Homosexual agenda

Animal instincts versus civilization - homorodins

Tomio Okamura has one great feeling - a feeling for the opinion of a simple crowd. Feel the sensation that the crowd thinks “Homosexuals are perverted, as are zoophiles or pedophiles; and they certainly still bother the little boys ". And as a good politician, he can do it make good use of for their benefit and to combine zoophilia with homosexuality in one text.

The family, that is, the father, the mother, and the children — those children are what make the family a family and elevate it to an institution worthy of public interest and support. After all, even homosexuals will need pensions, but the children who earn their pensions will not give birth to each other.

- Tomio Okamura in his article

That the comparison is complete demagoguery, because two homosexual individuals can show affection and self-will to each other, while for example a horse does not show much to a zoophile (so it is aggression and violence), or that a person is simply gay from birth while deviation evolves and changes, leaving aside. A simple crowd wants it that way, so why not.

On that occasion you let's remember Okamuru from 2011 (warning for narrow-minded: the link leads to homoserver).

Man and woman?

Consequences of gay marriage
Consequences of gay marriage

In particular, before / during / after the Slovak referendum, what exactly is a family. That the family should have dad and momthat family is from procreation, that it is the basis of the state, that it has always been so, or (in a more religiously based Slovakia) that it says so Bible / church / faith.

One function of the family - the reproductive function - was overemphasized here, and apparently deliberately put another function in the background: function educational. The family is said to deserve protection because children are born there and that is the future of the nation and civilization. But of course not true.

Honestly: Everyone can "do" a child, even gay, or rather, I don't think I might be able to do that. Sex is a natural thing, "we just arrange it", we can do it somehow by nature. Like breathing, eating, moving, thinking. The more people in the world, the more potential breeders there are.

This is not a rare ability, for anything that deserves protection. If we are to protect and support the family as a union of "men and women" for the procreation of children, then this argument falls. Everyone can make children.

He can also make a baby with a beer navel after 15 twelve and properly slap his wife. An ideal father? It is mainly a man and a woman, they would say in Slovak Alliance for familyor current Tomio.

There are already over 7 billion of us in the world. The future of "making children" is obvious sufficiently secured, I would say. Animal instincts no longer need to be protected.

Traditional values?

This part of the argument is a bit subliminal, but if we think about it, it is quite clear. Tomio writes:

The best way to raise a person who is mentally mature and responsible to their surroundings is through a family… with a father, mother… who will instill in children traditional European Christian values ​​such as diligence, honesty, responsibility or humility…

- Tomio Okamura - Family or father's gay friend?

It means, perhaps homosexuals are not hardworking, honest, responsible or humble? I'm not a Christian and I'm gay and I firmly hope I'm hardworking and - and so on. Does this mean that people from single-parent families where their parents divorced are not honest?

But what can I say about that, yes? The mother has been divorced twice, the sister of an aged husband from Cameroon, the father / breeder and most of the Roma family. Nobody had a way to pass it on to me, so I'm actually written off.

Actually - permanently drunk photo, who knows everything and was everywhere, so in the evening when he comes home from work (where he mainly does that he does something, mainly not to do) he breaks the whole family into a pile (sometimes "for something", sometimes just for shit) the traditional values diligence, responsibility, humility and honesty passes better than some dude, yeah dude.

And that there are. The values ​​are saved.

This whole argument about "passing on traditional values" is flawed. Hard work, honesty, humility, responsibility, all this is based on the setting of a person's personality, when from a certain age it has a much greater influence on you than the "family arrangement" of the team of people with whom you spend the most time - friends, classmates, colleagues, partners. And it doesn't really matter if you're into men or girls and what you have between your legs.

Traditional ranks they are traditional and are still here because they have proven themselves. That is why we all pass them on. The family, of course, has an important role to play in this, but it is irrelevant whether it is a family where it is Dad and Mom, or family dad / dad whether mom / mom.

Protection of the ability to educate

8 forms of "traditional marriage" according to the Bible ...
8 Forms of “Traditional Marriage” According to the Bible…

By the way, the traditional value was slavery. We don't pass on that because it wasn't exactly effective.

Morality and social norms are evolving, were not, are not and will never be "permanent and permanent". Only the most socially effective standards will pass the test of time - and sometimes that is the one time test damn long.

I The concept of marriage and family is evolving The population is growing, humanity, despite all the world's problems, is living at its highest standard of living for its entire existence, and what is most important for the preservation of humanity and civilization is no longer "protection of procreation"but protection ability raise - and here they are much more important intellectual and psychological abilities of parents other than their gender or sexual orientation.

As a result, the defenders of the "union of men and women" are fighting for the separation of perhaps a large number of people who would be great parents for unwanted children and would be able to provide them with a much better standard of living than various state educational institutions. They destroy and decide the future of those who came from the union of man and woman - and who could not choose that no one wants them.


The argument about the unnaturalness of homosexual orientation is only manifestation of fear: fear of the unknown. After all, homosexuals can't "make a baby" with each other, so why are they here? Isn't that normal in nature ?!

Homosexuality is in nature normal - at least its manifestation in the human population is - whether we like it or not - the result of some development in nature, because man is also an animal, part of nature.

Why did a sexual orientation that does not allow reproduction arise in nature? This is a question to which there are various theories as answers. That we don't know anything, we don't know if it doesn't make sense to us, but by no means does not meanthat it is something unnecessary, erroneous, reprehensible. It just means that we do not understand.

Disruptive companies

Consequences of allowing the adoption of children by homosexuals
Consequences of allowing the adoption of children by homosexuals

Honestly: I don't know of any "homoagendé"Or"homosexualists", About some targeted lobby "Excited", whose goal would be to destroy the traditional family and rule the world.

There is no such thing. There is no political program to organize all homosexuals for any such goal, any homointernational. This is just the result of the minds of strongly conservative people who are simply looking for the culprit and the enemy. Something is changing, they don't like it and so they need to fight someone.

Yes, many (but not all) homosexuals share the same views and perspectives. Nohowever, it is nothing organized, but only by responding to the world we see around us.

It is absurd that, as a result, these people are much more organized and indeed define political agendas aimed at eliminating another form of coexistence. I judge you by myself.


After all, there is none to be able to live in a union in which I have the same rights as others privilege, it 's my right. Privilege it is at a time when the union is only allowed to people with a certain sexual orientation.

I don't think it's necessary to force churches to marry homosexuals - it's a matter of churches and various organizations, no one has anything to say to them.

However, if the state enshrines in the legal system the coexistence of two adults with some rights, it is discrimination to limit this coexistence and to limit the associated rights according to sexual orientation. Therefore, the registered partnership is actually discriminatory and disgraceful - it is a sign of the need for special treatment when homosexuals are you weird and the others are normal. On the other hand - better than nothing.

A homosexual is a citizen like any other. He does not deserve special treatment compared to others, but no one has the right to intervene against him from the position of the state solely on the basis of his sexual orientation. What anyone thinks in private is everyone's business. Everyone has the right to be a homophobe, just as I have the right to think of such a person.

The effort to preserve the current state is only the effort of one people to determine the course and way of life of other people. It is about moralizing and playing on someone "better", who is able to manage your life better than you. Today they are

Protecting the sacrament of marriage yesterday and today
Protecting the sacrament of marriage yesterday and today

homosexuals to whom they want to be preached, how to live and what to do. Tomorrow it can be bikers, obese people, smokers (actually, it's also relevant for them) and maybe you. Because they know better and they care about your good.

Actually, the whole idea that we need a law to settle private relationships is absurd. But as long as the state has the law governing marriage and giving it some privileges in the legal system is the duty of the state - who has no right to discriminate against its citizens, taxpayers - enable everyone to enjoy these privileges.

Including child adoptions.

PS: I don't know of a case where allowing gay marriage would disrupt a marriage. But I know of cases of not allowing the same to disrupt someone's life.

One comment

  1. It's more complicated with adoption. On the one hand, it also comes to me to explicitly ban homosexual adoption. As far as I know, an individual can also adopt, so why shouldn't a gay couple adopt…

    On the other hand, it is also about the interests of the child. It will probably be ideal if there is a male and female element in education. I think that can rightly be one (but not the only) one of the criteria for who to give preference to in adoption. A heterosexual couple would (under otherwise the same conditions) take precedence over a homosexual one, and he would take precedence over an individual who cannot care so much for a child. I emphasize, it should not be the only criterion, there will certainly be heretosexual couples who do not provide the child with an ideal environment and vice versa.

    Of course, the question is who should decide this, it is not an area where one could experiment and say that one variant is necessarily better than the other. Ideally, the biological parents of the child would talk about it, but the question is how much they will want to solve it if they do not want the child.

    As for the concept of marriage / partnership and rights, I also do not think that it is necessary to differentiate according to orientation in terms of any rights. But I don't know if I should call a registered partnership "marriage." It does not seem discriminatory to me to use two different designations, unless other privileges are hidden under it. However, the question is why the term is supposed to define a law, why, for example, the needs of people could not be naturally reflected in the way they use language. Maybe then I would accept this designation and I didn't find it strange.

    Otherwise, homosexuality used to be quite taboo, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Conviction_for_indecency . Today, it is no longer such a taboo, but it is something relatively "new" that existed here before, but people were afraid to admit it publicly for various reasons. However, even today, they probably don't want to talk about it yet. If the people I know personally do not deviate from the statistics in this regard, then there are significantly more homosexuals among them than I know. Of the people I know personally, just admitted this, if I remember correctly. Maybe that's where some attitudes come from. As soon as people see that it is a relatively common matter (the 4% sounds a little, but 1 in 25 is not so small), the fear of the unknown will probably subside and they will take you differently.

Comments are off.