Homosexuality is a disease

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Aborted_Fetus, Aug 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Obesity can be shown to have negative consequences for a person's health. Homosexuality cannot.

    Drug addiction can be shown to have negative consequences for a person's health. Homosexuality cannot.

    Homosexuals already lead "normal lives".

    I told you before: it isn't a disease.

    You seem to be making an issue of it.

    Yes, but obviously not in your mind.

    That's something only you can answer.

    How many homosexual people do you know, personally? Maybe you ought to try meeting a few more.

    Is that what you require for a "normal life", then? I suggest this says more about you than about other people. Many people choose not to have children, or marry. Most have a family, though. Everybody has parents.

    I assume this is a rhetorical question.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    So where, aside from the couple of links the homophobes refuse to discuss, is anything resembling science in this topic?

    Especially some science in support of the topic assertion?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    tiassa, theres not. There cant be because its a false pretence to start with. If you take away the homo vs hedro bit and transfer it to race, religion, nationality or just HAIR COLOUR then the whole topic is laughable. for some reason people dont see how much of a joke there arguments are. Pitty this "joke" just serves to hurt and damage the quality of someones life
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Then we ought to consider having it moved to Free Thoughts or something. It doesn't seem to belong in "Human Science".

    I mean, if there was some science involved ....
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    how about we just throw it in the cesspool. After all thats where the "unintilligent" threads belong
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I would hate to affront the people who have put more sincere efforts into the counterpoint than I did. Other than that, sure.
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    my friend i am sure that those people would be gratifide to learn that this thread was dumped. I am sure sick of arguing this idiocy and im sure mystec and you are too, not to mention hyper and the rest of them. this very thread is an insult to them so why should they be offened. Just look at the first page of the thread. Its all a case of "here we go again"
  11. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    The Christian west has fooled the world for long. The problem is science is also heavily influenced by Christian ways of thinking. That is why it insists on reproduction being the only purpose of sex and all human emotions and behaviour, especially sexual behaviour are geared towards reproduction.

    Let me put some simple human truths forward:

    1. There is no such thing as 'sexual orientation'. It is a fragment of west's imagination. The thing was devised to isolate sex between men, because it is a sin against the Christian God.

    2. As far as straight men are concerned, sex has two important purposes:
    (a.) for procreation man needs woman. However, as far as nature is concerned, male sexual desire for female is periodical (probably like in animals, happening only during the mating season, momentary (lasting from a few minutes to a couple of days) and only limited to phycal sex.
    (b.) However, sex is also for a deeper meaningful bonding for which man's natural desires are towards another male.

    While, the man is supposed to be promiscous in his relationship with women, if he is allowed to form relationships with men he would commit himself lifelong to one partner.

    Sex with women is natural but long term relationships are not. In the past even in the marriages straight men and women were not intimate and did not relate beyond sex. A real man (if the pressures of society are not there) would think about women only in his mid thirties. Before that he would be perfectly happy with a male partner.
    If heterosexuality was so natural, man woman relationship would not have been beset with so many problems. Nothing seems to be made for each other in a heterosexual relationship. Even the sex is not designed to provide perfect satisfaction to each other. E.g. the orgasmic patterns of male and female are differently patterned.
    Men and women are so different from each other that it is difficult for a man to share his life with a woman -- even though he is forced and trained to do it. However, real men always keep running away from commitments to women and are scared of getting married or having to live with a woman.
    Only a third gender male can really live comfortably with a woman.

    3. The world is not divided between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The world is divided between two genders (I'm talking about men): The masculine male (straight, not heterosexual) and the Feminine male (Third Gender).
    Although, today in a christian/ western society, masculine (straight) men have joined the 'gay' community in large numbers because of the way the society is 'unnaturally' divided, 'homosexuality' is actually a space/ identity for the third gender male who have sex with other third gender males or with straight men. Straight men are a misfit in the 'gay' world.

    4. Heterosexuality is an oppressive, anti-man system devised by the west to oppress men and force them into longer relationships with women, and because men's need for other men comes in the way, the stress is on stamping out all instances of sex between males from the mainstream society. There are only about 5 - 10% of males who can really be called 'heterosexuals'.

    5. It is a man's relationship with women which takes him towards femininity --- although there is nothing bad about it. When a straight man relates intimately with another straight guy, the relationship and even the desire takes both of them towards masculinty. Please note that most members of the third gender are actually heterosexuals (although most live out their gender secretly).

    6. The society manipulates the notions of what it means to be a man in order to force straight men in a perpetual opposition to each other and to seek relationships with women.
  12. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Heterosexuality is an ideology and an unnatural process, which seeks to exaggerate and extend male female sex beyond reproduction to a point which is difficult to sustain in the natural way. Since, the burden is totally given to the man, since masculinity is associated with how well he can satisfy the female, it is the man who really suffers, while the woman can still take it easy.

    The society which might initially have opposed intimacy between men because it wanted to promote reproduction and man's participaton in rearing of the children, have today become so compulsive in its efforts to stamp out male-male intimacy (of course now religion is an important driving force) that it is promoting sex with women as a pleasure thing for men. The west has long promoted women as sex objects for (real) men and while they are discouraged from treating other men as objects of sexual desire by threatening them with isolation as 'gay'.
    The heterosexual society has taken this whole thing so far that now male-female relationships are for most of the time not about procreation at all. They date each other without meaning to 'reproduce'. Now most of the efforts of the heterosexual society is to ensure that procreation does not come into the way of male-female sex. And so you need condoms. Which are unnatural. Or you need abortions. Which are not only unnatural, they are also inhuman.
    Heterosexuality itself is unatural and inhuman.
    If heterosexuality was natural, you would not need condoms and abortions.
  13. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    A typical heterosexual man (not the straight men who pass off as heterosexuals), would be a cross between a man and a woman. While he is a male from the outside, his inner affiliations would be towards the female sex. He would relate mainly to the female sex. He would devote himself to the female sex.
    In fact a typical heterosexual man will happily think of his body being an instrumen to serve womankind, especially sexually. And would think his duty to satisfy them.
    With power on his side in the modern world, he has successfully managed to force the straight man to do the same.
  14. PHP:
    Christians should be bashed and not gays.

    The more evil of gays and Christians are the Christians!

    They even said homo erectus was weirdbut they had no control over it.

    I like broadway tunes as much as gays.

    Don't fight Mother Nature, you Christian perverts!

    You seem to be forgetting that Christianity isn't the only faith of whom some members have taken a strict and pious attitude to sexual acts.
    You seem to be staging a bigoted attack on Christianity just because you think everyone has been so brainwashed by political correctness that they'll take you seriously.
  15. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Christianity invented religion. Before that we had spiritual paths and gods and goddesses. Those who founded Christianity tried to used the faith people show in God to control them and rule over them.
    Even today, there are no parrallels to the Judeo/ Christian/ Islamic traditons, all of whom are far removed from spirituality and concerned with running people's earthly and political lives.
    Though several spiritual paths discourage lifestyles that make sex only a thing of the flesh, what Christianity did in condemning sexual acts between men (and the third gender) is unprecedented. In fact, Judaism was changed from the back date, and the worst it can get in the name of religion -- Islam took the tradition started by Christianity, just too far.
  16. Christianity invented religion.

    Actually, numerous Christians regard Christianity as something utterly distinct from religion.

    Before that we had spiritual paths and gods and goddesses. Those who founded Christianity tried to used the faith people show in God to control them and rule over them.

    If you're referring to the evident condemnation of it in the later New Testament (I see no evidence of such condemnation in the Gospels) then it may be a good idea to take into account of the era the text was written in.

    Even today, there are no parrallels to the Judeo/ Christian/ Islamic traditons, all of whom are far removed from spirituality and concerned with running people's earthly and political lives.

    Not so. Their have been certain institutions in these respective faiths that have tried to do such things, but that does not mean their actions reflect the values of the faiths themselves.
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Existing Bloke,
    You seem to be different than the Chrisitians I have met so far. And I say that in a good way. I appreciate that you are trying to find the better things in your religion and not trying to defend what is obviously wrong.
    However, I still don't agree with you. Christianity has advanced a lot, and become a lot more humane, in fact it may be the fastest changing oppressive religion in the world and that's a positive thing.
    But the fact is the power is still with the orthodox. And Christianity does not have an honourable past.
    I myself worship lord Jesus. But it is not the same Jesus that is snatched and distorted by the founders of Christianity. Of course, there were several sects following Jesus Christ before Chrisitanity was founded, 300 years after the death of Jesus. Can you deny the bloody massacres that wiped out all the original spiritual practices from the face of the world by the Christians, who carried on this violence till the beginning of the modern period. Today, the violence has taken the form of other unethical means to convert people. Converting indigenous people and faiths has the horrendous result of loosing the last remnants of ancient knowledge and secrets with the 'inhuman' teachings of the new bible.
    Islam is just an offspring of Chrisitianity. It is based on the same principles. Only it refuses to change.
    You are right and wrong. There are innumerable Christian sects that have tried to evolve into a more humane religion. Even one that has place for spirituality and animism (is this the right word?). But they are still tied with their Bible. How can you change that? There basic concepts are still the same. They believe that God has just one form. That there is only one way to reach him. And this is the root of all violence and conflicts. A theology that sees all other paths to god as 'wrong'. And then what about the Christian practice of converting people. It is an industry in itself. Converting is a political act not spiritual.
  18. I agree. I believe that when someone embraces a religion, it should be something they have decided to do themselves.

    It would pointless to try and deny that various people throught history have warped and distorted Christianity into an excuse to be really nasty. The Inquisition would be the most obvious example of this.
    But in its proper form, it can and does inspire acts of extreme decency in the minds of individuals.
    Mostly, I agree with what you're saying.
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    I have three points. Why can't someone follow one's indigenous so-called religion and still believe in Jesus. Why does religion have to be an identity which seperates one individual from another. why can't Jesus be worshipped along with several other gods and goddesses.

    Why don't people come forward and admit that all religions including Christianity have been tampered with and truth needs to be separated from the manipulations.

    There is a fault in the institution/ system of Christianity, that it allows itself to be manipulated and to be used for things which have nothing to do with spirituality, but are clear and unwarranted interference in people's lives. I mean look at Buddhism (despite my account name I'm not a Buddhist, though I worship him too!) it just lays down broad guidelines for leading a spiritual life which will also benefit the materialistic/ social life of people. Within those broad guidlines -- which are simple for everyone to understand, anyone can lead a good life within those broad guidelines but still following one's natural instinct, and choose his or her own way to god based on his particular nature.
  20. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    In Greece they used to believe that blue-eyed, blond people are witches. You can see why they would think that when you look at the hair and eye-colour of the average Greek. Blue eyes/blond hair/ standout like dogs' nuts.
  21. mis-t-highs I'm filling up Registered Senior Member

    I've never seen dog's nuts, are they like brasil's nuts, pea's nuts, wal's nuts, or .cashews
    but I have seen blonde blue eyed boys/men.
    I could understand why, they would be thought of as witches, bright sunlight makes our pupils dilate, which makes them look evil, it dont look so bad with brown eyes.
    as in cartoons the baddie has always got little black dots for eyes.
  22. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    I guess I'll be "Johnny come Lately" on this.

    But long ago I read in a Man's health book which had an article on homosexuality. It claimed that it may be caused by a defeciency of testosterone hormone; thus "vaguedly remembered" the studie was done on men who had attraction to same sex, and straight men, they have found out there were a shortage of testosterone in homosexual men, however it did claim that not all homosexuals showed this deficiency, thus further explaining that some gays are gays by choice, not by an hormonal imbalance.

    I'm certainly not gay nor am I homophobic, I've had many gay friends of both sexes and there is a mutual respect. Some of them when talking about experiences of attraction, childhood, heterosexual sex, bi sexual desires, three way, four way, orgies, and the like, stories got heated and very interesting with these friends, though the subject of biggotry was touched up lightly, they recent those that think of them as sic, amoral, or perverted. I would too. Sex as long as there is mutual consent between two adults is not everyone's business unless they are willing to share with you their experiences, and who the hell am I or you to judge? Judge not, what may be come of your own siblings, or close relative.

    These essays are good ones on the "hormone or gene imbalance theory"

    The psychology of homosexuality;http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

    Psychology of homophobia; http://allanturner.com/homo.html

    I only thank my lucky stars to have traveled so much, met so many people from all walks of life, I'm content of who I am, and of my sexual preference "heterosexual" however I have never discriminated of what others sexual preferences are, I've been helped by gays, I've been room mates with some friends that are gay, and I find that we are all basically the same; we fall in love, we have fights, disagreements, contentments, and sexual desires for our partners.

  23. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    To everyone but especially wise guys like Godless:

    Heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and a disease

    This is not rhetoric. Whether we look at our present day society, or the ancient world --- this is the resounding message that we get. Scientifically, biologically and morally.

    Man, at least straight man was never ever meant to be heterosexual.

    Defining Heterosexuality

    Let's clearly define heterosexuality first. The western society conveniently plays with these words to suit their own anti-men's agenda. In common parlance it is often used to simply refer to sex or sexual desire between male and female. Heterosexuality, however, is not as simple as that, nor is sexual desire for women the ownership of heterosexuals. Heterosexuality in reality is an ideology, which embodies two things:
    - exaggeration of sexual desire for women to a point that nature can't healthily sustain.
    - Suppression of sexual desire for men, which is equally unhealthy.

    Heterosexuality means exclusive and all encompassing sexual desire for women, and an inversion to male eroticism and bonding.

    Defining Homosexuality

    It is also important to define homosexuality clearly, since it is cunningly meant to cover two opposite ends of male spectrum --- the masculine and the feminine, which is practically not possible, but the western world has lived with this concoction for a long time.

    Sex or sexual desire between males is also not the ownership of homosexuals. Homosexuality for all practical purposes refers to sexual attraction of a feminine/queer male (often referred to as gay) either for another feminine man or for a straight man (they are both different desires). Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality covers the sexual relationship or desire of a straight man for another straight man (or even for a feminine man).

    Furthermore, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality even remotely represents the sexual nature of straight men.

    Sexual nature of straight men

    Straight men, by nature, are driven to seek sex with women occasionally (about once each year like in the animals). They are meant to seek life-long committed relationship only with other men (mostly straight men). This is supported both by history and the animal life.

    Most of the men including straight men who go around with the 'heterosexual' label are not really heterosexuals. They are just pretending.

    The straight man's desire for another straight man is way different than a woman's desire for a straight man or a 'homosexual's' (feminine male) desire for a straight man. A straight man's desire for women is also very different from a feminine man's desire for women.

    Animal sexuality

    In none of the mammal species we know of is the male 'heterosexual'.

    Which other mammal do you know where the male pairs off with a female for lifelong or even for a period greater than a week! Heterosexual mating takes place once a year, during the mating season and that too for a very short duration ranging from a few hours to a couple of days (depending on the species) after which the male goes back to his pack. Of course the discovery channel will not tell you what the males do the rest of the year, although recent discoveries have shown a lot of sexual committed bonding between males. So the guys that bang each other's heads for a fuck of the female go back to their male lovers after attending to their natural call --- fulfilling their duty, so to speak.

    If mammals were indeed heterosexuals they would not live separately for such long periods when they can easily live together. They don't even have to live in male only or female only groups. They can also choose to live in heterosexual spaces like the modern, Christian West does (perhaps the sons of gods of the world couldn't reach them). Animals live according to their natural instincts, not on the basis of some lords or prophets commands.

    The animal males choose a new female partner each year, whereas, in the few cases studied they tended to bond lifelong with other males (in one-to-one bonds), unless forced apart by death. Clearly the males do not have any sense of commitment or attachment with the females – a basic requirement of heterosexuality.

    What's more in species like the elephants, the males only approach females when they are about 40 years old. That in a life span which is only about 60 years by which time the elephant is too old even to move around properly. Sex between males is only too well known amongst the elephants.

    We must not forget that most cases of affection and sexual bonding between males in the wild are not reported by the scientists – a phenomenon which has only now started to be documented. Even if they wanted to, they are too biased and ill informed to really find it out.

    The strongest bias is this stupid 'scientific' theory that they have that every single move and thought of the animal is (consciously or unconsciously) directed towards facilitating reproduction, especially if it's even remotely concerned with sexual bonding. So if there is sex between males, it has to fit into this 'overall' purpose. Of course they will only look for cases of sex, love between males neither exists in the animal world nor is it important.

    Another bias is that scientists tend to consider only cases of anal intercourse in animals as 'homosexuality'. That's absolutely illogical (in fact trying to find 'homosexuality amongst animals is itself wrong and biased because it's a peculiarly human /western/Christian concept). Even amongst the humans straight men do not prefer intercourse when they have sex with another straight man. When men have sex with women or with 'homosexuals' they may only have intercourse because it's socially so constructed.

    Human history

    Almost all ancient tribal societies, only a couple of which now remain, had institutionalized sexual bonding between men and often gave it precedence over sex with women. In these societies, like in the animal world, sex between males and females happened periodically every year and was restricted to just sex – but only so much that procreation can occur. In fact in all the ancient traditions (there are still several that survive today in non-western societies) womanizing is considered a feminizing factor for men.

    We don't need to recount what happened in Greece. Suffice it to say that whenever the society accorded male-male bonds its true place, they have marginalized male-female bonds, and societies have been forced to find means to compel men to copulate with women. It seems to be a perenial problem.

    In medieval societies by which time, male-female marriages were already made compulsory (we are still far away from heterosexuality) and sex between men either flourished (in some societies) side by side under social acceptance if not institutionalization or (in other societies) it was accepted behind the scenes, not openly. But in either case, interaction between man and woman was restricted to just the act of sexual intercourse (which, I might add, in most societies did not involve taking off clothes, nor doing it with lights on) often once in every couple of months). Or to matters concering family (children, ration, etc.). In these societies the issue was 'procreation' and not satisfying women.

    Also in both kinds of societies sex (not love) between a feminine male (homosexual) and a straight man was openly allowed.

    This has been the case in most of the non-western world till recent times, before the advent of globalisation and cultural invasion by America which has begun a process of heterosexualisation of these societies.

    Marriage is unnatural

    A true man can never share his life with a woman (or even with a feminine male) without sacrificing his happiness. Even a relationship with them is heavy on him. This is something that only a person with enough femininity can afford. In fact the more masculine a man gets the lesser his attraction for women gets too.

    The love and bonding that a straight man can give to another straight man, neither a woman nor a homosexual male can give to him. A feminine male (homosexual or heterosexual) is equally unlikely to understand a straight man than are women, and is not likely to be compatible with him. They both have the least understanding or appreciation of masculinity. All that they have is a sexual attraction which is transient. Women and Feminine males may like macho men for short term flings, but they soon get bored of it and then they want to change them.

    Straight men too can at best have short flings with women and feminine males.

    Interestingly, the same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum --- the more feminine a man gets the lesser his interest in women gets too.

    You become that, which you love

    Of course there are some men who are genuinely heterosexual in this world, i.e., genuinely want to share their life with a woman. But these are not the typical males. These true heterosexuals are harmless and enlightened creatures and are most likely the two-spirited people that the ancients once venerated. I.e. they have both the male and female spirits (masculinity and femininity) in them almost in equal proportion. This way you can say that they have 'hormonal balance'. They fall somewhere between the masculine males (straights) and feminine males (including non-homosexuals). These two-spirited people may not be too different from today's meterosexuals.

    Women who really want to share life with a man really crave for this meterosexual man, not one of those macho or straight guys.

    The height of heterosexuality is the ultimate two-spirited person – who is also considered to be the epitome of spirituality --- what the heterosexual society has ironically denigrated as 'transsexual' and 'hermaphrodite'. He is a person who is two-spirited from within as well as from the outside – he has male genitals but he feels he is a female – his love for women has turned him into a male-woman. Or he has the genitalia of both male and female as in the case of the hermaphrodite.

    Incidentally, the height of femininity in males is also Transexuality (although it's not two spirited, only feminine spirited but signifying a unique form of positive energy nevertheless). The height of the masculine spirited (straight) man is macho -- a stage which traditionally insists on total abstinence from women. However, the term macho has been much maligned and distorted by the heterosexual society. The heterosexual version of 'macho' is selfish, cruel, mean, unfair and of course 'heterosexual'. The naturally macho man on the other hand was strong from inside, fair, respectful of others, caring, righteous and a true warrior. He was someone who is a true stickler for fair rules. And it does not need to be said that he took love with a man to its highest form, with total and exclusive devotion – like the ancient Greeks. The world has not seen such love eversince.

    I'm reminded of an ancient myth, where god Zeus in anger divided his subjects– the male, female as well as the hermaphrodite gods -- into halves. He later relented and sent them to earth as humans, each one's goal in life being to reunite and bond with his/ her other half, in order to become complete again.

    Thus the males started craving for a man (his other half), the female craved for another female and the hermaphrodite person who was divided into a man and a woman has since been looking for and courting 'heterosexual' bonds. We are all supposed to represent one of these.

    God does not want man and woman to bond

    If god wanted man and woman to live together he wouldn't put one on Venus and the other on mars. There is absolutely no understanding between them.

    There is hardly any sexual compatibility between men and women. Ever since heterosexuality came into being so have innumerable big and small sexual dysfunctions --- problems that have arisen because of forcing men into heterosexuality --- into a sexual bond with women that nature cannot support. There'll hardly be a 'heterosexual' man today who does not face sexual problems even though he may be shy of seeking treatment.

    Man and woman cannot satisfy each other in bed fully. They both have absolutely different sexual clocks and different patterns of orgasms and absolutely no natural understanding of how the other's body works.

    Straight men are wary of being intimate with women beyond ejaculation. They do not like to cuddle women in bed. Of course women often complain that men turn the other way as soon as they shed their semen. The orgasm of the female or her sensuality or her femininity in itself does not interest men. It would if it was not forced on them beyond the natural limit.

    And of course there is the adage that 'men want sex from women' while 'women want love'. Real men just can't dream of emotional intimacy with women --- it's a fact, and I'm sure, most women will not feel sorry because of it. They too (apart from a small minority – the equivalent of male two spirit heterosexuals), secretly, be better off living with their own with occasional sexual escapades with the opposite sex.

    Surely, if nature had intended heterosexuality it would not be so dumb as to make it so painstakingly difficult.

    Forcing Heterosexuality

    If heterosexuality was indeed so natural, such extreme social maneuvering would not have been needed to keep it in place. I mean look at the way the entire society, each and every element of it is meant to promote 'heterosexuality' howsoever uncomfortable or unnatural these elements may seem. So much so that today even small children are taught about dating and made to understand in no uncertain terms that if they want to grow up 'straight' (which they better do!) they must be heterosexual. And to think that these messages go through the most innocent of channels – cartoons.

    And if 'heterosexuality' was indeed natural it did not need to fear 'homosexuality' so much. There would have been no need for such an immense force to control it as is being used today. Of course in the first place there would have been no need to bring in god to restrain it. If male-male sexuality is talked about it is only of the homosexual variety (stereotyped as feminine guys looking for a fuck) so as to keep straight men restrained. And children must be absolutely kept out of it, because the only hope to keep the society heterosexual is to fill their minds with filth about sexual relationships between any kind of males. Because if they fail to do it in that tender age, they have no hope whatsoever.

    Heterosexuality is an anti-male ideology

    Heterosexuality makes men subservient to women. A heterosexual society judges a man's manhood by his ability to 'satisfy' women. This gives women an immense power and handle over men. While all women are aware of this power that they have over men (and not all are interested in using them) some sexually aggressive women (polite term for whores) use this power to sexually abuse and exploit men. Because, man will have to submit to a woman's demand for sex lest he be disqualified from being a man. Thus 'heterosexuality' has made men vulnerable to unimaginable sexual abuse. Heterosexuality has created a society where the 'woman' has been granted the power to grant manhood to a man, and it no longer flows from within a man and from being with men.

    However, this is good news for the weak two-spirited 'heterosexual' (not all heterosexuals need this cheap power). These men not only gladly submit themselves before women, they want to make the entire male species subservient to them. These men can hardly feel for the male race or masculinity because all they can think about is women and femininity and how to serve them.

    Subsequently, a heterosexual society is over sensitive to the issues of women, but is impervious, often hostile to the needs of men.

    These weak heterosexuals are the real eunuchs (non-men). They are the betrayer of the male population. They speak for women. They should not call themselves 'men'. They sell out the male race to the women and happily become their slaves.


    Thus it can be forcefully said that heterosexuality in the form that is enforced in westernized societies – as masculine and majoritarian, is unnatural, abnormal and gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual problems both in men, women and the two-spirited people.

    At the same time, the whole concept of homosexuality is also unnatural and abnormal in its present form. In fact the very validity of the concept of sexual orientation is questionable, but that is quite another matter.

    No where in the mammalian world does the male partake in the raising of children. The birds do, and probably that is +why they're heterosexual. But not humans. Children are nice to raise, and men awe women for the power of procreation that they have, but heterosexuality is too heavy a price to pay for it. After all, women cannot make children without men.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page