Not at all. Merely "Iris Robinson, Sinner". As we all are.
But she was an enemy of the almighty homosexualist movement, and therefore must be destroyed.
Like the majority of voters in California, and no doubt like the Supreme Court of the United States when it rules that that majority's position, which is also the position of the man to whom it successfully gave its Electoral College votes on the same day, is perfectly constitutional.
The idea of homosexuality as an identity - comparable to sex, ethnicity or class, and as fixed as the first of those - is still not yet forty years old, is scientifically baseless, is historically and anthropologically illiterate, and was invented by promiscuous pederasts for their own nefarious purposes. Acts are homosexual, and between consenting adults in private they are no business of the criminal law. But persons are not homosexual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The idea of homosexuality as an identity - comparable to sex, ethnicity or class, and as fixed as the first of those - is still not yet forty years old, is scientifically baseless, is historically and anthropologically illiterate, and was invented by promiscuous pederasts for their own nefarious purposes. Acts are homosexual, and between consenting adults in private they are no business of the criminal law. But persons are not homosexual."
ReplyDeleteExactly. Common sense - well said.
You hit the nail on the head. In the US, obtaining recognition of homosexuality as an immutable characteristic like race is a major element in the attempt to have homosexuality placed on or near the same legal level as race and other classifications for the purposes of equal protection analysis.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, (although I might be going out on a limb here), I don't think it is a coincidence that the gay marriage movement was only able to really pick up steam until after neoliberal economics became dominant, or at least more influential, in the West.
Clearly, a huge amount of people do "identify" as being homosexual.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, see Hilary and Mr. Piccolo, who is absolutely right in his second paragraph.
ReplyDeleteYou can blog and moan as much as you like but I and very very many others do identify as being homosexual.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if during the course of a conversation I mentioned my same sex partner then surely I am identifying as a homosexual.
I'm glad to see that we have found the other side's level of argumentation.
ReplyDelete"The idea of homosexuality as an identity comparable to sex, ethnicity or class... is scientifically baseless"
ReplyDeleteAu contraire. Sub-dividing people into two groups, one of which exclusively has (or desires) sex only with members of the same sex, and one which doesn't, is more scientific than labelling them "black", for example. And far more scientific than labelling them "working class".
But more to the point, so what? People identify as gay and want to marry each other. What possible reason can there be to stop them?
Ask Barack Obama.
ReplyDelete