Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Homosexuals: Genetically and Spiritually Superior?

Artificial insemination anyone?

Also, wasn't Tchaikovsky homosexual? Again. We all are innately bi-sexual.

We all are innately bi-sexual.

Bullshit.  I'm not attracted to the male form in the slightest, and that's not "social programming" or whatever farcical faggotry you feel like pulling.  Maybe you are "innately" bisexual - good for you.  Enjoy having your exhaust pipe blocked.  Just don't make stupid and entirely unfounded comments in discussions between (supposedly?) intelligent people.

If this feminized brain structure were "superior", in history and recent time why aren't there female or homosexual male scientists, scholars and warriors all across the board?

One can make note of many geniuses that never begat children or ‘bothered’ with family life, and the many great artists who were or have been reputed to have been homosexual or bisexual such as: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Beethoven, Chopin, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust and so on.


I'm not picking sides, just pointing out that he already answered your question. I'm interested to see how his statement will be rebunked. Mind you that since homosexuality has been heavily tabooed in the western world for 2000 years (because of christianity) there might be tons of historically important closet fags out there. But hey this should help: maybe it was because of the pressure they were under because of possible persecution that they tried to make themselves valuable in other ways. Maybe if homosexuality was encouraged then they would have all ended as some drunken sailors lovebird instead of geniuses. We'll never know any of these things for sure will we?

So here's another way of looking at it: what has homosexuality done for mankind? Not homos, but homosexuality itself...?

I was speaking in general terms here, but a good lot of those names in that list are male artists and writers, and my previous statement was not made in ignorance of that list.

It's possible that the successes of most of those men came from their being relatively celibate or sublimating their sexual drive, and whether their inborn preference be heterosexual or homosexual, it's still a sex drive that will make or break the man.

Nikola Tesla is one such heterosexual celibate genius, Friedrich Nietzsche might be another.

The fact that certain gay geniuses may have had to remain closeted homosexuals could have forced them to sublimate their energies into their specialties rather than toward chasing men. Another possibility is that certain behaviors by celibates may have had them considered by others to be gay or bisexual simply because they never had the drive to interact with women with great fervor. People get called gay in high school all the time for not going around to get laid or having a girlfriend: It doesn't mean they're gay.

It could more than likely mean they have other priorities and/or they are too socially-inept to get a girl.

We all are innately bi-sexual.

Mostly wrong. Women are the gender who are innately bisexual.

Men are either turned on more by women or by men, they have no choice. The men in the above linked study noted that they were only turned on by the films of their innately-preferred gender.

Tie this into the previous post about homosexual male brains resembling hetero female brains, and you'll see all signs pointing toward inborn sexuality.

Sure, a homosexual can learn to repress their gay urges in the closet and pretend to be straight and maybe stick his dick in a wet (female) hole or two, or a straight man can learn to tolerate taking it in the ass and sucking on cock, but neither of those situations are their inborn preferences.

What the fuck is wrong with all of you?  You guys would get farther arguing about which quarter-backer for which football team is the best.

What the fuck is wrong with all of you?  You guys would get farther arguing about which quarter-backer for which football team is the best.

Nah football is gay.

Mostly wrong. Women are the gender who are innately bisexual.

Interesting point; while arousal is not all there is to male-female relationships, this, in its way, confirms that polygamy (NOT polyandry) is based on the nature of things.
Whatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have dominion over you.

I find it very difficult that women are bisexual and men aren't.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!

I find it very difficult that women are bisexual and men aren't.
Women aren't innately bisexual, they just don't have "homophobia" hardwired into their brains like the majority of straight males do. When women commit sexual acts with each other it's almost always either for male enjoyment or male resentment (attention).

We all are innately bi-sexual.

The following groups agree with you:

* Educators
* Hollywood
* Liberals
* The government

On that basis alone, I'd be very suspicious of that theory. In particular, our society only recognizes sex=>love; what about love of friends, respect, etc? In former times, men and women could love one another without being fuckbuddies. Men could love their friends without frottage or sodomy. We should be careful about how we interpret love and sexuality, because it's possible that they are connected in a different direction: love=>sex, but not in all cases of "love," including love of country, love of idea, love of gods or God, love of nature, love of friends, love of pizza, etc.

I find it very difficult that women are bisexual and men aren't.
Women aren't innately bisexual, they just don't have "homophobia" hardwired into their brains like the majority of straight males do. When women commit sexual acts with each other it's almost always either for male enjoyment or male resentment (attention).

Yes, bisexual is not the proper word. Polygamy of course doesn't require a harem, but each wife must accept that her husband will copulate with and love not only her. Woman + woman is still abnormal.
Whatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have dominion over you.

Yes, bisexual is not the proper word. Polygamy of course doesn't require a harem, but each wife must accept that her husband will copulate with and love not only her. Woman + woman is still abnormal.

Is manasslove OK then?

It seems to me polygamy makes sense any time there are few prosperous males, and many starving females. A rich male can provide for them and spread his seed farther.

Polyamory on the other hand is more Western confusing of sex with love, and detaching the family-unit from love and the concept of providing for someone because you love them.

It seems to me polygamy makes sense any time there are few prosperous males, and many starving females. A rich male can provide for them and spread his seed farther.

It is also a matter of race and individual temperament. But why do we always have to search for the causes of a thing in less important factors (reductionism)? If polygamy is a human arrangement that considers and makes good use of human nature, it is good. Period.

I agree that it is important not to confuse polygamy with, as you named it, polyamory, or free love. No traditional civilization ever tolerated adultery.
Whatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have dominion over you.



I once talked to an interesting homo who supported fascism, I was quite surprised and ask him to elaborate.. He went on and on describing how homosexuality was on thing and  "gay-pride culture" as a political tool of the left another, and those two must not be confused. He violently opposed gay-marriage and ranted about the moronic behavior of his fellow homos in modern society.  His views were quite similar to what this Jack Donovan seems to advocate in this book "Androphilia". He was very ideological and had some pretty fantastic ideas about homosexuals becoming a special class of expendable and non-breeding workers and warriors in the future. I told him to take a look at ANUS.com ..  "I don't watch porn" he responded.. I laughed.

 
Quote
Jack Malebranche’s Androphilia: A Manifesto
Derek Hawthorne

"Near the end of Androphilia, Jack Donovan writes “It has always seemed like some profoundly ironic cosmic joke to me that the culture of men who love men is a culture that deifies women and celebrates effeminacy. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the culture of men who are sexually fascinated by men actually idolized men and celebrated masculinity?” (p. 115).

He has a point there. As Donovan notes, homosexual porn is almost exclusively focused on hypermasculine archetypes: the lumberjack, the marine, the jock, the cop, etc. (I am going to employ the term “homosexual,” despite its problematic history, as a neutral term to denote same-sex desire among men. I am avoiding the term “gay,” for reasons that will soon be apparent.) So why are homosexuals, who worship masculine men, so damn queeny? Most straight men (and women too) would offer what they see as the obvious answer: homosexuals are not real men. They are a sort of strange breed of womanly man, and it is precisely the otherness of masculine men that attracts them so. This is, after all, the way things work with straight people: men are attracted to women, and vice versa, because they are other. We want what we are not. Therefore, if a man desires another man then he must not be a real man.

What makes this theory so plausible is that so many self-identified homosexuals do behave in the most excruciatingly effeminate manner. They certainly seem to be not-quite-men. Donovan thinks (and I believe he is correct) that it is this womanish behavior in homosexuals that bothers straight men so much – more so, actually, than the fact that homosexuals have sex with other men in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Donovan objects to effeminacy in homosexuals as well, but he sees this effeminacy as a socially-constructed behavior pattern; as a consequence of the flawed logic that claims “since we’re attracted to what’s other, if you’re a man attracted to a man you must not be a real man.” Having bought into this way of seeing things, the “gay community” actually encourages its members to “camp it up” and get in touch with their feminine side. They think they are liberating themselves, but what they don’t see is that they have bought into a specific set of cultural assumptions which effectively rob them of their manhood, in their own eyes and in the eyes of society.

Donovan argues, plausibly, that homosexual attraction should be seen as a “variation in desire” among men (p. 21). Homosexuals are men — men who happen to be attracted to other men. Their sexual desire does not make them into a separate species of quasi-men. This is a point that will be resisted by many, but it is easily defended. One can see this simply by reflecting on how difficult it is to comprehend the homosexuals of yore in the terms we use today to deal with these matters. There was, after all, unlikely to have been anything “queeny” (and certainly not cowardly) about the Spartan 300, who were 150 homosexual couples. And the samurai in feudal Japan were doing it too — just to mention two examples... "

Counter-Currents Publishing