How homosexuality destroys society and families: Part 3 – Increased immorality

Image

On May 10, 2012 – the day after Barack Obama announced that he supported same-sex “marriage,” St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Acushnet, Massachusetts (USA) countered with its own message. Almost immediately the church received hateful phone calls and Facebook page posts. Is that the wonderful “tolerance” for divergent opinions homo lobbies are always preaching about?

American President Barack Obama announced on 9th May, 2012 that his views on homosexuality have “evolved” to the point where he now supports same-sex “marriages”. This must really stand out as one of the most brazen lies ever uttered by the man. The truth is, Obama has always been an ardent supporter of so-called homosexual rights in America since the 1990s.

He did try to hide the fact during the 2008 elections. Tragically, his rival in that year’s presidential campaign Senator John McCain woefully failed to call his bluff on the subject. In my opinion, this was deliberate on McCain’s part to give Obama an easier pass into the presidency as part of an elaborate charade that passes for democracy in that country. Mitt Romney will likely do the same thing this year.

Nonetheless, the recent “coming out” by Obama sets the stage for us to examine a fundamental question the cultural wars in America are grappling with today – whether homosexuality is in fact a destructive and immoral behaviour as thousands of past generations have rightly believed, or whether it is after all a human “right” beyond the moral question as advocated by supporters of homosexuality. This is the last of my three-part series demonstrating how homosexuality destroys society.

Morality is largely defined as principles concerning the distinction between wrong or right behaviour among human beings. In that context, it’s pretty easy to conclude that homosexual behaviour is actually a wrong sexual behaviour because of the following three simple reasons:

1. It’s biologically unhealthy:

This is due to a raging epidemic of diseases documented by credible medical research, higher suicide rates, higher rates of child sexual molestation and insanely high rates of sexual promiscuity – these statistics show that for every one woman a heterosexual man has had sex with in his lifetime, the average homosexual man has engaged in sodomy with nearly 50 male partners. Yes, you read that right – fifty men or boys! Because of this deadly lifestyle (a “deathstyle” actually), homosexuals have an overall diminished life expectancy of up to 20 years on average compared to heterosexuals.

2. It’s biologically unnatural:

This is rather obvious from our genital make-up. When it comes to same-sex relations, the parts simply don’t fit and that’s why it is regarded as abnormal. For those liberal minded fellows who have a problem with the word “normal”, here’s a working definition – “that which works according to design”.

Sex between a man and a woman is an act according to nature (natural). More appropriately – its how God designed human beings to enjoy  themselves as couples and procreate their own kind. Anything else is really a distortion or a perversion of that fact. When this fundamental truth is ignored, the catastrophic results are what we see in (1) above. Homosexuality accomplishes nothing in nature other than fulfill some perverted sexual lust.

3. Because God (the Creator of the universe and everything in it) declared it so:

This is in answer to those people who want to ask: “Says who?”

If you are not theistic in your worldview, I truly understand if the third point triggers all the secular alarm bells in you. Like it or not, accept it or reject it, this statement is in fact the best and most reliable moral grounding for any human behaviour. Allow me to explain.

The moral foundation of human societies

History has continuously demonstrated that when you remove God (the objective moral law-giver) from human societies, you are left with unreliable human opinions that are subjective, whimsical and ever changing to accommodate the latest popular fad or desire. You are left with no objective and authoritative standard to judge human behaviour and the results are always catastrophic.

To understand what I mean, take the following statements by Prof J. Budziszewski in his book “What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide”.

“The whole meaning of morality is a rule that we ought to obey whether we like it or not. If so, then the idea of creating a morality we like better is incoherent. Moreover, it would seem that until we had created our new morality, we would have no standard by which to criticize God. Since we have not yet created one, the standard by which we judge Him must be the very standard that He gave us. If it is good enough to judge Him by, then why do we need a new one?”

Without a moral system whose foundation is our Creator God, we’ve got nothing. No one would be in any position to condemn anything any human being does, because…er…um….that would just be your opinion. That’s exactly what Hitler would tell us if we condemned him for killing 6 million jews! The reality of our human lives is that we inherently live out our lives relying on an objective moral code far above our subjective human opinions. And this code is innate, placed there by God whether one acknowledges His existence or not. This code (our conscience) is what empowers us to say that the holocaust was objectively wrong, even if the Nazis had won the 2nd world war and somehow convinced the world that exterminating all Jews was the right thing to do!

The destructive consequences of human immorality

The following enlightened perspective on human immorality is quite revealing regarding the instincts that inform support for homosexuality in the West:

“Immorality affects our ability to reason properly regarding moral and spiritual matters. We begin to reason in ways that supports what we want to be true, rather than what we know to be true. For example, to avoid the conviction of our conscience when engaging in immorality, we first attempt to justify/rationalize our behavior as an exception to the moral law. Eventually, however, we find it easier to deny the moral law-giver Himself.  If there is no moral law-giver, there is no moral law; and if there is no moral law, then we are not moral law-breakers, so the guilt we feel for doing X can be safely ignored, suppressed, or explained away. Such reasoning leads to self-deception, and ultimately deadens one’s awareness of God.”Source.

This is the tragedy faced by secular western nations today. They have denied the moral law-giver so that they can comfortably embrace homosexuality. The destructive consequences of this decision are now thriving in the west. They have quickly forgotten that one of the critical historical explanations for the collapse of the once mighty Roman empire was due to the absurd normalisation of homosexuality among its nobility.

On the other hand, Kenya’s new constitution has a preamble that acknowledges God as the supreme guiding authority in our affairs as a nation. So inevitably, God and His opinion will feature prominently in moral questions that affect the way we live and govern ourselves as Kenyans. This is the philosophy that informed the decision to retain the penal code sections 162-165 that criminalize homosexual behaviour in the country.

I’ve always wondered, if Barack Obama and his UK counterpart David Cameron are so keen on promoting homosexuality, why not support all other forms of sexual orientations such as bestiality or necrophilia as well? Otherwise one would posit that they are discriminating against other human beings who want to publicly celebrate their “animal love” through marriage to their dogs, cows, horses or whatever animal they sexually engage with. Why is this any different from homosexuality?

If you legitimise homosexuality in the name of “diversity” and “human rights”, you simply cannot afford to discriminate against all other types of sexual orientations. Science tells us that there are over 20 documented sexual orientations including some that would make you vomit uncontrollably. I submit that Obama and his friends would have no grounds to reject their demands for “equality” and even celebration. That is the only logical destination for all people who support the legitimisation of homosexuality in society. All other sexual behaviours deemed to be perversions would naturally have to be accommodated as legitimate identities under the homosexual clarion call for “tolerance”, “diversity”, “pride” and “human rights”.

Tags:

31 Responses to “How homosexuality destroys society and families: Part 3 – Increased immorality”

  1. Jonathan William O'Toole Says:

    This is your best-ever blog post Mr. Onyango. Please send it to the editorial boards of every newspaper in Africa! I have shared it on FB. May I republish it with a link to your blog at http://www.ProjectSEE.com ?

  2. jose Says:

    am sorta in a hurry so ill just poke a few holes in your arguments to see if it stands.
    1.unhealthy
    one the higher rates of homosexuals with STI’S and aids. could be because of the government discriminant health facilities that are structured pro-heterosexuality and full of stigma
    secondly , there are no exact gay & lesbian population ratio with that of reported instances so any figure would be hypothetical

    2.unnatural
    so what is natural?
    my understanding is that which is not man-made. gays and lesbians are born that way. environment only contributes and is not a major contributor
    secondly , how do you account for the presence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom?
    with regards to procreation.
    society has accepted marriage amongst impotent heterosexual couples and old couples yet they cannot procreate
    thirdly homosexuality is a sexual orientation not perversion. this simply means it involves more than sex

    3 God factor (Bible Quran)
    am quite weary on this sensitive part, but all i shall point at is that those same holy books have at one time or anotherr advocated for the oppresion of classes which we now view as outdated
    examples being the advocacy of slavery by the bible
    and killing of jews and christians by the Quran
    4 morality
    i actually have to rush to class but i have to state that.
    i. morality and ethics are continously evolving concepts. therfore what is moral to you is not necessary moral to me.
    society is based on the principle of reciprocity. what you are saying is that.. let me go to my wife but you cannot have a wife coz you are not like me.

    i will upload a more referenced grounds if you are intrested.
    oooh by the way these are mere opinions.

  3. Blake Says:

    Hi Jonathan, thanks for visiting and the support. I’ll certainly share this with media outlets willing to stand up to the western homosexual propaganda. Please go ahead and post on your website and keep spreading the word.

    The promotion of homosexuality is based on such brazen lies which can easily and rationally be refuted by anyone who cares to conduct some objective research. This blog is at the forefront of doing this to provide information that will assist Kenyans to reject completely this dangerous behaviour now being championed by Obama and his liberal friends.

    • CommonSense Says:

      Ladies and gentlemen, listen to the pot callling the kettle black!
      “Brazen lies” my ass, idiot! Every single thing Jonathan told u is undoubtly a fact, yet u didn’t just care to look at your fallacies.

  4. Blake Says:

    Hi Jose,

    Welcome to the blog and thanks for your quick comments. Fortunately, the points you’ve raised can easily be debunked. I’ve quickly recognized them as some of the favourite talking points commonly adopted by proponents of homosexuality. A detailed rebuttal is therefore quite in order.

    1. Unhealthy – The high HIV/AIDS infection rates among homosexuals have nothing to do with government hospitals stigmatising anyone. In light of hard evidence to the contrary, that assertion is simply disingenuous. Medical studies after medical studies continue to show that homosexuals engage in extremely risky sexual behaviours by far compared to heterosexuals. Lets not even talk about the insane levels of promiscuity by practicing homosexuals. Monogamy is so rare that its almost a non-existent word among homosexuals despite what Obama has been telling Americans (the research evidence on this can be read in my post on Homosexual Promiscuity.

    The use of the anus for sexual activity considerably increases infection rates among people who practice sodomy. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) together with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has all the data on homosexual rates of infection and has offered substantial reasons why Men who have sex with Men (MSM) will never be allowed to donate blood.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “Medical studies after medical studies continue to show that homosexuals engage in extremely risky sexual behaviours by far compared to heterosexuals.”
      – If u practice safe sex (whether gay or straight), u got no reason to worry about STD’s. So your argument only stands if you ban promiscuous unsafe sex. Also your argument has nothing to do with a gay couple practising monogamy. May i point out also that africans are considered a high risk group for HIV, so they are disallowed from donating blood, yet u don’t have the guts to condemn your own nation for being more prone to AIDS. Every educated person knows that heteros are being exposed to the virus as well, but u don’t blame them cause the are supposedly less than gays. What a great logic!
      Also your studies not only are quite old and misleading. There are no official data on the percentage of world population being gay. So most HIV-positives may be gay or african or both. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Most rapists are heterosexual. DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD CONDEMN STRAIGHTS?
      ANSWER EACH OF MY QUESTIONS AND BE THOROUGH AND SENSIBLE, PLEASE!

  5. Blake Says:

    @ Jose,
    My response to your second point.

    2. Unnatural – Homosexuality has no genetic origins despite several attempts by its supporters to falsify research into the subject – where is the evidence I ask? I’ll be happy to read your links to credible medical research that reveal a genetic origin to homosexuality.

    Animal homosexuality – I do not deny that some species have been recorded exhibiting this deviant behaviour. But this is such a rare occurrence in the animal kingdom – less than 500 different species in total according to some studies have been identified to exhibit the behaviour in some rare occasions.

    Consider that science has documented nearly 10,000 species of birds, over 8,000 species of reptiles, over 5,000 species of mammals and over 20,000 species of fish: isn’t it rather obvious that homosexual behaviour in animals is negligible and in fact an aberration?

    And so what if it does occur in some animals?

    I’ve also seen goats, rabbits and other animals in the Kenyan rural farms copulating with their own offspring and “siblings”. In human relations, this could be called incest, but nobody ever worries about it. I’ve also seen dogs and cats eating their young soon after birth. Animals also move around naked, defecate openly and also copulate openly, very often mounting their females through coercion (what we could call rape).

    Mr Jose, based on these few examples, are human beings now expected to model their moral behaviour on animals?

    • CommonSense Says:

      “Homosexuality has no genetic origins despite several attempts by its supporters to falsify research into the subject – where is the evidence I ask? I’ll be happy to read your links to credible medical research that reveal a genetic origin to homosexuality.”
      -U don’t have evidence to prove homosexuality has no genetic origins as well, so cut the bull. This is like the god’s existence which may never be proved or disproved. Either way, being unnatural (which is not) doesn’t make it any worse than using the internet or eating cooked food or using condoms. U ask for links? Do the research yourself and and show me yours saying homosexuality has no genetic origin.
      U wanted to know who’s lying? THERE U HAVE IT!

    • CommonSense Says:

      “this is such a rare occurrence in the animal kingdom – less than 500 different species in total according to some studies have been identified to exhibit the behaviour in some rare occasions. ”
      -It’s actually being observed and studied in more than 1500 species in steady rates 7 to 12%, but i can excuse your misinformation on that. What i cannot excuse is people claiming that a rare condition makes it ipso facto deviant or abnormal (like being southpaw or being allergic to kiwi). That’s exactly why your statement is at least misleading, and i think i didn’t miss any of your points.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “isn’t it rather obvious that homosexual behaviour in animals is negligible and in fact an aberration?”
      -No, au contraire, it is the interferences and the distortions u enforce that poses an abnormality, an aberration or an unnatural behaviour. Yet, it is very easy for u to go against nature when it is other people’s sexuality that u want to deform. Such a hypocrisy!

    • CommonSense Says:

      “I’ve also seen goats, rabbits and other animals in the Kenyan rural farms copulating with their own offspring and “siblings”. In human relations, this could be called incest, but nobody ever worries about it. I’ve also seen dogs and cats eating their young soon after birth. Animals also move around naked, defecate openly and also copulate openly, very often mounting their females through coercion (what we could call rape).”
      – Which proves my point that something being natural doesn’t automatically make it right. We have already established the fact that cannibalism, incest, murder etc are wrong whether u are gay or straight. On the other hand, being gay or straight or bisexual per se harms no-one at all.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “Mr Jose, based on these few examples, are human beings now expected to model their moral behaviour on animals?”
      – NO, we are smarter than animals (although your website implies something different about u) and we have heart and conscience that guide us beyond any petty religious propaganda u keep getting breastfeeding.

  6. Blake Says:

    @ Jose,

    My response to your third point.

    A heterosexual couple very often goes into marriage with an expectation that they will procreate children – they are working hand in hand with nature. When this doesn’t happen due to infertility or some other causes, the society empathizes with them and even encourages adoption. In any case, the man and the woman in this relationship are natural complements bringing into the relationship the strengths and beauty of their respective genders. This is not the case with homosexual “couples”.

    As Prof. Rob Gagnon, one of the world’s leading authorities on homosexuality eloquently explains, “Putting two (or more) people of the same sex in a sexual union does absolutely nothing for moderating the extremes of a given sex or filling in the gaps of a given sex. It rather magnifies the extremes and highlights the gaps. That is the nature of a one-sex sexual bond. This measurable reality discloses the non-measurable problem of attempting sexual merger with someone who is not a true sexual complement.”

    Homosexual “couples” know from day one they cannot bear children just as two trees can never bear a puppy. They are in it purely to fulfill some perverted sexual lusts. For them, adoption is an ugly option for the unfortunate child because he/she is denied a father or a mother by design by these selfish individuals.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “A heterosexual couple very often goes into marriage with an expectation that they will procreate children”
      -If u think that all the people who get married do that just for the sake of procreation, u just make a fool of yourself.
      1)”Hey honey, i don’t love u, neither i want to spent the rest of my life with u, i just want to procreate with. U can get the hell out of my life later!” or
      2)”I don’t want to develop feelings for anyone, i just want a woman who is not sterile to give me my offsprings. Fuck adoptions and all those idiots who want to get married with no procreation motive or capability!”
      DO THOSE THINGS SOUND SENSIBLE TO U?

    • CommonSense Says:

      “When this doesn’t happen due to infertility or some other causes, the society empathizes with them and even encourages adoption. In any case, the man and the woman in this relationship are natural complements bringing into the relationship the strengths and beauty of their respective genders. This is not the case with homosexual “couples”. ”
      -Wow, thank you for tolerating and empathizing couples that do not procreate and yet want to get married. I didn’t expect to see that human & kind side of yours. BTW, gay males and females may form natural unions as well, without necessarily procreate on themselves or even at all. Their relationship can be pretty as well ! Not all homosexual relationships are pretty, but same thing applies to straight ones as well.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “As Prof. Rob Gagnon, one of the world’s leading authorities on homosexuality eloquently explains, “Putting two (or more) people of the same sex in a sexual union does absolutely nothing for moderating the extremes of a given sex or filling in the gaps of a given sex. It rather magnifies the extremes and highlights the gaps. That is the nature of a one-sex sexual bond. This measurable reality discloses the non-measurable problem of attempting sexual merger with someone who is not a true sexual complement.””
      – When a gay man gets married to a lesbian woman (with no chemistry to one another) just for the sake of their families and their regressive society, then both feel someting horribly missing from their lifes: romance, passionate attraction, a nice warm touch, sex etc. People may say to the guy that just being masculine, he can fulfill both his needs and the needs of his lesbian (yet feminine) wife, but that, apart from being a lie, cannot achieve complementarity between the two. They both need a same sex partner. They will feel it once they find that same sex partner who’s gonna love them back and make them happy. Screw Gagno’s idiotic opinion. Let me inform u that in these modern societies, gender roles have lost their meaning : women can possibly be strong hard-working leaders and men can be possibly sensitive unemplyed “stay-at-home dads” that take care of their little daughters while mommy is working. That actually goes beyond sexul complementarity (damn u Gagnon for messing with my sanity). Well, …actually, damn u Blake for quoting that idiot, but gays & lesbians feel better when they date the person they chose by themselves.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “Homosexual “couples” know from day one they cannot bear children just as two trees can never bear a puppy. They are in it purely to fulfill some perverted sexual lusts. For them, adoption is an ugly option for the unfortunate child because he/she is denied a father or a mother by design by these selfish individuals.”
      – Sterile and overaged couples cannot bear children as well, yet u hardly seem to have a problem with them for the very reasons u point out. Someone like u may think that having sex after a certain age (50 or something) is sexually perveted as well or not, yet that has zero gravity on that being right or not. It’s just a personal perception, no matter how many people share it with u, an opinion.
      I may have the opinion that after the age of 50 or 60, people should not be sexually active as i find it disgusting, yet i’m not gonna impose my opinion on them just for me being either young or gay or a bigot or whatever. It’s simply non of my bussiness. Same applies to gay couples.
      May i also point out that many times, kids are being adopted by singles, but that doesn’t bother them, AND DO U KNOW WHY? Cause they are not being denied a mother or a father. Au contraire, they are getting a parent (mother or father) out of nowhere. Having a parent is certainly better than having none. If u think that’s selfish, then you are as well, for expecting from lgbt’s to not pursue those kinds of parental resposibilities u have the right to.

  7. Blake Says:

    @ Jose,

    My response to your fourth and last point.

    3. God factor

    We would be going ahead of ourselves if we were to delve into a discussion on whether the Bible or the Koran is the revealed word of God. What one needs to establish first in this kind of debates is whether objective moral laws (outside of ourselves) actually exist.

    By definition, these are moral obligations which all human beings are subjected to at all times, everywhere, whether any one believes them or not (transcendent). They leave no room for arguments based on “my morality vs your morality.” If such objective moral laws exist (and they do), then an objective moral law-giver does exist! Its another different subject (beyond the mandate of this blog) establishing how the objective moral-law giver has revealed Himself to human beings.

    Whether you believe in the Bible or not, the one thing that stands out is its clear condemnation of homosexuality as an abomination (a vile sin). Inevitably, all people who support homosexuality logically have to reject the Bible and its authority. Its absurd to believe in the Bible and support homosexuality at the same time as President Obama claims to do.

    The slavery recorded in biblical times was an accepted way of life back then and had nothing in common with the Trans-atlantic slave trade of the 16th to the 18th Century AD. The Bible nowhere advocates for men to enslave each other purely for selfish economic gain. I would be most interested in your references to such encouragements. In any case, it was Christians, not atheists or agnostics, who successfully affirmed the intrinsic value of every human being and fought long and hard for the abolition of slavery (remember William Wilberforce?).

    Yes, morality and ethics are ever changing according to relative morality thinkers but the only reason we know that anyone is doing the right or wrong thing is because we have an objective standard outside of ourselves by which to make the discernment. Some things will always remain objectively wrong irrespective of what the majority opinion is. Since you reject the authority of the Bible – where do you get your “Principle of reciprocity”? What gives it authority over everyone? There’s a real predicament for you as I will now illustrate.

    Supposing some men said this principle was just your personal opinion, they then decide to come into your house tonight, beat you up, raped you and stole everything you had, would they be entitled to their opinion that what they did was the right thing to do for themselves? They could explain their attack on you as a “survival for the fittest” or “natural selection” morality. The strong survive while the weak (you the victim) simply perish in a competitive world. On what grounds would you condemn their actions and claim that your “morality of reciprocity” is more superior to theirs?

    I look forward to your responses.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “These are moral obligations which all human beings are subjected to at all times, everywhere, whether any one believes them or not (transcendent). They leave no room for arguments based on “my morality vs your morality.” If such objective moral laws exist (and they do), then an objective moral law-giver does exist! Its another different subject (beyond the mandate of this blog) establishing how the objective moral-law giver has revealed Himself to human beings.”
      -U have a few good and smart points but also some blind spots. Morality is a matter of perception and changes from place to place and from time to time. Morality is never objective because everyone has his own moral code or compass, whereas justice is universally objective and defines what’s right and what is not. Everyone is entitled to his own moral beliefs and by definition there is not such thing as a “objective moral”. What exist are actions being either right or wrong or neutral.
      So until u prove that homosexuality per se (not pedophilia, AIDS, promiscuity or procreation refusal of very few people) is doing any harm at all (therefore it’s wrong), u simply have no case at all.

    • CommonSense Says:

      “the one thing that stands out is its clear condemnation of homosexuality as an abomination (a vile sin). Inevitably, all people who support homosexuality logically have to reject the Bible and its authority. Its absurd to believe in the Bible and support homosexuality at the same time as President Obama claims to do.”
      -For your own information, the authentinc hebrew word for abomination refers to “ritually unclean”. If Bible’s writers wanted to point the sin or the moral violation, they would had used the hybrid hebrew word “zimah”. Homosexuals reject some parts of the “Holy Scripts” just like straight people also do. The “abomination” reference comes from Leviticus that contains some other abominations as well:
      Shaving – Leviticus 19:27, Cursing – Ephesians 5:4, Gossip – Leviticus 19:16, Football on Saturdays – Exodus 20:8, Eating Lobster – Leviticus 11:10, Eating Pork – Leviticus 11:7, Cotton Polyester Blends – Leviticus 19:19, Associating with women who are on their period – Leviticus 15-19″
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-dont-christians-follow-leviticus/#Jt63eP3u0zR8sDJj.99

    • CommonSense Says:

      “The Bible nowhere advocates for men to enslave each other purely for selfish economic gain. I would be most interested in your references to such encouragements.”

      – 1)”When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21)

      2)”Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

      3)”The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48)

      4)”However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)

      That’s only a taste of Bible’s position on slavery. WHAT DID U SAY?

    • CommonSense Says:

      “the only reason we know that anyone is doing the right or wrong thing is because we have an objective standard outside of ourselves by which to make the discernment.”
      -The very existence of such a website proves otherwise.

      “where do you get your “Principle of reciprocity”? What gives it authority over everyone?”
      – It grants protection over someone, not authority. If u abuse and trash lgbt’s, what u get is bad, whereas if u accept and love them as any other people u do, what u get is good. Same principle applies to them. This principle is invaluable, just read for example the material in the following link: http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/robert-p-george-on-reciprocity.html

    • CommonSense Says:

      “Supposing some men said this principle was just your personal opinion, they then decide to come into your house tonight, beat you up, raped you and stole everything you had, would they be entitled to their opinion that what they did was the right thing to do for themselves? They could explain their attack on you as a “survival for the fittest” or “natural selection” morality. The strong survive while the weak (you the victim) simply perish in a competitive world. On what grounds would you condemn their actions and claim that your “morality of reciprocity” is more superior to theirs? ”
      -U have completely twist the principle to make u appear as a victim, while targeting gays and lesbians like they are criminals. Leave them alone to live their own lives and live your own life. No-one’s attacking your “lifestyle”, so neither u should in return. And u r not superior either.

  8. Dude Says:

    Pro-gay site says that 60% of Black American gay men over 40 years old have HIV.

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/19/546491/us-black-gay-men-face-highest-risk-of-hivaids-in-the-world/

    1 in 5 US gay men have HIV. Nearly half are unaware.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html

    40% of Kenyan gay men have HIV.

    http://www.plusnews.org/Report/73407/GLOBAL-MSM-still-marginalised-in-AIDS-response

    Anal sex HIV risk (gay and straight) is 18 times that of vaginal sex.

    http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/

    HIV prevalence in South Africa, a country where gay marriage is legal, is 10 times that of Kenya, a country where gay sex is illegal.

    http://www.aidsmap.com/Men-who-have-sex-with-men-may-now-be-the-highest-risk-group-for-HIV-in-Africa-IAVI-study-suggests/page/2234346/

    Moral of the story: have vaginal sex only and only with an uninfected person.

  9. Maisha Says:

    Reblogged this on Maisha.

  10. Obama’s degradation of Black people: Comparing homosexuality with racial identity « Kenyans Against Homosexuality Says:

    […] Homosexual behavior is a wrong sexual behavior (immoral) because it is biologically unhealthy, biolo… […]

  11. Angelika Says:

    What i don’t realize is if truth be told how you are now not really a lot more well-preferred than you may be right now. You are so intelligent. You recognize thus significantly when it comes to this matter, made me personally imagine it from a lot of varied angles. Its like women and men don’t seem to be interested until it’s something to accomplish with Lady gaga! Your individual stuffs excellent. Always maintain it up!

  12. what to feed cats Says:

    If you want to get a good deal from this piece of writing then
    you have to apply such techniques to your won weblog.

  13. 台灣大樂透 Says:

    Amazing website, thanks a lot !!

    • CommonSense Says:

      if you go through the comments in every article in this website, u may get a much better sense of the truths of homosexuality. Start, for example, with all the comments in this page (very interesting and not too many), and u will get a taste of the hypocrisy, the lies and the biased misinformation presented.
      Every single article in this website has lots of information in its comments board, that can make you an expert in the subject of the so-called truths about homosexuality, because so many things have been examined thoroughly.
      SEE FOR YOURSELF. IT’S HIGHLY INTERESTING WHAT U CAN LEARN FROM COMMENTS. CHECK THEM ALL!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: