[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
All is Vanity See other All is Vanity Articles Title: The Dilemma of the Libertarian Homosexual Most people don’t know it, but most "pure," anarchist libertarians are homosexuals. Specifically, the leftist libertarians. They also tend to be anarchists, or, as they put it, anarcho-capitalists. They are stuck in a dilemma. Like the Marxists they so strongly resemble, they believe that once the State "withers way," then all will be equal – there will be no prejudice, no sexism, no ageism, no "homophobia," no racism. This is why they are leftist. The words they use -- "sexism," "homophobia," etc. -- ultimately mean nothing because they can mean anything. This "equality" is the leftist, utopian, never-will-exist pipe-dream. The Left exacerbates what problems that do exist by setting people at each other’s throats; the Right ameliorates them, because they know the free market and liberty tends toward toleration. What leftist-libertarians believe would happen is not what would happen. Like all leftists, they don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all. Under a totally free market, people will arrange themselves into loose hierarchies, with many different tribes, with the leaders at the top and the lazy and stupid at the bottom. This places homosexuals in a quandary. Their tribe has never been accepted as the equal of heterosexuals, and never will be. That’s why there is such an uproar over gay marriage. The most homosexuals can expect is tolerance, and little else. The fact they’re never been totally accepted is why so many of them (the leftist ones) wish to use the power of government to pass laws granting them what they see as equal rights, but everyone else sees as special ones. I have worked with homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Asians, whatever. We all got along just fine, because it was work. However, afterward, everyone went back to his or her own tribe. After all, you don’t see straight guys hanging out at gay bars. That’s the good thing about the free market and liberty: everyone can associate with who they want. It’s why so many homosexuals have moved to San Francisco, to be with their own tribe. That’s the why it should be; it minimizes conflict. My experience with a fair amount of homosexuals is that they can’t comprehend that straight guys can’t be turned. Some seem to think if you catch them as kids, they can be raised gay. Sorry, they can’t. It’s so strongly genetic it can’t be overcome, contrary to the hallucinations of the NAMBLA crowd. The hard left doesn’t really believe there is a human nature. Male, female, straight, gay…they believe it just depends on the way you’re raised because human nature is (they delude themselves) infinitely malleable and plastic. If that was true, then homosexuals, who are raised in straight society, would be straight. But they’re not, just as heterosexuals raised in a homosexual society would still turn out straight. Ever since I was a teenager, I wondered why anyone would care if a guy (or girl) had sex with someone of the same sex. Later, I realized for the most part, that wasn’t the problem. The problem is that a substantial number of homosexuals are pederasts – they like boys in their early teens. That’s the reason why the fashion industry, which is dominated by homosexuals, uses female models who have the build of 12- and 13-year-old boys. The women who complain about such things apparently don’t realize what the real problem is. It’s not heterosexual men. Then there is the problem that homosexuals, who make up two percent of the population, are responsible for at least one-third of all child sex crimes – murder, rape, molestation. I see no reason why it was any different in the past. Or why it will be any different in the future. I had half-a-dozen homosexuals hit on me in my teens. It happened to most of my friends, too. Suddenly, at the age of 21, it stopped. Damning coincidence, isn’t it? I wasn’t a teenager anymore. This tendency toward pederasty, and self-destruction, and child sex crimes, are the real reasons societies have always frowned on homosexuality. And it doesn’t help that these self-destructive tendencies are the reason that two-thirds of all AIDS cases are among homosexuals. And it also certainly doesn’t help when they refuse to admit these things about themselves. What leftist-homosexuals hope to do is expel the right wing from libertarianism, thinking they can impose their agenda. It won’t work. They’re wasting their time. They’re fighting battles they’ve already lost. What exactly do they expect to do? Use social pressure and ostracism? Or, in the long run, will their statist beliefs finally surface, after which they’ll give up any pretense of being libertarians and become just plain leftists? Most of them can’t really support the Right, because they realize that leads to vast majority of people will only tolerating them, or at best, find them amusing, the way the late Paul Lynde was amusing. Or Richard Simmons, or Liberace. If they support the Left, then they’re stuck heading back into trying to use the State and law, something that libertarians are supposed to see as one of the worst sins of all. So, they are stuck in a dilemma to which there really is no solution. Under complete liberty, they can only expect tolerance but not complete acceptance, (as one tribe will tolerate but ever really accept another) or under statism they can expect special rights but resentment and dislike from nearly everyone. at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Poster Comment: I had forgotten about this article, but found today from my blog it had a link at Steve Sailer. I would rewrite it a bit today, but not much. At Steve Sailer they were discussing libertarianism becoming a homosexual movement, per Tom Palmer, whom I refer to as "Little Tommy Poofter." As usual, I am a prophet, although a poorly paid one. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Turtle (#0)
IMO you left out one important variable in this equation. That variable is religion. Get rid of religion (or lessen it's effects even more), and their love of telling other people what they must and must not do in their own private lives, and a big part of the problem disappears. If it's voluntary, and they are of legal age, what's the problem? Not that I understand them, because I don't. But my lack of understanding, or my complete lack of even caring, is no reason to deny them their rights. If it's not voluntary and/or they are not of legal age, then there are already laws on the books.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||