To atheist/agnostic alt-righters

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

[deleted]

all 63 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. Viscerally, evolutionarily, and objectively degenerate

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I don't care. As long as they keep it to themselves. Some of our greatest intellectuals are gay.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes - but they also don't condone homosexuality (usually) or degeneracy. We can recognize "homosexuality is bad" without persecuting homosexuals of good behavior and appreciating the contributions of those on our side

[–]sylla94 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Some of our greatest intellectuals are gay.

that is true, but I don't think your stance is.

the libertarian-esque notion of outta sight outta mind when it comes to homosexuality is just ignoring the problems correlated to it and is operating under the pretense of "if i'm not directed affected by it, therefore i'm not affected by it at all". just because you don't necessarily have to endure witnessing people engage degenerate sexual behaviours in the privacy of their own homes, doesn't mean that the repercussions do not ripple outward and affect society at large. we already know that abusing things like alcoholism, opioids, porn, food etc result in things that are negatively influential on far more than just the individual level and we all know this with homosexuality too, including yourself when you say things like "As long as they keep it to themselves" which is very implicit. so why should we treat this unlike other detrimental behaviours?

you don't need to hate homosexuals but you can still be very opposed to homosexuality; in the same way that you can hate obesity but not hate fat people

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the libertarian-esque notion of outta sight outta mind when it comes to homosexuality

No, I just don't think it's a hill we should die on.

[–]sylla94 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i mean i'm not nearly as concerned about it as our other goals either

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Which ones?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Greg Johnson and Renaud Camus.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What specifically about them do you think makes them 'some of our greatest intellectuals'? I definitely don't agree with including Greg unless he's done some stuff i'm not aware of (link me whatever you think is good from him), and I don't know anything about Camus except he coined 'the great replacement'.

(i'm not even arguing against gays or whatever i don't care either way, i'm just genuinely interested to see valuable stuff)

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Johnson, Woes, AltHype to name a few

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I'm aware they're gay but what makes them 'some of our greatest intellectuals'? I've never found either of them particularly insightful. Johnson has a lot of dumb racist libtard tendencies like he was on the side of ironybros a lot against 'wignats' when Harvey Weinstein was being arrested and a few other instances. AltHype's actual ideas are ridiculous autism did you see his like selective white ethnicity ethnostate stuff? Dude's retarded. Woes I'm not familiar with at all I thought he was just like a Mark Collett kinda figure who does like news commentary stuff. Am I wrong? What have these guys contributed that would classify them as some of our top minds?

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I agree they probably wouldn't be counted among our greatest intellectuals per se - but Johnson and AltHype to a lesser degree are still very prominent

AltHype's pivot in 2018 to race-realist civnatism was too weird and autistic for almost anyone to take seriously. Only white nationalists would entertain the idea he isn't really a white nationalist. He might be eccentric but he's still /ourautist/

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Has Greg written anything you think is particularly insightful or do you just mean the value that CC has inherently? I've only seen a few articles and a couple podcasts and followed him on twitter; haven't seen anything really impressive from him, seen a LOT of bad takes on twitter though.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

do you just mean the value that CC has inherently?

This. Agree that Greg has really boomer-tier takes on twitter. Also what's your @

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

We followed each other, I was AurochsVarange for a couple months then I got permabanned by a word filter thing because I tweeted 'QAnon' and 'Libtard' in the same tweet

I was responsible for about half of the 5%er memes on twitter for a couple days until I got shoahed

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol I had no idea

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://twitter.com/AurochsXIV I have respawned with 0 frens

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I got you, fren

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

1 more fren.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

based and frenpilled

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What have these guys contributed that would classify them as some of our top minds?

Even if they were what on Earth would that have to do with their homosexuality? Were they left handed also? Did they prefer apples over oranges? It's a totally stupid point.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

what are u referring to? im just asking what makes these people top minds of the bowel movement

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh I know I'm just pointing out the fact that even if they were top minds in the DR their interest in sodomy would be as incidental as their possible taste for ice cream and therefore it's absurd as a defense of homosexuality itself to point out that some thinkers in the right are homosexual.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some have been but what it has to do with their desire to have sex with men is beyond me. They were great human beings their proclivity towards sodomy had nothing to do with their intellectual power.

[–]president_camacho 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As long as its not shoved in everyone's face and heavily promoted, I dont really care. I have noticed that they disproportionately tend to be the most militant of shitlibs, probably because they view the right as being much more hostile to them, and therefore adopt this extreme position in what they perceive to be their own self interest.

[–]meatball4u 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I grew up religious and then became atheist. I still view homosexuality as degenerate because I think to a certain degree it is socially contagious. Gay people know this too which is why they try and work their gayness onto me at clubs. I think conservative people are so hostile towards gays in that they are instinctively geared towards "generating" children, and evolution has provided them with the gut instinct to be repulsed by homosexual contagion so as to maximize bonding as well as sexual encounters with the opposite sex

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Gay people know this too which is why they try and work their gayness onto me at clubs.

Huh?

[–]meatball4u 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If fags are attracted to you at clubs, and you say you're straight, some still try their hardest to turn you gay.

[–]sylla94 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yes. the thing about a lot of cultural and religious practices (especially in Christianity) is that while they are not necessarily based off of rational understandings, they often perpetuate into the future as dominant social customs because adhering to them increases the likelyhood of survival/reproduction things occurring like group cohesion, individual health, more kids etc. this is called wisdom. much of it is derived from instinct and experience, the former of which being evolutionary selected for

there is plenty of evidence for why homosexual activity is not a good thing for individuals or society at large as other posters have mentioned. imo you don't often need evidence to recognize that such things are degenerate. most people have a naturally selected for aversion and disgust response towards degenerate behaviour and without plenty of subversion, brainwashing and propaganda will be inherently repulsed by it

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We have bigger fish to fry.

[–]Nasser 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

No problem really with it. Homosexuals are a sliver of the population and not necessarily harming anyone. I would allow gay civil unions with marriage being decided by the individual churches. Media wise they will be represented according to their proportion of the population.

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

The economic and healthcare costs of HIV runs into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, depending on population size. I don't think they should be persecuted for their sexuality but I do think PSAs and special insurance are warranted. I don't think the rest of society should be paying for it like we are. Especially considering they make up nearly 70% of new diagnoses.

Even if they're 5% of the population, if the other 95% of non-gays make up that 31% remaining (about a 0.3 risk), then that would make MSM 70/5 = 14, 14/0.3 = ~47x more likely to get HIV. But IV drug users make up another 10%. So that fold-risk changes to 70/5 = 14, 14/0.2 = 70x greater likelihood.

This calculation is in line with the literature

Men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men in New York City

MSM are supposedly 2% of the population

While society pays for it, I do wonder how many gay men are aware of these facts. I think with the pro-LGBT trend that not having a PSA campaign about this is causing a lot of harm.

And lets not forget that supposedly the first person to die of HIV in the US was a teen. The grooming thing is another issue that gets little coverage.

[–]GConly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

That's down to male sexual behaviour (high promiscuity drive) not being stalled by females.

This is basically how straight men would behave if women were equally interested in casual sex and promiscuity.

They aren't degenerate, they are just males unleashed by females.

You can't lay the same accusations of disease spread and promiscuity at the door of lesbians either.

Homosexuality is hard wired before birth, we've been making gay animals in labs since the fifties, we've know for decades it's caused by atypical prenatal hormone exposure.

It's not a choice, it's not degenerate.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Homosexuality is hard wired before birth, we've been making gay animals in labs since the fifties,

Do these animals eschew mating if given the opportunity or do they simply practice same sex behaviour?

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, you have a bunch of female Guinea pigs trying to mount other female Guinea pigs.

They seem to think they are male. Research from '58, IIRC. Repeated in '92.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Dogs mount human legs it doesn't mean they're attracted to humans or or have leg fetishes. They're fucking animals.

Guinea pigs mounting each other or indeed any same sex behaviour which happens a lot in nature without human intervention does not make animals 'gay'. What kind of fucking retard takes that seriously?

The only comparison would be to find animals who actually eschew mating -- aka elective homosexuality like we see especially with male homosexuals -- which you virtually never, ever do and when you do it's just because the animal is defective not because it has some kind of sexual identity which is a total anthropomorphic human imposition upon animals by sad, agenda driven creeps.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dogs hump human legs because canids use mounting as a sign of dominance in their pack. He's basically telling you ' I'm the boss'.

You don't see normal female Guinea pigs attempting to mount females or males. Similar research has found exactly the same response to testosterone bin female monkeys and mice. In fact with the monkey sample they even figured out that the time the extra testosterone manifested was important. If you gave it at point a, you got a lesbian monkey. If you gave it at point b, you got a tomboy who rough housed but still liked males for sex.

And you do see exclusive homosexuality in animals. Anyone who has raised herd animals will tell you every now and then a promising looking sire animal turns out to useless because its only interested in other males.

Plus MRI studies of the brains of homosexual humans show they have abnormal development, effectively having intersex brains. And when you study their genome, the males have abnormal epigenetic based low sensitivity to testosterone. It's why males who are androgen insensitive to any degree are mostly gay.

And AI research has proven that gay men have abnormal testosterone exposure in utero by looking at the difference in their faces. Did you know testosterone in utero affects facial structure? It's how that software learned to tell gay and straight faces apart (look it up).

It's not elective. The part of their brain wired for sexual attraction for reproduction got the wrong programming.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I've had a conversation like this before. You're speaking as if homosexuality exists in an STD-free vacuum, unfortunately it does not. Thinking like that is entirely divorced from reality.

HIV and other STD statistics seem to indicate otherwise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075729/

Unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) is the main risk factor for HIV among MSM as demonstrated by a 20-fold increased risk of HIV seroconversion over 6 months among MSM who reported UAI compared with those who did not. [22]

Anyway, your logic is failure.

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Women prevent promiscuity in heterosexual men.

Therefore men that are heterosexual suffer less degenerate consequences from their unsuccessful promiscuity.

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Men encourage promiscuity in homosexual men.

Therefore men that are homosexual suffer more degenerate consequences from their successful promiscuity.

Therefore MSM homosexuality is more degenerate than heterosexuality.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You're speaking as if homosexuality exists in an STD-free vacuum,

Nope. I disapprove of all promiscuity purely on the basis of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This would also include heterosexual men seeing prostitutes, and banging your way through tinder.

suffer more degenerate consequences

How is an std a degenerate consequence?

It's an infection. It's like saying football and boxing are degenerate because they cause head injuries.

If your objection is purely based on promiscuity mediated infections, you are actually anti promiscuity, not anti homosexuality.

What you find if you poll them is that most are having the same level of unprotected sex and numbers if partners as heterosexual men. What's happening is a minority of them are having truly massive numbers of partners, and they are the ones spreading disease.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Nope. I disapprove of all promiscuity purely on the basis of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This would also include heterosexual men seeing prostitutes, and banging your way through tinder.

I can agree with you on that.

How is an std a degenerate consequence?

How is it not? I don't think behavior that increases the prevalence of HIV, syphilis or any other STD should be encouraged.

If your objection is purely based on promiscuity mediated infections, you are actually anti promiscuity, not anti homosexuality.

This is where you're living in a vacuum. I cited CDC statistics showing that MSM are 70% of new infections despite being something like 2% of the population. You see to want to ignore this fact as if all promiscuity results in equal consequences when it demonstrably does not.

What you find if you poll them is that most are having the same level of unprotected sex and numbers if partners as heterosexual men. What's happening is a minority of them are having truly massive numbers of partners, and they are the ones spreading disease.

That could be possible but that doesn't explain that 140-fold increased risk of HIV.

Regardless, my suggestions about a strong PSA campaign and MSM HIV insurance stand.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Actually it does explain the massive increase in HIV. It's like Covid, there are a small number of superspreaders.

https://www.patientcareonline.com/view/hiv-transmission-networks

Most gay men hit around the same average number of partners per year as a straight guy, it's about one more I think. What you have with MSM is a strong shift in the ability of the super-promiscous to get masses of sexual partners, and I mean hundreds/thousands. Which means these individuals are almost guaranteed to catch it and pass it on repeatedly. Whereas a normally sexually active MSM would be massively less likely to catch it, and if they did catch it probably wouldn't infect more than one person.

Some data.

https://ibb.co/WWgKPmm

About 42% of them have none to one sex partners per year, the mode is the same as a straight guy. Where the real difference pops up is the minority hitting 4 plus.

A recent report from the EXPLORE study [7] found that having four or more sex partners within six months was the behavioral factor that contributed most to HIV incidence, with an attributable risk of 32.3%

This basically demonstrates what happens when you get a slight shift in a distribution curve in human behaviour. The extremes become far more extreme and more common while the change to the average isn't that big.

The only female close comparison are prostitutes for numbers of partners. But being female they are more risk averse and more likely to want safe sex.

My point about football causing irreparable damage same as promiscuity is a valid one. Why is one degenerate and the other not?

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Most gay men hit around the same average number of partners per year as a straight guy, it's about one more I think.

That's not what your table shows. +4 partners: nearly 3x as frequent (31%) in MSM than heterosexual men (11%).

Why is one degenerate and the other not?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075729/

Unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) is the main risk factor for HIV among MSM as demonstrated by a 20-fold increased risk of HIV seroconversion over 6 months among MSM who reported UAI compared with those who did not. [22]

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That 31% doesn't make much difference to the average.

And again, a bunch of activities cause damage/infections but why are you only focused on gay men as 'degenerate'?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

activities cause damage/infections but why are you only focused on gay men as 'degenerate'?

We don't only focus on gay men as degenerate. /u/Nombre27 is focusing on it because it's the topic of the thread.

Looks like you also full admit that homosexuality is an 'activity' and not something you're born with. At least we can agree on that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Some data.

https://ibb.co/WWgKPmm

There's no way the "straight women" category data is accurate. What's the original source?

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What about that particular category irks you?

It's from research by Paula England and Eliza Brown, who publish papers on this sort of thing.

https://contexts.org/blog/an-unequal-distribution-of-partners-gays-versus-straights/

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth surveys, collected between 2002 and 2013.

Other by the same.

https://sociology.berkeley.edu/paula-england-increases-sex-same-sex-partners-across-cohorts-how-gender-and-racial-inequality-affect

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So you want me to believe, that 79% of non-virgin straight women, in their prime carousel years, have had either one or no partners in the last year? Have you seen the world? In actuality, their distribution should probably look a lot like the gay men's distribution (where you would really see a difference is breaking out an extreme category like 10+). What this data really says, though, is that up to 2013, Western women weren't proud of being whores yet.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes

[–]VarangianRasputin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it's a fetish, and nothing more. Homosexuals rarely commit, and most of them have an insane number of sexual partners. It's also clearly linked to pedophilia, statistically speaking, with many victims 'becoming gay', or moving on to molest children (of the same gender, usually). In my ideal society, masturbating into other mens assholes will be put on the same level as enjoying tentacles up your ass. Enjoy it, but keep it to your fucking self. I don't need to know that you enjoy having shit shoved down God knows where, neither does the state.

Plus, we've got plenty of Ernst Rohm's in the movement. So long as they keep it to themselves, away from me, my friends, and especially Children, I couldn't care less.

[–]Dashing-Dove 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's genetically degenerate (duh, no reproductive impulse), but unless actively encouraged by society, isn't a problem, because the percentage of the population that's actually homosexual is sub-10%. Morally degenerate? No. I have absolutely nothing against people who fall into the category and prefer the same gender (I am one of them), but the community in the West has gone beyond gaining equal rights to suggest warping children with hormone therapy, inculcating them with sex ed far too young, destroying traditional gender roles and the family unit, etc. These have negative effects on the broader population, leading to weaker adults who are less well-adjusted and more prone to mental & identity problems, and also likelier to support leftist political policies for social reasons.

Basically, people in 3rd world shitholes should push for the human rights they lack, and people in Western countries should accept the equal rights they already possess, without trying to dominate the culture and shove their sexuality in everyone's face, then carry on with their lives exactly as they wish to live it. They'll have no trouble from me. Oh, and I don't particularly care about marriage - just don't force pastors to perform them, because that is infringement upon religious rights. Find a church that genuinely supports you and your partner instead.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

push for rights where they don't exist (3rd world shitholes)

This is Zionist cultural imperialism.

[–]Dashing-Dove 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

How is it Zionist or imperialistic? The people there should fight for whatever rights they wish to have, especially when they're being actively persecuted and can be executed, mutilated, or tossed into prison over their sexuality. If you mistook that line of mine as a suggestion for the US and other Western countries to dictate social policy by economic or military pressure, NO. I'm rewording it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

especially when they're being actively persecuted and can be executed, mutilated, or tossed into prison over their sexuality.

This is rarely the case, though. Far more often it's a case of media misrepresentation. Like with the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda, which permits execution as a punishment strictly in the case of forcible/drug rape of a same-sex child under the age of 14 (where such activity was already punishable by execution for heterosexuals).

[–]Dashing-Dove 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The Ugandans sure have a knack for awfully misleading bill titles. It's also damning of their legislature and overall society that a bill was named Kill the Gays over Kill the Rapists, as if executing homosexuals has greater moral credence or popularity than, you know, preventing the rape of minors. (edit note: bill isn't named Kill the Gays. Thank shitlib media for the misrepresentation)

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Kill the Gays" is the exonym invented by the Jewish media, intended to activate the Holocaust narrative programming.

[–]Dashing-Dove 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did some quick research and you're correct. Kill the Gays was never used by the Ugandans, but by Western media. The bill is still called Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014. While not as bloodthirsty, it sends a resoundingly literal anti-homosexual message, and I wouldn't fault people there for protesting against that language regardless of the bill's actual intent. That's for them to decide, however, and it might not be worth the cost of incurring actual persecution by raising a fuss.

[–]MATKINS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't care about homosexuality and I don't see any point in persecuting adult men who fuck other consenting adult men and can't get it up for the opposite sex. There has always been a small percentage of men who are homosexual.

Nothing good comes from persecuting homosexuals and forcing them to live in the closet where they'll marry women and then get fucked up the ass on the side and pass on STDs.

It's better to allow them to live openly and co-habitate with their partners. If necessary, ban openly gay men from serving in institutions which are (or should be) all male, like the Army, prisons (as officers), Boy Scouts type organisations (for the same reason heterosexual men should not be put in charge of orgs for young girls) etc.

This is not to say I support the LGBQTWTF culture, transgenderism is an abomination, but I think the culture should shame promiscuity in general.

For what it's worth, I'm not a "conservative" and I don't LARP as a TradCathMedievalMonarchistDictatorNazBol or whatever "throw the liberal baby out with the bathwater" ideology fashionable in the "dissident right" this week.