Homosexuality perversion is a threat to survival of humankind

Barrack Muluka

Homosexuals have coined the word homophobia, to mean intense fear or hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality. Accordingly, I am classified as homophobic. This is on account of the fact I cannot stand homosexuals.

I can pity them, yes. But stand them, no. I have never stood them. And I know of one or two homos; and I have also heard it rumoured around that some well known public figures have these contemptible appetites. You will occasionally come across uncouth male characters who will even try to finger you in conversation and try ‘taking you out’.

When they do not try this, they disgustingly try to be coy and womanish with you. The very thought of it makes me sick.

Let me have about me a couple of dozens of Tiger Woods and their dozens of concubines. I can live with that and so, too, can Mother Nature and a whole world out there, when all the virtuous hypocrisy about Tiger and his one dozen mistresses is set aside. But homosexuality is another ballgame altogether. While the practice itself should be shameful in the extreme, it is worse than scandalous that society allows homosexuals to brazenly talk about such psychotic and psychopathic things as ‘same sex marriage’, ‘gay rights’ and ‘gay tolerance’.

I had never even considered that I should some day demean my pen to write about the perversion that is men scrambling for men. For I have always considered the homosexual a pervert, who should be left alone. And I have left these nauseous fellows alone.

But this is to the extent that they leave you alone. Today, homos whom we thought were normal men and whom, therefore, we respected are obliquely (and sometimes quite overtly) pronouncing their status and trying to make society feel guilty about its aversion to homosexuality.

Mother Nature in her own wisdom devised her preservation through the dual faculties of procreation and recreation. In order to procreate, nature laced the path of creating life with a huge dose of giving and receiving pleasure.

But the exchange was between a man and a woman. For the pleasure is not an end in itself. It is a bonus to those who do the good job of making life.

Man and Woman are naturally designed to enjoy the sex act with the goal of producing offspring. Nature was aware that if the element of pleasure should be lacking, then Man and Woman may be disinclined to coming together merely for continuity of life.

And so they serenade as they mould and they mould as they serenade. Homosexuality is a threat to the very survival of humankind. For in this distorted engagement, ‘serenading’ is the end in itself. Homosexual ‘couples’ argue that they can come round the procreation concern through adoption of children or some laboratory abracadabra. The bottom line is the same. To perpetuate life, you need the combined male and female effort. Homosexuality is hostile to this effort.

But people claiming superior scientific knowledge argue that homos have a ‘different natural inclination’. They say that we should understand this and be tolerant. But pray, where does this ‘understanding’ and ‘tolerance’ stop? The next thing is that paedophiles will be telling us to ‘understand’ and ‘tolerate’ their appetite for children, including infants. For if it is natural for some people to be inclined towards the same sex, we must ‘naturally’ understand that some other people will be ‘naturally’ inclined towards babies.

I have seen in the streets of Amsterdam picture posters that invite the public to live sex shows in the sex houses of the Dutch city. On some of the posters are promotional photographs of pedigree European dogs — real German shepherd dogs and sundry hounds and mongrels — fully set in nauseating phallic readiness to perform on a human female.

Then there are jet set ‘virile men’ ready for congress with she-mongrels. Now if it is natural for some people to be inclined towards congress with members of the same sex, we must also concede space to those drawn to copulation with mongrels and sundry fauna.

Then there is the rapist. If the homosexual must have his space, let the rapist have his space, too. The lowest common factor between the rapist, the paedophiliac and the dog-man is that they have evolved perverted carnal appetites that run counter to the law of nature.

If one should have ‘his rights’, then let all have their rights. The difference between two consenting males on the one hand and a consenting human and a dog on the other hand is academic. Soon, too, the notion of a consenting infant will be irrelevant.

They ask you, ‘suppose your son was a homosexual, what would you do?’ Now this is what philosophers call a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose your son was a dog-man? Of course he cannot be my son if he is a homosexual, or a dog-man. He could be my anything else, but not a son. He cannot be anybody’s son. Sons don’t marry other men, nor do they allow other men to marry them.

No, he cannot be a son. Sons can only be men with the proclivity to pass the genes they inherited from their forefathers to subsequent generations of their family trees, through the only path that nature has opened for this purpose.

|   |    |    Comments (8) |   Add Comment