by Igor Alexander
I’ve been noticing a consistent pattern lately on the part of homosexuals, both male and female, to play down the “sex” part of homosexuality and try to present it instead as a “love” or a “romance” thing. I no longer believe that this is truthful or sincere on their part, but is rather a ruse, a calculated, coordinated “educational effort,” to try to make homosexuality more acceptable to and less easy to criticize by the heterosexual majority. This strategy makes sense, since many heterosexual people find the sex part of homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, revolting. It also dovetails with the campaign by homosexual zealots to extend the so-called “right” of marriage to homosexuals (unfortunately, far too many heterosexuals view marriage as being solely about romantic love and miss its real purpose — to be touched on later — which prevents them from understanding why homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed).
This tactic seems to be working with a lot of people; mention the word “love” to some people (particularly females) and their rational senses seem to shut down to be replaced by a warm, fuzzy feeling. “Aww, it can’t be bad if it’s love! The only evil in this world is hate, and only a hater would try to stand in the way of love.” Kinda scary that as many adults with full voting privileges have an intellectual capacity that doesn’t exceed a Hallmark card.
I do not believe that a lesbian can experience “love” towards a woman in the same way that a heterosexual experiences love towards a partner of the opposite sex. Whenever I see lesbians attempting to describe what it feels like to be “in love,” they invariably confuse the symptoms of infatuation — butterflies in the stomach, thinking about the person all the time, a willingness to submit to the person and do anything possible to make that person happy — for love (by the same criteria, you could just as easily say that the average stalker is “in love”). Infatuation or what some call “romantic attraction” is a part of sexual attraction, not seperate from it. Some people don’t get this because they think “sexual” must mean that only the genitals can be involved, which isn’t true; sexual attraction can manifest itself in many ways besides, or in addition to, a tingling sensation in one’s genitals. The reality is that there is nothing “romantic” or glamorous about true love. It’s something that grows out of dirty diapers and attending the funerals of in-laws; it’s not some transcendental euphoric experience that arrives suddenly like a thunderbolt or one of cupid’s arrows, though it’s not surprising that a generation raised on MTV that views unhappiness as a Prozak deficiency would have that expectation. The true measure of love isn’t how a person “feels,” it’s the longevity of the relationship, the sacrifices each partner is willing to make for the sake of the relationship. Heterosexual love — true love — is based on a profound sense of trust and interdependence that takes years, even decades, to build. True love requires a polarization, the polarization between a man and a woman; it cannot be based on the narcissism of homosexuality. When lesbians pontificate on “love,” they don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re confusing a hormonal experience for a spiritual one. By turning their backs on heterosexuality, lesbians have removed the possibility of ever knowing true love.
As for male homosexuality being about “falling in love,” give me a break. If I was fresh off the farm or some suburban schmuck who had never met a homo in his life, I might buy that, but as it happens, I’ve known dozens of fags throughout my life and have had dozens of encounters in which “gay” or bisexual men have tried, often very aggressively, to get down my pants. Any fag who tells you that male homosexuality is about “love” rather than lust is pissing in your face and telling you that it’s raining.
Cynicism is in order when it comes to evaluating the claims of the homosexual lobby. These people have an agenda, and that agenda is going to have some deeply destructive effects upon society if it is allowed to go through. Don’t let sappy sentimentalism cloud your better judgement on these matters.
It is not in the best interests of your children to have “gay” Boy Scout leaders, or to allow homosexuals to confuse your kids about their sexuality through the public school system under the pretense of “fighting homophobia.” It is not in the interest of national security to have unabashed homosexuals in the military. It is not in the interests of society to degrade the institution of marriage, which plays such a crucial role in the proper rearing of children, by extending the so-called “right” of marriage to homosexuals. Marriage is a responsibility, not a “right,” and to entrust that responsibility to sexual deviants who cannot reproduce by natural means is to make a mockery of it, to cheapen it, to obscure its real purpose, which is to create stable, healthy families.
The homosexual agenda is a political agenda which has nothing to do with “love” or “romance” and it should be treated as coldly and dispassionately as you would the agenda of any other special interest group. The public must start looking at the big picture — at the long-term consequences the changes being demanded by the homosexual lobby will have on the whole of society — and not just at whether the homosexual who lives down the street appears to be a “nice person” or not.