Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is coming from Christian
conservatives, but it's worth wondering if there's a Christian root to
the gay movement in general. Also, it's about time conservatives
realized that they need to make a powerful rational-secular argument
against homosexual agenda and gay marriage. As it stands, many people
believe the forces of the gay agenda are on the side of rationality
and science while anti-gay forces are mired in superstitution,
reactionary bigotry, and old thinking. This is because gay agenda
people speak the words of science even if their science is all wrong,
or, at the very least, their linkage of scientific findings and social
policy is socially and morally unfeasible. The word 'homophobia' has
the ring of rational science, whereas words like 'god hates fags' or
'sodomites' have the ring of blind intolerance and hate. What the
right should emphasize is tolerance for homos and even respect for
homo contribution to human culture, civilization, arts, and ideas.
but, when it comes to social morality, homosexuality must play a
peripheral, if any role, in our affairs. all people--even homos--have
been created thru union of man and woman. the sexual union of man and
woman is the fundamental key to why humanity exists and will go on to
the exist. for that reason, there is a reason why society pays special
respect to such union and elevates it to a social/moral concept called
marriage. there is no need for gays to get married since they cannot
produce kids--and without kids, they have far fewer responsibilities
and socio-economic burdens. it's just a vain lifestyle brand for the
gays. gays think of marriage as just a fashion statement(and many of
us sympathize with gays because in our overabundant and priviliged
society, we take everything for granted and think everything is of
equal value. we have lost the sense of what is crucial/central and
what is trivial/frivolous. we cannot see that a stacker is more
valuable than a slacker. in a poor society, those with work ethic are
clearly more prized than those who are lazy. but, in a plentiful
society like us, the lazy can live well as the industrious, and we've
lost the sight of the value of work ethic and diligence. the great
prosperity and security have made us lose sight of what's really
crucial. in the story of noah's ark, noah was reminded of what REALLY
matters. for life to continue, he had to take one male and one female
of every species. had he been politically correct and took aboard gay
couples of some species, they would have become extinct too. but, we
have lost sight of what is crucial because of our overabundance and
privilege. we measure the worth of something by its fun-value. so, a
slacker can seem more valuable to us than a stacker, because a guy
like jeff spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgmont High seems more fun than
some guy who works hard, takes care of his family, and is a good
citizen. and, we've become so sympathetic with gays because the
liberal/leftwing jewish controlled media and entertainment industry
have presented gays as the most fun, wonderful, and charming people on
earth. during the jazz age, people lost sight of values and regained
them only during the Great Depression and WWII. when the internet
bubble was rising higher and higher in the 90s, americans began to
lose sight of financial responsibility and moral values. it was all
about consumption. and the same kind of idiocy took hold when housing
values rose higher and higher during the bush era. our success and the
overflow of wealth and pleasure among all of us have made us lose
sight of what is truly crucial to society and morality.) if a gay
couple want to live together, they may do so; but, they have no right
to demand that we deem their relationship as a form of marriage.
marriage is necessary between man and woman because they produce
children who require the commitment of both parents to become healthy
citizens.

also, the right should abandon the victorianish priggishness and
discuss the functions of the human body. naturally, rationally, and
scientifically, it's not hard to explain why homosexuality is abnormal
and even putrid. the sexual organs--penis and vagina--were designed by
nature to be complementary. the anus was designed for the purpose of
excretion. there is nothing natural, rational, or purposeful about
the penis going into a fecal hole. there is no point of semen being
ejaculated into the large colon--that's not how any of us came to be
conceived. that is not the point of reproductive activity. of course,
most sex is not for the purpose of reproduction, but humans, alone
among all animals, purposely have sex for reproduction. all other
animals don't understand that sex leads to pregnancy which leads to
birth of offsprings. animals have sex for a simple reason; they go
into heat, feel lustful, and seek release/pleasure thru sex. though
it's often said that animals have sex for reproduction while humans
have sex for fun, it's the other way around. humans understand that
sex leads to offsprings. it's this very understanding that led to
moral and social concepts like marriage and family. because people
can anticipate childbirth soon after the sexual act, they have
prepared for such eventuality thru coming up with social institutions
such as marriage which provide a more stable, longterm environment for
the children-to-be. in contrast, animals have sex simply because they
feel horny and wanna release their pent-up frustration thru humping-
and-bumping.
some 'scientific' pro-gay people have argued for homosexuality on the
basis that such exists among animals. though homosexuals are generally
born homosexual, such is rare and abnormal among both humans and
animals. hermaphrodites are naturally born too, but they are also
rare and abnormal. indeed, there are many deformities and diseases
people and animals are born with; it doesn't make the those defects
normal and healthy. sickle-cell anemia is a natural disease, but is
it healthy and normal? some women are born with predisposition to
breast cancer? so, is breast cancer normal and healthy? now, being
born with defects certainly doesn't make a person inhuman or
subhuman. also, the defects can have certain advantages over
normality for certain folks. some gays have keener aesthetic
sensibility. some mentally troubled people can be highly artistic. and
some autistic people are geniuses at math or music.
nevertheless, it makes no point in arguing that we should accept
homosexuality because homosexuality occurs in nature. if we are to
base our behavior on nature, let's keep in mind that most of nature is
more 'homophobic' than we are. if a male tiger tried to hump another
male tiger, the straight tiger is not gonna take it crouching down.
he's gonna roar, 'what are you, a faggot?!' no healthy straight male
gorilla will tolerate a gay male gorilla trying to bugger its rear.
also in the animal world, rape is natural. and, many animals practice
polygamy. take a lion pride where the chief male lion will hump all
the females. this is true among wolves too, where the top alpha male
gets most of the wolf gals. so, i suppose we should have polygamy too,
since it exists in the animal world. also, incest and pedophilia are
not uncommon in the animal world. sisters sometimes mate with
brothers, fathers with daughters, sons with mothers in the animal
kingdom. and, many young females are often humped by big full-grown
males, or a young male will mate with a full grown female.
if we purely based human behavior on the natural world, we'd go
crazy. we understand the natural order and the need for natural
bodily function. it is because we understand the natural order and
anticipate its consequences that we've come up with rules, laws,
institutions, and things to accomodate them. for example, we know that
we must shit. so, we build outhouses or washrooms with plumbing
instead of just shitting anywhere like animals. it's because we need
to sleep--and know that we're helpless when we sleep--that we build
shelters for sleeping. it's because we know that people need to have
sex that we've come with courtship and private rooms where people can
screw. it's because we know that sex begats children that we've come
up with the institution of marriage. heck, if all children were
produced and raised by the State, there would be no need for marriage
among heteros either. whether a couple chooses to live together or
not would merely be a personal-moral than a social-moral choice--
marriage is about social morality. as it stands, the concept of
family is a social-moral necessity because a hubby and wife produce
children for whom the parents must be responsible. because how kids
are raised affects all of us, it becomes a social-moral issue. a kid
that is not properly raised act like crazy negroes in the inner city,
and the end result? white flight from black areas and racial
segregation and tensions.

anyway, the main point i want to make is the link between christianity
and homosexuality. i wasn't raised a christian and have been an
atheist all my life. until my early 20s, i had an hatred and contempt
for religion--especially christianity--that was more extreme than
dawkins and hitchens combined. but, i realized that most christian
folks are not crazy, and there is much good sense in the bible--
though, to be sure, there's a lot of crazy stuff. at any rate, most
american christians are not conservative christians but personal
christians. they believe in separation of church and state, church and
science, church and social life. this is why even most american
christians feel closer to the gay agenda than to the christian
conservative agenda. gay agenda seems to exist within the realm of
science, secular society, political liberty, and personal freedom,
whereas christian conservative agenda seems to be about forcing its
unscientific, intolerant, and reactionary values down our throats.
this is why the argument against the homo agenda must be secular and
rational than religious and reactionary. americans don't like radical
rationalism but still prefer rationalism to religionism. though the
homo agenda is not rational or sensible, it's clothed in rationalist
terminology. the idea of -phobia is scientific within the pscyhology
community. so, when someone is called a 'homophobe', there is the
weight of science, research, and rationality behind the charge. but,
when someone is called a 'fag' or 'sodomite', the charge sounds either
bigoted or defined by blind religious dogma. so, anti-gay-agenda
folks must come up with scientific terminology.
the gay agenda should be defined as a part of a larger agenda called
normophobia. there is a sick and devious cultural/social movement that
has an extreme, violent, virulent, rabid, and sick fear/dread/hatred/
animus to anything that is deemed 'normal'. this is partly an
understandable reaction to the long dominance of cultural values and
social power that had mainly been held by white christian european
males for so long. why shouldn't different cultures, peoples, ideas,
and values assert themselves in the marketplace of ideas and social
change? but, the political correctness that has taken over the West
is a form of kneejerk hatred against all things defined as 'normal'--
generally, heterosexual gentile white males. this has been given an
huge boost by the fact that liberal jews now command much of our
media, academia, and other institutions. as the perennial outsider
group who've been marginalized by the majority, liberal jews think
it's in their interest to promote a value system that always favors
the abnormal over the normal; this is merely a projection onto the
larger community the mentality of the jewish minority(abnormal)
against majority goyim(normal). long ago, jews maintained their own
enclosed and very strict concept of normality. they did business with
the goyim but maintained their separate culture. but, since the 19th
century, jews embraced the golden calfism of the gentile world. the
problem was jews still couldn't fit in because (1) their high
intelligence made them rise high above the goyim who felt envy and
resentment (2) even secular jewish mental habit remained shaped by
millenia of tribal and monomaniacal judaism (3) jews looked and acted
differently, which offended many 'normal' goyim. given these
realities, jews found it necessary to undermine all notions of
normality within any society they inhabited. so, arose the normphobic
movement, mainly inspired, led, and funded by liberal jewish
interests. to be sure, leftist jews, unlike liberal jews, weren't
really normophobic but merely wanted to overthrow one normality to be
replaced with another that was far more extremely normalist. what is
more normalist than communism where everyone is made into the New Man
and made to dress, think, and earn alike? communists were radical
secular normalists. it was liberal jews who were normophobes because
their preferred cosmopolitan lifestyle was best protected under a
system without a powerful sense of normality. for liberal jews,
normalism could mean majoritarian goyimism, like nazism. of course,
jewish normalism in israel doesn't seem to bother most jews, which
goes to show liberal jews will choose normalism or normophobia
depending on its usefulness to their interests.

anyway, back to christianity. one of the reasons why a christian
basis for opposing gay marriage is that christianity simply isn't a
very conservative or normal religion. it was strange when it started
and remains strange to this day. though jesus was probably not gay
and would have opposed anything even close to gay marriage, there was
something asexual--if not androgynous--about him. the first time i
saw him as a child, i thought he was a bearded lady. why would a guy
have long hair and wear a dress? also, even if he didn't act
feminine, there was much about him that was closer to the passive
ideal of womanhood than the aggressive/active ideal of manhood. he
refused to fight like a man. women admired him not for his manliness
machismo but because he was sooooo understanding and compassionate--
same reason women today love oprah. he didn't join in with the tough
guy zealots--the jewish A-team--to fight the romans. when romans
whupped him good and got thru with him, there wasn't anything that
resembled manhood left in him. he looked like a guy raped and turned
into 'my bitch' in prison by big tough guys with big muscles and
dicks. if not for the concept of son-of-god and resurrection, jesus
was like a girly man who got his ass kicked by big tough guys. when
richard gere said we should not invade afghanistan after 9/11, he
sounded like a girly man, like jesus. and, indeed, all red blooded
conservatives booed, mocked, and jeered at gere. so, how odd that
christianity should be the main basis for opposing the gay agenda.
though jesus wasn't pro-gay, he was for forgiveness and being slow to
judge sinners. while jesus would have laughed at the notion of gay
marriage, he would have been much slow to call homos 'fags' or
prostitutes 'whores' or romans 'illegal aliens on sacred jewish
soil'. also, jesus wasn't really for normal marriage either. he
accepted the need for marriage as a way for men and women to get
together and raise families, but his real ideal was somewhat close to
that of buddha. jesus's ideal was for man to give up everything--
property, family, sex, sensual needs, etc--and find spiritual purity
and enter heaven and never look back. a perfect christian would have
done as jesus did--never have sex, never get married, never find a
job, never accumulate wealth, etc, etc. there was little that was
strictly MALE or MANLY about jesus. he was not your typical
patriarchal type of the Old Testament. an ideal follower of jesus,
man or woman, would just pray, meditate, commune with god, grow old,
forgo most bodily desires, die, and enter heaven. because most
people couldn't attain such, jesus accepted marriage as necessary, but
it was more a necessary evil than the highest human ideal. same is
true of buddhism. though the real buddhist ideal is to go it alone and
reach nirvana, there is place for marriage in the buddhist tradition.
if people are gonna have sex, they might as well do it under some kind
of moral law.

the old testament or judaism is more conducive to opposing gay
marriage than christianity is. of course, as most jews today are
secular and/or normophobic--for social and historical reasons--,
conservatives are not gonna get much support from jews. many jews
think anti-homosexuality = nazism = holocaust. liberal jews also
think conservative christianity = closet-nazism. still, judaism is
far more anti-gay than christianity is because it's about family,
differences between man and woman, and such and such. christianity
blurs many lines between the sexes, cultures, moral values, etc.
though jesus was not a moral relativist, he was for understanding and
compassion more than for simple judgment. for this reason, the anti-
gay agenda argument must be secular and rationalist than christian and
religious.

now, what about paganism? neo-paganism of nazism--at least the anti-
SA kind of hitler and himmler which took control of the movement--was
anti-gay. and, italian fascism wasn't friendly to gayness either.
but, the ancient greeks, founders of much of western civilization,
were kinda funny. still, i don't think they had gay marriage back
then. anyway, greeks offer a useful model for us. they managed to
maintain their social and moral values while at the same time
harnessing the great creative and brilliant qualities of gay
sensibility. so, conservatives can, even while opposing gay marriage
and the idea of gayness as abnormal, can still make room for
pewaothigs--people who are, among other things, gay--within the
movement. since pewaothigs are born gay, there's nothing that can be
done about that. it would be stupid to say they are 'sinful'. but, we
must not confuse defect or dysfunction with normality or healthiness.
but, we must understand that even great ideas and visions can come
from abnormal folks. indeed, much of the clothes and dresses that
conservatives wear were designed by gay fashion geniuses. many of the
great artworks at the center of western and other civilizations were
made by gay boys. too much gay influence is not good as it leads to
the overly effeminate english manners and some of the overripe
fashions among the french of the 18th century. but, as long as gays
leave our moral values and institutions alone, there's no reason for
us to call them 'fags' and all that stuff.

BUT, if they assault OUR institutions such as marriage, we must fight
back tooth and nail. but, we must use the secular and scientific
argument that is far more respectable--rightfully so--than clinging to
Old Testament dogma. if we stick to the old testament ways, we might
as well stone all sinners. and, do we really wanna use jesus as
practical figure of advice for humanity? he was a profound,
courageous, and noble man, but he was not manly in the way in the
pragmatic sense. also, if we followed his advice, we might as well get
rid of our military, erase all national borders, and pretend race
doesn't exist. christian ideals are mostly fantasies, and most non-
white christians know this.
black churches are always black before they are christian. chinese
churches are always chinese before christian. so, it's stupid for
white conservatives to go on and on about christian values. if white
conservatives really practiced christian values, they'd be like
liberal christians--committing racial, national, and cultural
suicide. so, we need a pagan revival that puts christianity where
it belongs--as a junior partner to the paganism that truly defines
what is UNIQUE about western man. though christiantiy developed most
fully in the West, it's something western man cannot claim for
himself. indeed, jesus was not a western man but a proto-hippie jew.
though we hear so much blah blah about christian anti-semitism, far
more damaging has been christian anti-paganism which destroyed the red-
blooded indigenous cultures of europe. this murderous and totalistic
intolerance of christianity was rooted in the concept of One and Only
God and destroy-all-idols mentality in Judaism.
according to judaism/christianity, sound morality resides only with
the one-and-only-god and within the Book. so, all pagan stuff was
seen as promoting little more than stupid wining, partying, acting
crazy and corrupt, barbarism, lunacy, and funny stuff. all of
paganism has been defined as dionysianism or vandalism. but,
paganism--especially of the greeks--offered a whole range of human
feelings, thought, values, needs, etc. there was dionysius the wine
god but also apollo the god of reason and athena the goddess of
wisdom. some gods were for adventure, some were for home and hearth,
some were for men, some were for women, some were for war, some were
for peace, etc. yet, all this richness was reduced to 'paganism is
about nothing but orgies and beer guzzling'. sadly, even neo-paganites
have accepted this stereotype, which is why so many pagan festivals in
europe have naked idiots dancing around bonfires while making funny
noises.

----------------

by the way, was there a greek influence on jesus's asexualism? in
jewish tradition, men were men and women were women. in the greek
world, some men were not quite man-ish and some women were not quite
woman-ish. maybe, greek influence got to jesus and made him reject
the jewish concept of rigidly defined man as opposed to rigidly
defined woman. in a way, he was a man with some feminine qualities,
even if he wasn't gay or effeminate.
and, we wonder if the idea of son-of-man/son-of-god of christianity
was also influenced by greek ideas. in judaism, the idea of man-as-
god is outrageous, yet there are many half man/half gods in greek
mythology.