The Homosexual Movement Is The Most Hateful And Most Vile Group In All Of The Western World
The homosexual movement is the most hateful and most vile group in all of the Western world. The sodomites are supremacists; they believe that they have the superior lifestyle, a disposition and constitution more superior than the “others,” who they consider as inferior breeders. This is the ideology of sodomism.
Sodomism is the ideology of homosexual superiority, in which the homosexuals desire to usher in — through propaganda, violence and state coercion — a utopia in which homosexuality is seen as a supreme ideal, and those who believe in the conjugal union as is affirmed and established by the Jewish and Christian Faith, are viewed and treated as enemies.
Many empires have advanced sodomism, with each attaching it to a particular religion. The Roman Empire advanced sodomism as it was associated with their own religion; the Seleucids advanced sodomism as it was associated with their hybrid religion of Syrian and Greek mythologies; the Greeks did the same, as did the Samurai and the Muslims.
… While the modernist heretics of today want to accuse us of sexism, they praise the greatest form of sexism, and that is homosexuality, where gender is seen as insignificant, the role of the woman is seen as nothing, and where a child having the chance to be raised by a woman, is viewed as frivolous, and any objection to this is viewed as dangerous.
Its quite interesting that the Bible describes the sodomites as proud, and today they flood the streets and call their assemblies a “pride rally.” They are proud of their sodomism, and lift their heads above humanity. We see this in the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah. The homosexuals surround the house and cry out, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” (Genesis 19:5) They immediately wanted men, seeing the conjugal union as inferior.
This dark sentiment fully manifested itself once Lot cowardly offered his daughters to satisfy their violent lusts, and they said: “Stand back!” (Genesis 19:9) They wanted nothing to do with women, because at that point, they had totally plunged themselves into the prison of the demonic and fled away from the higher humanity; but not only this, it was because they saw the woman as inferior, and homosexual sodomy as superior.
There is no other reason as to why the sodomites wanted to abolish marriage between a man and a woman, than that they view the conjugal union as inferior to their sexual anarchy. They see sexual anarchy as superior to orthodox monogamy, and this is why they demanded the redefining of marriage. It was purely a supremacist push.
… People are confused as to why “gay marriage” has had so much success in the US when the majority of Americans oppose it. You can complain at the government all you want, the ultimate reason as to why “gay marriage” succeeded, is because many of these same Americans who oppose “gay marriage” do not want to remember [the Bible]. They are attached. They are attached to their “gay friends,” they are attached to their favorite gay characters on their favorite TV shows, they are attached to Sodom. The ultimate cause for same-sex marriage’s success is because the West is filled with Lot’s wives.
The homosexual movement cloaks itself as a gentle and tender group, with gay men portraying themselves as caring, sensitive to your emotions, and concerned for your hurt feelings. This is far from the truth. Underneath all of the smiles, is an offense against the good, and while they present themselves as outgoing and fun-loving, within them is a declaration of war against Heaven itself. What most do not know, is that the common image of the “fun loving gay man,” was a propaganda tool that the sodomites made up as a way to help portray themselves as harmless in order to desensitize the society to sodomism.
In 1987, an article entitled, The Overhauling of Straight America, by two sodomites — Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill — was published. In the article lied the strategy to conquer America with sodomism. One of the strategies was called, “PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS” and “TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE”, to which they explained how to use the portrayal of gays as harmless victims and the utilization of Hollywood as a means to remove the guard that American society once had against homosexuality:
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride” publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image.
… The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message–of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects).
In films and TV shows, sodomites have been and are being portrayed as nice and humorous people. This is being done as a way to cover up for their true demonic goals: tyrannize Christians in a utopia where homosexuals are superior to people who are not sodomites. In the same article that was just quoted, the sodomite authors write that “the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society.” And this is what they have been doing: portraying sodomites as more intelligent, and morally supreme.
The homosexuals desire to establish a utopia: where homosexuality is seen as superior, esteemed as surpassing the natural fashion of intercourse between man and woman in a higher level of human evolution in the Darwinian scale, and where natural love between man and woman is deemed as only a breeding mechanism to keep the propagation of humanity sustained. Lower humans — the heterosexuals — are just breeders to keep mankind going; they are slaves whose purpose it is just to produce children who can maintain the world, and be absorbed into the homoerotic utopia. The breeders breed, so that we can keep living. This is how the sodomite agenda sees us in the end.
Of course I am sure it is hard for many of you to believe this, but we know this mindset to be existent just from what the homosexuals themselves write. The homosexual writer James Baldwin, according to pro-homosexual author Byrne R.S. Fone, “presents homosexuality positively as an ethically superior kind of love”. (Byrne R.S. Fone, The Columbia Anthology of Gay Literature, p. 675) The idea of promoting homosexuality as a “superior kind of love” can only signify the dark sentiment that sodomites are superior to people of natural attractions.
The homosexual movement is a supremacist movement, that sees homosexuality as not only intellectually and spiritually superior, but genetically superior. Have you ever wondered why the sodomites are so fixated on proving that they are “born this way,” and obsessed with discovering the “gay gene”? Its because if they can prove that homosexuality is genetic, then they can be more enabled to gradually inculcate the idea (which they already believe) that they are genetically superior to normal people.
Its the same reason why atheists are very enthusiastic on finding the “God gene,” because if they can prove that some people are genetically inclined to be religious, then atheists are genetically superior to Christians (and from such thoughts, mountains of bodies and skulls are erected).
Bertram Cohler, one of the devisers of the idea of the “gay identity” that so many today are subscribing to, wrote of one idea that taught that “the homosexual gene, in proper proportion, would confer an evolutionary advantage to the population in which it existed”. (Bertram J. Cohler & Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, The Course of Gay and Lesbian Lives, p. 57)
Jim McKinight, Chair of Psychology Department at the University of Western Sydney, wrote that “straight” men who carry the homosexual gene are superior to those without it. His writing is quite reminiscent to the type of language used by the eugenists and the Nazis. He speaks of how “homosexual genes confer a benefit to the species”, and goes on to say:
Those straight men who have one homosexual gene (and here we are assuming a single gene for simplicity’s sake; the actual situation is more likely polygenic) probably have an enhanced sex drive which leads to great numbers of children and to a retention of the blanched homosexuality gene. These straight men are therefore genetically superior by virtue of having a dose of gayness — least in this respect. (Jim McKnight, Straight Science? p. 76)
When I read all of this talk of “benefit to the species,” and being “genetically superior,” I cannot help but be reminded of the Nazis and the social Darwinists who dominated Western society in the 20th century. I also cannot help but make several observations: 1) That when the leftists claim to be against racism, they are not only liars, but promoters of racism and supremacy of the worst kind — Darwinist racism and supremacy; 2) When the homosexuals claim to be for “equality,” they are actually for superiority, superiority over those who have natural affections for the opposite gender, superiority over women who want to partake in their God-given roles of motherhood and wifely duties, superiority over men who want to be men and not try to recreate man into an diabolical image.
Ruse M., another pro-sodomite writer, wrote that “the existence and persistence of homosexuality is a function of superior heterozygote fitness.” (See Richard C. Friedman, Male Homosexuality, p. 31)
Actress Lisa Kudrow, says that homosexuals are “superior beings”:
I don’t know who I’m going to offend by leaving them out, but I need to say that I think gay men are superior beings in my mind… The two sides of the brain communicate better than a straight man’s, and I think that has to be really important. They’re not women — they’re still men — and women also have thicker corpus callosums, so I think it’s the combination of those qualities that makes them like a superhuman to me.
Moby, a well known musician, states that gays are superior to people of natural affections:
I’m straight but I’ve grown up around gay people and gay clubs. They are superior to straight people. If you have a gay child you’re more inclined to be a prouder parent.
Satoshi Kanazawa, evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, wrote a long paper on the connection between superior intelligence and homosexuality. He wrote:
Regardless of their true sexual orientation, more intelligent individuals may identify themselves as homosexual, engage in homosexual behaviour or report homosexual fantasies and desires.
Satoshi also said, “more intelligent individuals are more likely to identify themselves to be homosexual, while more educated individuals are less likely to do so.” He also wrote: “more intelligent individuals in the United Kingdom have had significantly ( p < 0.05) more same-sex cohabitation partners in their lifetimes than less intelligent individuals.” He then went on to say:
My paper represents one of the most comprehensive empirical attempts to establish the association between intelligence and homosexuality, using large, prospectively longitudinal and nationally representative samples from two different nations. While other studies have noted a potential empirical association between intelligence and homosexuality, to the best of my knowledge, the Hypothesis provides the only theoretical explanation for why we may expect such an association to exist at all. It explains why more intelligent children may grow up to identify themselves as homosexual, express homosexual attraction, have more homosexual sexual and cohabitation partners than less intelligent children.
You will deny that this is what the homosexual agenda truly believes, you will say that this is a false accusation. But, the reason why I make these affirmations with confidence, is because of the history of homosexuality. In history, we see the future. It is in their very history, in their very wicked disposition, to believe that they are superior to those of natural affections.
Just look at pagan history, where homosexuality dominated, and you will see how pagans did indeed esteem homosexuality as a superior love.
The sodomites, when articulating this warped view, are inspired by the pagan world — such as the Samurai, and especially the Greeks and Romans — where homosexuality was seen as a supreme action, superior to any relations between man and woman, and a virtue that even had spiritual significance and meaning.
… The supreme view of homosexuality was innate within the religion of both the Greek and Roman Empires. It is all inherent within the pagan spirit itself. The exaltation of the male body was rooted in the pagan hatred for women, which was inherent in the Greco-Roman religion. Hesiod, one of the greatest prophets for the religion of the Roman empire, wrote that Zeus actually created women as a curse to men, a belief completely contrary to the civilized and beautiful Genesis account of Adam and Eve:
Both immortal gods and mortal men were seized with wonder when they saw that precipitous trap [woman], more than mankind can manage. For from her is descended the female sex, a great affliction to mortals as they dwell with their husbands–no fit partners for accursed Poverty, but only for Plenty. …even so as a bane for mortal men has high-thundering Zeus created women, conspirators causing difficulty.
This verse establishes the position of inferiority upon the woman, and the exaltation of men, created by Zeus. This inferiority would be instrumental in the exaltation of homosexuality within the pagan religion. Zeus himself was a homosexual, sodomizing a young man named Ganymedes. Clement of Alexandria exposed the homosexual nature of the Greek religion when he listed the young men who the gods sodomized:
For your gods did not abstain even from boys. One loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymedes. These are the gods your wives are to worship!(Clem. Alex. Exhort. 2)
The homosexual intellects will quote and point to various statements made by the pagan ancients that praise homosexuality as superior to the natural affections. One of them is the statement by Protogenes, recorded in one of the dialogues of Plutarch. In the conversation, Daphnaeus asks Protogenes,
Do you call the marriage and union of man and woman most disgraceful, than which no holier tie exists nor ever did?
To which Protogenes replies:
Why, as all this is necessary for the human race to continue, our legislators do not act amiss in crying up marriage and eulogizing it to the masses, but of genuine love there is not a particle in the woman’s side of a house; and I also say that you who are sweet on women and girls only love them as flies love milk, and bees the honey-comb, and butchers and cooks calves and birds, fattening them up in darkness. But as nature leads one to eat and drink moderately and sufficiently, and excess in this is called gluttony and gormandizing, so the mutual desires between men and women are natural; but that headlong, violent, and uncontrollable passion for the sex is not rightly called love. For love, when it seizes a noble and young soul, ends in virtue through friendship; but these violent passions for women, at the best, aim only at carnal enjoyment and reaping the harvest of a beauteous prime, as Aristippus showed in his answer to one who told him Lais loved him not, ‘No more,’ he said, ‘do meat and wine love me, but I gladly enjoy both.’ For the end of passion is pleasure and fruition: but love, when it has once lost the promise of friendship, will not remain and continue to cherish merely for beauty that which gives it pain, where it gives no return of friendship and virtue. You remember the husband in the play saying to his wife, ‘Do you hate me? I can bear that hatred very easily, since of my dishonour I make money.’
Not a whit more really in love than this husband is the one, who, not for gain but merely for the sexual appetite, puts up with a peevish and unsympathetic wife, as Philippides, the comic poet, ridiculed the orator, Stratocles, ‘You scarce can kiss her if she turns her back on you.’ If, however, we ought to give the name of love to this passion, then is it an effeminate and bastard love, and like at Cynosarges, taking us to the woman’s side of the house: or rather as they say there is a genuine mountain eagle, which Homer called ‘black, and a bird of prey,’ and there are other kinds of spurious eagles, which catch fish and lazy birds in marshes, and often in want of food emit an hungry wail: so the genuine love is the love of boys, a love not ‘flashing with desire,’ as Anacreon said the love of maidens was, nor ‘redolent of ointment and sprightly,’ but you will see it plain and without airs in the schools of the philosophers, or perhaps in the gymnasiums and wrestling-schools, keenly and nobly pursuing youths, and urging on to virtue those who are well worthy of attention: but that soft and stay-at-home love, spending all its time in women’s bosoms and beds, always pursuing effeminate delights, and enervated by unmanly, unfriendly, and unimpassioned pleasures, we ought to condemn as Solon condemned it: for he forbade slaves to love boys or to anoint them with oil, while he allowed them to associate with women. For friendship is noble and refined, whereas pleasure is vulgar and illiberal. Therefore, for a slave to love boys is neither liberal or refined: for it is merely the love of copulation, as the love of women.” (Plutarch, On Love, section iv)
Notice how Protogenes does not deny that marriage between man and woman is necessary for the continuation of the human race, and that this conjugal union between man and woman is fit for slaves, while homosexual connections are for the superior man. This ancient homosexual view of heterosexuals reflects the modern homosexual views: normal couples are merely slaves for the purpose of breeding, while homosexual debaucheries are for the superior people. An evidence to this is the homosexual use of artificial insemination: they hijack the natural order to recruit a child into their agenda, knowing that their ways is contrary to divine nature, but at the same time seeing it as below them.
In the conversation, after Protogenes expresses his fanatic devotion towards homosexuality, Daphnaeus interrupts him, and while supporting sexual relationships between men and boys, affirms the superiority of marriage between man and woman:
But indeed, Protogenes, if we look at the real facts of the case, the love for boys and women is really one and the same passion: but if you wish in a disputatious spirit to make any distinction, you will find that this boy-love goes beyond all bounds, and, like some late-born and ill-begotten bastard brat, seeks to expel its legitimate brother the older love, the love of women. For indeed, friend, it is only yesterday or the day before, since the strippings and exposures of the youths in the gymnasiums, that this boy-love crept in, and gently insinuated itself and got a footing, and at last in a little time got fully-fledged in the wrestling-schools, and has now got fairly unbearable, and insults and tramples on conjugal love, that love that gives immortality to our mortal race, when our nature has been extinguished by death, kindling it again by new births.
This statement shows that there was still some sense that was preserved amongst the pagans, and that they understood that marriage between man and woman was far older than homosexuality, and the natural process for procreation.
Nevertheless, homosexual ideology was still espoused and subscribed to in the pagan dominated empires where sodomite relations were seen either as superior or equal to natural relations. The words of Daphnaeus also shows that marriage, even in pagan dominated lands, was between man and woman, and that homosexuality came later, only to heavily percolate itself throughout the world. This is what the sodomite agenda desires to do now: to take what has already been established by God and to bring us back to what already sprung its colossal head in pagan antiquity.
In Plato’s Symposium, homosexual desires are esteemed as “great and proud thoughts” and amongst “much finer customs” (trans. Benardete). In the same dialogue of Plato, Aristophanes tells Eryximachus that the first humans were individual male and female, but beings who had two sets of genitals, some with a phallus and a vulva, and others with either two female genitalia or two male privates.
These beings tried to overthrow the gods, and as punishment, were cut in half, and from this severing came individual women and men. Homosexuals, to Eryximachus, are simply people who were originally from the line of those who had two penises, and thus, to indulge in homosexuality is to simply return to one’s natural and original nature. Eryximachus says:
First of all, the races of human beings were three, not two as now, male and female; for there was also a third race that shared in both, a race whose name still remains, though it itself has vanished. For at that time one race was androgynous, and in looks and name it combined both, the male as well as the female; but now it does not exist except for the name that is reserved for reproach.
…And each one had four arms, and legs equal in number to his arms, and two faces alike in all respects on a cylindrical neck, but there was one head for both faces — they were set in opposite directions — and four ears, and two sets of genitals, and all the rest that one might conjecture from this.
Eryximachus goes on to say that lesbians are simply related to those who were, in the most ancient of days, attached to women, and sodomites are simply related to those who were connected to men. Homosexuality, according to Eryximachus, is therefore natural, and that homosexuals are naturally superior to other men:
And all women who are sliced off from woman hardly pay attention to men but are rather turned toward women, and lesbians arise from this genus. But all who are males slices pursue the males; and while they are boys — because they are cutlets of the male — they are friendly to men and enjoy lying down together with and embracing men; and these are the best of boys and lads, because they are naturally the manliest.
Eryximachus later describes homosexual relations by saying: “this was our ancient nature and were wholes.”
In Sparta, the gymnasium was institutionalized in the role of forcing recruited young Greek boys, by the age of twelve, into becoming homosexual warriors. The historian Plutarch writes:
By this age the boys came to be courted by lovers from among the respectable young men. The older men, too, showed even more interest, visiting the gymnasia frequently and being present when the boys fought and joked with one another.
The sodomite agenda wants to see this same cruel tyranny established today, in order to build a homoerotic utopia where boys are recruited for a homosexual army, and the male body is exalted as the primal and pure physique of a warrior. Lets not forget what the Gay Manifesto says:
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. … We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
The Spartans recruited boys into a militant homosexual system, and so today we find the sodomites gradually trying to extinguish parental rights in regards to sexuality, for the purpose of convincing children into becoming sodmites, and ultimately, recruit them for their movement. This is clearly seen in Chris Christie’s decision to ban all licensed therapists from treating homosexual children to bring them back to normality and the natural order. They want the state to sever the influence of parents from their children, and make the youths open to homosexual propaganda, and thus for recruitment.
Since it would be difficult for the sodomites to actively introduce children to homosexuality, they want parents to do this for them. One reprobate has made this recent statement:
I have had intuitive thoughts that such would be a healthy way for parents to interact with their children and introduce their children to sensual/sexual pleasure and bonding and loving practices … Who better to do it, than the parents first?
Homosexual acts were not only encouraged and common, but imposed in the pagan world. In Sparta, for example, if you were a handsome man of good character and did not have a male lover at all, you were fined. The ancient scholar Aelian explains:
And any man of good appearance and character who did not fall in love with someone well-bred was also fined, because despite his excellence he did not love anyone.
Amongst the Samurai, women were seen as breeders and the conjugal union as the means to human propagation, while homosexual sodomy was esteemed as superior, even to a spiritual level. In the Encyclopedia of Gay Histories and Cultures, edited by George E. Haggerty, distinguished professor at University of California, Riverside, it says:
Among samurai, homosexuality was viewed positively, in contest to heterosexuality. Women were principally considered as breeders of heirs to ensure continuation of the family line, and they were looked down upon as inferior to men. Indeed, some sects of Buddhism in Japan taught that women were by nature more sinful as less likely to attain enlightenment than men, while menstruation was viewed as a sign of tainted karma. The Chinese idea of yin and yang also contributed to this belief — male sexuality as primarily yang, while female was primarily yin, and a yin element in man was taught to be exposed through physical contact with a woman. Consequently, association with women was considered a feminization of the male self, except for the purpose of impregnation of the mundane gratification of one’s lust carnal lusts. For spiritual uplift and enhancement of their masculinity, warriors were encouraged to associate with other men.
There is one saint who is almost unknown to the modern world, who was martyred because he refused to be homosexual: St. Pelagius, a martyr of Spain who lived in the 10th century.
St. Pelagius was a young man, and was a prisoner to the Muslim caliph ‘Abd Al-Rahman III, an inveterate homosexual, who had a whole harem of male lovers, and who would soon lust after the young Christian.
Al-Rahman invited Pelagius to a party and promised him a life of utter luxury if he would become his homosexual partner and convert to Islam. He also told him that if he accepted this offer, that he would be completely permitted to have homosexual intercourse with any man in the palace, and that he would free any of his relatives from prison.
Pelagius refused, and being utterly adverse to both Islam and homosexuality, rejected his diabolical proposition. After this rejected, al-Rahman touched Pelagius in a homosexual way, and the Christian, so repulsed by, struck the caliph in the face and said, “Take off [your hands], dog, do you think me like one of yours, an effeminate?”
Al-Rahman then had the other homosexuals in the palace try to persuade Pelagius to join the sodomite tryst, but this did not work. It is said that at this point al-Rahman put his hand firmly on Pelagius’ face, he then put his arm around his neck, and drew him to closer to kiss him. Pelagius was so incensed about this that he struck the Muslim in the face, hard enough the blow drew blood which dripped down to his beard.
‘Abd al-Rahman was so filled with homosexual frenzy, that he had the young Christian saint slaughtered in the most brutal way. For six hours he was tortured: he was slowly dismembered; they cut off his arm, then his leg, then more parts of his body were severed, until he was reduced to pieces. They then threw body parts into a river and they were later picked up by fellow Christians.
There are other examples of Islamic homosexual tyranny on Christians. Mehmet II, the sadistic sultan who invaded the Christian city of Constantinople, tried to force two Greek Christian boys to be his sex slaves. One of them, aged fifteen, refused to be raped and so was stabbed to death by the possessed sultan. (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. lxviii, p. 1213)
ISIS are a bunch of homosexual, Jew-hating and anti-Christian murderers. They are the purest form of the homosexual agenda, and they are just as evil, as the reprobate sodomites in the West. There is a recent report that reveals that ISIS officials have homo sex with other men in their tents.
According to the report:
In a joint statement released on August 13 2014 two senior United Nations officials spoke out against Isis’ “barbaric acts” of sexual violence and “savage rapes” of Iraqi minorities. “We are gravely concerned by continued reports of acts of violence, including sexual violence against women and teenage girls and boys belonging to Iraqi minorities,” Zainab Hawa Bangura and Nickolay Mladenov said.
One detail in Arango’s story, however, stands out: it is the reference to homosexual sex in an Isis training camp. “He [Barho] said he saw men having sex with other men behind the tents in the desert night.”
… Stuart Kellogg, the homosexual writer and editor for the sodomite magazine, The Advocate, presents an essay by Byrne R.S. Fonethe utopian inspiration that homosexual writers have from the “Arcadian ideal” (based on ancient Greece) and how they frame their utopian fantasy in which homosexuality is superior to natural relations between man and woman based on the decadence of pagan mythologies:
I would like to suggest that the Arcadian ideal has been used in the homosexual literary tradition in a fashion that speaks directly to the gay sensibility. The homosexual imagination finds a special value and a particular use for his ideal, employing it in three major ways: 1) to suggest a place where it is safe to be gay: where gay men can be free from the outlaw status society confers upon us, where homosexuality can be revealed and spoken of without reprisal, and where homosexual love can be consummated without concern for the punishment or scorn of the world; 2) to imply the presence of gay love and sensibility in a text that otherwise makes no explicit statement about homosexuality; and 3) to establish a metaphor for certain spiritual values and myths prevalent in homosexual literature and life, namely, that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality and is a divinely sanctioned means to an understanding of the good and beautiful” (Stuart Kellogg, Essays on Gay Literature)
Notice the use of the term, “divinely sanctioned.” These sodomites hold up homosexuality to something divine, raising themselves up as gods above the insignificant breeders of humanity. While normal humans partake in sex between men and women, the homosexual is doing something that is beyond human, beyond the natural order, beyond the creation of God, and thus they make themselves as being above God.
The sodomites see themselves as gods, bent on overthrowing the only God in Heaven, to recreate the human race, from being images made in the likeness of God, into vile idols of the devil, from being man and woman — for “Male and female created he them” (Genesis 5:2) — to being whatever creatures they see themselves as. You cannot deny this superiority complex. How else can you explain how they see themselves as empowered to recreate reality, to say that man is woman and woman is man, that reality is not what is, but only what is perceived in their reprobate minds?
How else can you explain that these people will suddenly stand up and declare, that the dignify of womanhood means nothing, that the profound nature of the woman to bring forth new life, to partake in the process of creation, is meaningless, that women have no distinct roles in the family, no significance, that the influence of a mother towards her child is but rubbish, in comparison to what they see as the superior system of seeing human beings as just mere living things that can be redefined a million times over until they have no distinction, until they lose the image of God that was given to them in mankind’s beginning?
… You will deny that they think this way, but go ahead and tell the sodomite that two men cannot have children, and they will tell you: “Yes we can! We can use artificial insemination!” meaning that they will have a woman hold their seed, and once the baby is born, it is taken away to become a citizen of sodom and called their child. To these sodomites, the woman is nothing but a breeder, an incubator, only a means to an end in their utopia in which homosexuality is esteemed and held up as the superior way of living, and the conjugal union between man and woman is seen as only a method to bring children.
