Henry WERE correct and "bonding permanently" were a requirement of heterosexuality, your previous posts about "getting some in high school", promotion of athletes with multiple women raising their offspring, etc, would mean you, these athletes, and any other man who has been with more than one woman in his life would be something OTHER than heterosexual.
Do you read things before you post them?
Oh. Thanks D. I'll correct that.
"So, let me ask you this: Is there ANYTHING at all the "establishment" could say, do, or offer that would make you, one of your sons, or any other dude who likes women only to suddenly change their mind and want to be on the top (or bottom) of an all man sandwich?" DMG
No.
If I ate genetically modified food, took vaccines, worshiped man instead of God and consumed Plantation media without discretion ... who knows?
"Heterosexuality has nothing at all to do with "bonding permanently" (that would be monogamy)." DMG
I disagree.
I believe failure to bond with a woman permanently is a form of homosexuality.
Homosexual relationships are distinguished by a desperate quest for intimacy through sexual gratification. They tend to be short term and numerous.
The writer Andrew Webb (who identifies himself as gay) says the dominant homosexual ideology regards "unfettered sex as the defining feature of gay identity." Gay relationships he says "are a joke and rarely monogamous."
So Doc ... yeah. Many of the cats chasing pussy well into their 30's and 40's are gay. No. Not dick suckin' gay. But De Facto Homo's none the less.
I sent a reply, to that, but I'm not sure it went through. I'll wait a bit before I try to repost.
The focus is eugenics. Eugenics is not a bad word to them (western government). It is a logical, (western) scientifically arrived conclusion. Listen to an interview with John Taylor Gatto by Jari Chevalier on your itunes. It's a free download. Of coarse it's about schooling but he goes into a tradition of how the west views eugenics.
If rhetoric is slowly being fed about pregnant women giving off more carbon what is that suppose to suggest? Why even say something like that other than to present reproduction as a threat to those already living on the planet.
Damn, guess lost it, maybe it will show up later? Summary:
By your OWN posts over the last year or so, you are by your definition a homosexual. Why you ask?
1. Unless you and your wife were each others first and only (which is cool, by the way), you FAILED to bond with all the women you had previously. You are a HOMOSEXUAL (your definition, not mine).
2. You stated previously that you want your son's to experience some of the more "free" women in high school and college. So you are encouraging them NOT TO BOND with those women. Therefore you want your son's to be HOMOSEXUAL (your definition, not mine).
3. You champion the "fatherhood" of pro-athletes and the like propensity for having several kids with multiple women (NOT BONDING WITH ONE WOMAN), so you label them as HOMOSEXUAL. (This is an interesting one, as you've previously stated that HOMOSEXUALS can't be fathers--so which is it?).
Look I know you have your own philosophy, and really that's cool. But it is not coherent, and is often contradictory (and you already know how I feel about your "facts"). I'm not arguing with you--I'm pointing out the flaws, so you can tighten up your belief system.
By the way, I'm really surprised you didn't jump all over this one yesterday from CNN. I thought it was something you'd cheerlead. The result was good....but could have been disastrous.
Gee Chee,
You have outdone yourself. That's a far reach. Very far.
How have I spent my days without reading your glaringly illogical conclusions? Oh, yeah I was more productive...
DMG, I heard this on the news. Corporate news. NPR news.
If I give you statistics that black people make up the majority of crimes committed in the United States, you think that statement is made with pure intentions of being objective and unbiased?
Do I have to point out what a "purely scientific" statement like that suggests to law makers?
Eugenics is not something off a Frankenstein movie. These are not Jimmy crack-corn writers telling you that pregnancies contribute to global warming. Those statements are made to suggest something. Does that really sound like something to encourage having babies?
You are viewing the world from the top of King Friday's castle.
Nice Mr. Rogers reference, Lady Elaine. I don't care where you got it from it suggests to me that you are reaching very far to make a point that's not there.
DV, DMG....
This brother has elevated this subject to a level we really need to communicate on in regards to this subject.
Lenon Honors is one of the most serious cat on the net.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0ngJVivHM
Please give him his props.
p.s. - good to have the scalpel back.:)
DMG said...
Damn, guess lost it, maybe it will show up later? Summary:
By your OWN posts over the last year or so, you are by your definition a homosexual. Why you ask?"
I hear you D.
I don't know about all of that man. I can't be responsible for your interpretation of what I've said over the past year.
But here it is in a nutshell:
A man who is with more than 1 woman ... is the same as a man who is with no woman.
Spread your oats in your early years? Of course.
But after a certain point bouncing from chick to chick is gay.
"If rhetoric is slowly being fed about pregnant women giving off more carbon what is that suppose to suggest? Why even say something like that other than to present reproduction as a threat to those already living on the planet.: Gee Chee
Get 'em Gee.
Gatto is my man.
Got a link?
DMG,
Your problem is that you're a material girl stuck in a material world. You actually believe hetero and homosexuality exists outside the man/woman paradigm. You believe hetero and homosexuality exist "in nature" with the latter having no transcendent origin. Nah brah, that's the take of the spiritually devoid. That's the crooked soul that says, "Look, the animals go homo, too. So it's cool for me and you." But animals don't collectively self-annihilate; only humans do that. And one of those manifestations of the self-annihilator is the homosexual; another one is the faithless "doctor."
The homosexual is a self-sexualizer. He is addicted to the "jerk." He desires radical autonomy which encompasses sexual autonomy. This desire is averse to bonding with another. When the homosexual tires of the "jerk," he fills the void with something of the "same." In reality, it's like he's humping the mirror. There is no homosexual "union" as radical autonomists don't form unions. Homosexual "bonding" is an illusion that simply evidences the homo's sexual desire shift from the "self" to the something of the "same."
'Your problem is that you're a material girl stuck in a material world.'
ha!! thats some funny shit
gotta give TD props on this one
ANY BEHAVIOR that does not RESULT in the perpetuation of LIFE cant be positive
lets open our eyes folks!!!
peace
"This desire is averse to bonding with another. When the homosexual tires of the "jerk," he fills the void with something of the "same." In reality, it's like he's humping the mirror. There is no homosexual "union" as radical autonomists don't form unions. Homosexual "bonding" is an illusion that simply evidences the homo's sexual desire shift from the "self" to the something of the "same."
Deep TH how'd the hell you come up with that? Certainly not on your own...
Actually in re reading it..it sounds valid yet chock fulla of rhetoric...nothing solid no reason why the shift from self to same etc. No evidence... you need more people
Illarticulate,
When you're bound to the material world then your freedom is a zero-sum game; somebody else maximizing their freedom EQUALS minimizing yours. So the radical autonomist ups the ante by BEING nothing in particular. And when others manifest as SOMETHING particular that has the effect of minimizing the other's freedom UNLESS that something particular is a Supremacist. In that case, the radical autonomist sees an unyielding threat to his autonomy.
Homosexuals are the most primitive autonomists and their very existence is unequivocal evidence of an ancient eugenics movement that preaches self-annihilation as final liberation.
What's more self-annihilating than the self-sexualizer and one who desire nothing butt the "same?"
First of all I LOVE PUSSY...AND I LOVE FUCKIN..MAKIN LOVE.. TO A WOMAN that LOVES Me... That Pussy is Wet and Poppin...before I go in... both of us want to satisfy each other make a baby..and fuck each others brains out...fuck this faggot shit these niggahs that dont like girls..not trying to make love and fuck at the same time befuddles my senses..you would rather go in the "choclate tunnel" and lie in shit and piss rather than a warm ..throbbin vagina..labia minor and majora grippin that penis....exploding in a love ecstasy that the creator has created to enjoy...fuck these faggots and these pussy rubbin females...get a chick..make a baby..raise a family save our people!!!
"fuck this faggot shit these niggahs that dont like girls.."
LOL!
Ahhhhh man.
With a few more Dr. Love's on the team ... we could save the world.
"
Homosexuals are the most primitive autonomists and their very existence is unequivocal evidence of an ancient eugenics movement that preaches self-annihilation as final liberation." TD
See.
This is why TD is my favorite white boy.
The opposite of bravery is not cowardice.
The opposite of bravery is conformity.
Brilliant.
The womenfolk are curiously absent from this discussion. I passed it over a few times myself, as it is not my interest.
However, I'd like to point out that when God completed this creation he exclaimed that it was "good". He endowed man with innumerable gifts if you will. Man has perverted a host of them. He gifted us reasoning and intellect and yet many of us are more inclined toward our lower, base nature. He gifted us with sex for the sole purpose of procreation and that we may enjoy the labor of it. We've taken this most treasured gift and perverted it! We've made it a nasty, unclean thing. We've accomplished this in a variety of ways. Modifying its intended purpose has had a tremendous effect on our communities and in our lives - and not necessarily for the good,hence the subject of this thread.
As for this idea thrown around earlier that permanent bonding can only result from mongamy I have to respectfully disagree. Please understand that western society with its exclusive embrace of monogamy, can in its own right further destabilize. The concept of one man one woman is mathematically unsound based on the birthrate ratio, taking into consideration the mortality rate dispropotionately affecting males throughout every life stage - come on yall. Compound those figures with the same sex stats and the results are dizzying.
Whether one is hetero or homo...if you're not producing or in a relationship that is life-giving or life-sustaining you are masterbating, period dot! All this behavior that we see around us is mostly about feeling good without producing a damn thing.
Whew! Sorry, had to get that off.
Just wanted to clarify. I don't think that it is the LGBT community that is promoting the meme that homosexuality is a "choice" or a "lifestyle." Rather, it's their opponents in the (usually) religious fundamentalist community that claim that. No, what the LGBT folks and, in agreement to what the MSM and TPTB predominantly promotes, is that sexual orientation is genetically pre-determined, unchanging and permanent. I'm surprised that no one on here is looking at both of these positions as a possible Hegelian headfake...
^^^ so true. but I think DV has pointed out that it is the thought police and plantation/illuminati following that keeps that meme going.
If one is radically autonomous, his "orientation" is NO PARTICULAR orientation; his orientaion may be self-created or pre-determined, but whatever "it" is at any specific manifestation it IS in order to maximize one's physical autonomy. That radical homosexuals are "born" AND "self-created" is not contradictory, but rather, evidence of a radically autonomous existence.
And what should a man do, who is bonded to a woman who cannot produce children?
Love her, keep her, take an additional wife that can help propogate his seed. Work hard to provide for them all in an equitable, fair and just manner; understanding that each wife's needs will not be the same and the caliber man you are dictates how capable you'll be in tending to multiple wives. One may be emotionally needy, another may be physically needy and yet another financially needy. Another may need a male presence im her home which may mean a world of difference for her children while she is able to give you children of your own. Granted not every or any man will be able to handle such. Chances are that in our society a man would divorce a barren wife or have children outside of marriage rather than deal with it responsibly in a polygynous manner.
Polygamy is not legal in the United States...nor is it accepted in most religions or sub-cultures found in this particular part of the world. So outside of Fundamentalist-LDS, or Islam, the only viable solution is:
1. Divorce woman to whom the man is bonded.
2. Have a child with another woman outside of the marriage.
3. Adopt a child
I think the third option is the most reasonable.
Note: I don't think there's anything wrong with polygynous, or polyandrous cultures. But it's not as simple as a man or woman deciding to take on multiple mates.
Actually it's polygyny what you're referring to. But no, it's not "legal" if you define marriage by getting a "license" or "certificate" with a case number and filed.
That slip of paper is for them not for you. I exist with or without a birth certificate. In fact I existed before I came out the womb. Stokely told you in '68 that Civil Rights is for white folks not for black folks. Black folks already knew they were human beings. Civil Rights had to put it on paper for government to acknowledge black folks were human beings.
So if you are arguing that multiple wives isn't possible in this country based off "certified documents," understand that is only a "cause they say so" posture. That doesn't negate the reality of being marriage.
"But it's not as simple as a man or woman deciding to take on multiple mates."
I think this point begins to withdraw from the argument of defining marriage into say perhaps claiming someone as a dependent on your taxes etc. through documented proof. Not really sure what is suggested here but I believe you may be confusing a ritual bonding outside of the courts with benefits obtained through registering a marriage.
Actually polygamy (meaning multiple marriages) refers to both polyandry (one woman multiple male parters) and polygyny (one man and multiple female partners)...but thanks for helping.
Nobody is talking about a slip of paper, taxes, our courts.
Try as you might, you have not addressed the fact the majority of sub-cultures in this hemisphere, and most of the other do not condone plural bondings. Personally, I have no problem with the practice within cultural context.
But this practice does not fit in a monogamous culture (even serial monogamous cultures like ours), that's the point.
"Actually polygamy (meaning multiple marriages) refers to both polyandry (one woman multiple male parters) and polygyny (one man and multiple female partners)...but thanks for helping."
Polyandry is not apart of the Abrahamic faiths at all. That's the reason for specifying poygyny.
"...you have not addressed the fact the majority of sub-cultures in this hemisphere, and most of the other do not condone plural bondings."
No, what I addressed was your statement of the "ONLY viable solution" which your answer was framed by state sanctioned marriage.
"But this practice does not fit in a monogamous culture (even serial monogamous cultures like ours), that's the point."
Adultery & wife swapping in our "serial monogamous culture" is illegal too isn't it?
GC,
I was not specifically referring to the "Abrahamic Faiths", as I said religions, plural. Polygamy refers to both kinds of pairings. I knew what I said.
And you are incorrect, again. I'm not talking about "state sanctioned" marriage. I'm not sure what you are reading.
Adultery and wife swapping may be immoral to some, but not illegal. And serial monogamy is not the same as adultery or even having multiple women on the side. The operative word is SERIAL.
Post a Comment