Sunday, July 12, 2009

The Heteroseparatist's Internet Manifesto

(This is the home page.)
(Updated 26 September 2014)


a: A person who wishes to separate their self from homosexual acts and stand apart from those who engage in such acts.

b: A person who rejects homofascism, homosexuality, and homophobia.

c: A person, entity, or organization that respectfully declines to associate with any or all divisions of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender community, but does not hate, fear, or persecute people that are GLBT.

d: A person who quietly shuns people and environments that are anti-hetero.

I’ve looked at hundreds of logos to create mine and this is it. My logo, and the symbol of a heteroseparatist...

It was late June 2002. And I was, as usual, minding my own business. I was maneuvering through cyberspace, checking out the various threads on, on which I had just created my own profile. In my first month, not yet fully aware of my surroundings, I posted a question with words to the effect of...“Can’t I disagree with homosexuality without being a homophobe?”

Oh. My. God. It was my first encounter with homofascism.

A bit disturbed by the group attack that ensued, I set out to clarify myself since the word “homophobe” was a complete mischaracterization of my point of view, an accusation of cowardice, a rallying word, a silencing word, and a social stigma. How clever. All that... in one word. And one of the most powerful scarecrow words of my generation.

Although counterfeit in its construction, (“homo” meaning “same,” and “phobia” meaning “fear,” the word literally means, fear-of-the-same) the word is defined as a person who hates or fears homosexuals. But from my point of view, the word “homophobe” is nothing more than a condensed, adult version of the, “What are ya? Scared?” tactic that children use to manipulate each other. And then there’s the, you-hate-gays-because-you-hate-the-gay-in-yourself argument which is also an adult version of the, “I know you are but what am I?” childhood taunt.

And another counterfeit word from the glbt community is the word “transgendered” which is ridiculously inaccurate since no human being has ever naturally impregnated a human female via sexual intercourse, and then become impregnated via sexual intercourse. Or vice-versa. (Will somebody please tell me that I’m not the only one noticing this?)

Also, I’ve noticed that any public figure who doesn’t say the phrase, “...and there’s nothing wrong with that...” whenever speaking about a member of the glbt community is in danger of being labeled as a “homophobe” or a person who is “anti-gay.” And then there’s the word “intolerance” which, ironically, the gay community is guilty of since one of the definitions of “intolerance” is a refusal to accept new ideas, and homosexuality is older than the Bible!

Wow. What a dilemma. How do I escape stigma and speak the truth? There must be millions of people that feel like I do because it is mathematically impossible that all those who reject homosexuality do so out of hate, ignorance, or fear. There are people that have a rational, dispassionate rejection of homosexuality, but where is the single word that describes us?

Can I vault the parameter of iambic pentameter?  Will I step on toes with my portmanteau? Can't I separate from those who equate “tolerate” with “validate”?  Can I fight gay abuse, while I rhyme like Doc Seuss, and expose those I oppose with the blows of my prose? Who knows? Here goes...

Born gay?

It was somewhere around 1982 when I first heard the “born gay” concept, and it took me twenty years to figure out that people can actually deceive themselves into believing that they were born “gay,” whilst common-sense observations about the human species prove them wrong.

The “born gay” concept is in direct opposition to the ridiculously obvious pattern of human reproduction. Human beings reproduce sexually. This means that people who say that they were “born gay” are, in effect, saying that nature has chosen to remove their ability to reproduce.

Except for the very, very, very few that are born sterile, nature doesn’t do that. And, when someone is born sterile, we know that something has gone wrong. Nature is, very obviously, dedicated to the reproduction of all species of life. So why would nature create a life form with 300,000,000,000,000 cells and remove that life form’s attraction to the opposite sex which is necessary for the propagation of the species?

Wouldn’t a human being that was born without the desire to mate with the opposite gender be able to reproduce asexually like some other species? How can a cockroach be born pregnant and a human be born gay? Judging by the complexities of the human psyche, isn’t it a hundred times more likely that people have convinced themselves that they were born gay? (Isn’t the “born gay” concept an ideological Titanic?)

I once saw a television news story about identical twin boys where one was gay and the other was straight. Also, when my wife was in high school, she knew a set of identical twin boys and a set of identical twin girls where one of the twin boys was straight and the other gay, and one of the twin girls was gay and the other straight. How can one twin be born gay and the other straight when they’re genetically identicalLess than 1 pair out of 8 pairs (11%) of identical twin adult males are both homosexual, and less than 1 pair out of 6 pairs (14%) of identical twin adult females are both lesbians.

What about the media-ignored, ex-gay community like Voice of the Voiceless? Also, the entertainer Little Richard is a former homosexual and a man named Steven Bennett, who is also a former homosexual, is the head pastor of a church that reaches out to the glbt community called Steven Bennett Ministries. Wasn’t Anne Heche “gay” for a time and now a mother in a true marriage? Then there’s Restored Hope Network, a ministry that’s full of formerly “gay” people. Also, I’ve personally known (not just known of) three men that were once homosexuals and aren’t anymore.

Because of my time and travels on planet Earth, I’ve spoken, at length, to at least one hundred and seventy homosexuals and at least eighty lesbians. And, when I sifted through all of the bits and pieces of information that I’ve gathered from talking to members of the glbt community, I came to the conclusion that the gay lifestyle, although not an overnight choice, still begins as an emotion, sparked by sudden and/or gradual childhood, psychological trauma. And then becomes a daily choice to ignore or rebel against the normal order of human life. Homosexuality isn’t a choice, but it is still a matter of choice.

Typically, a boy “misbonds” with his father before he’s five and bonds to a female that is usually his mother. Then other boys sense his effeminate behavior and humiliate and reject him. And often, a homophile (homosexual pedophile), plays on the boy’s father-hunger and offers the lonely, misdeveloped boy, “love” and acceptance. The gay lifestyle is the psychological equivalent of a broken bone that wasn’t set correctly before knitting itself back together.

There are two specific psychological terms relating to the glbt lifestyle; one is called, “gender identity disorder,” and the other is called “gender dysphoria.” Simply put, it’s a boy who doesn’t grow out of the “I don’t like girls” stage of male sexual development. Or, vice-versa.

The five divisions of homosexuality are...

The Stockholm (syndrome) homosexual, who was seduced and/or graduated into homosexuality by another, almost-always-older, male. The Effeminate homosexual who over-relates to women, usually due to a cruel or passive or absent father, and/or an overbearing mother. The Spotlight homosexual who’s rebelling against manlaw and loves the attention and drama that homoantagonism brings. The Vagiphobe homosexual who’s terrified of girls/women, usually due to older-female-on-younger-male sexual or physical or emotional abuse. And finally, the rarest division of all, the Normalphobe homosexual, who is without any outward signs of homosexuality and doesn’t need or want attention, but just can’t stand being sexually normal. Every homosexual is in at least one, but usually two, of these five divisions. (The ultra-rare "neuralgay" man, who became a homosexual after a brain injury, doesn't get his own division since he became an Effeminate homosexual.)

The eight divisions of lesbianism are...

The four major categories; the Disappointed lesbian, who’s decided to live her life having romantic, sexual relations with other females due to her disappointment with the sexuality of and/or the weak and passive nature of modern men. The Exotic lesbian who’s turned on by the sheer rebelliousness of the lesbian lifestyle and/or the attention that it brings. The Feminist lesbian who sees sex with a man as an act of submission and oppression and just isn’t going to have sex with a man. Then, there’s the type that I care about the most, the Betrayed lesbian, who was sexually and/or emotionally abused by a person (usually her stepfather, mother’s boyfriend, or father) usually when she was very young and wants no sexual contact with anyone with an actual, live-flesh, penis.

The two minor categories are; the “Butch”/masculine lesbian, who’s decided to live her life as a man due to her appearance, rugged personality, and masculine/protective nature. (Most of these come from fatherless homes.) And the “Femme”/feminine lesbian, who usually doesn’t believe that the human male is capable of the kindness, compassion, or empathy of the human female, and/or wants a penis-free “man.”

The eight types of lesbians are much more emotionally intertwined than the five types of homosexuals because the former four types of lesbians; the disappointed, the exotic, the feminist, and the betrayed, choose one of the latter categories of butch or femme. Every lesbian that I’ve ever spoken to fits into one of the four major categorizes and one of the two sub-categorizes.

The best examples I can give are Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. A betrayed-butch lesbian with an exotic-femme lesbian. And then there’s Rosie O’Donnell, who is clearly a feminist-butch lesbian.

(I wasn’t even going to attempt to categorize lesbians until I was challenged to do so. Understanding the mind of the human female takes a heterosexual man at least twenty-five years of painful training. At least twenty-five years!)

Same-sex "marriage".

And then there’s the sad reality of same sex “marriage” which adversely alters American culture and absurdly removed the words “bride” and “groom” (for about five months, until someone sued) from the marriage licenses in the state I live in.

Legalizing same sex “marriage” will legislate the acceptance of the gay lifestyle in the sex education classes of schoolchildren. Which is now happening in Massachusetts. This will discriminate against those who can’t afford to send their children to religious or private schools. I mean no disrespect to the glbt community, but I must speak the truth. And, I have the right to speak out about that which degrades the culture in which I live, since same sex “marriage” will end the religious freedom that my country, The United States of America, was founded for.

The gay community has no right to redefine marriage, which should be between one man and one woman who; were born male or female, love each other, share the same religion and/or values, and aren’t relatives by blood or marriage.

When this, minimum-level-of-common-sense definition of marriage is broken, any two (or more) humans can marry, including blood relatives. I can hear it now... “My sister can’t have kids and we’re two consenting adults, why can’t we marry?” Same sex "marriage" isn’t like interracial marriage, it’s like consanguineous marriage; like a sterile man marrying his consenting, adult sister. Or a woman marrying her brother because she’s had a hysterectomy. Or a man marrying his mother because she’s too old to bear children. And what about the inevitability of two people pretending to be gay to pay lower taxes or cheaper healthcare? How could they be denied “marriage” if the one-man-one-woman, common-sense-definition, is changed?

Marriage, including a "civil" marriage, is about the appropriate joining of a man and a woman, not two people merely playing the roles of husband and wife. You disagree? Fine. Time will prove my point. I know what I know through experience and scripture.

"Black" vs. "gay".

I’ve also noticed the attempt of the glbt community to steal the nobility of the civil-rights movement of the African-American/black community. And I wish to point out that it’s only those who cannot discern the difference between race and sexual behavior who are deceived by this tactic.

The homofascists in American society don’t want it to be known that, disassociating with someone because of their behavior and oppressing someone because of the color of their skin are two, vastly different things. Vastly different.

When a gay person calls a straight person a “bigot,” they are, in part, stealing the nobility of the African-American, civil-rights movement due to the historical impact of the word. Comparing black people to gay people is an inappropriate fusion of a social identifier with a behavioral identifier.

For example; if a retailer were to go to an advertising agency and say,"I want two commercials for my product. I want one that appeals to black people, then I want one that appeals to gay people." The retailer has used the words,"black," and "gay," to describe two different social groups.

Yet, in another circumstance, swapping out the word, "black" with "gay" would be wrong since the (ironically bisexual) word "gay" defines a social group and a behavior, when the word, "black" only describes a social group and does not define a behavior. When the word “gay” is in front of the word “people,” it describes a social group. But when the word “gay” is in front of the word “person,” it reveals an aspect of the person’s character, unlike the word “black.”

The vast majority of African-American people that I know are greatly offended when the color of their skin is equated with the sexual behavior of the glbt community! Not to mention the number of African-American people of my age group that are infuriated when they hear the term, "civil rights" being hijacked by some members of the glbt community in an attempt to redefine marriage.

When were homosexuals taken from their homeland, shipped across a sea, and sold into slavery? When were homosexuals forbidden to learn how to read or forbidden to vote? When were members of the glbt community denied the right to own property or relegated to the back of the bus? When were gays systematically and legally denied service in hotels and restaurants. When where there water fountains with signs reading “Straight people only?” Isn’t equating race with behavior the epitome of racism?

In closing.

How can I support the mentality/lifestyle that launched NAMBLA and “bug chasing” homosexuals that seek out AIDS? (Rolling Stone magazine issue 915, Feb. 6, 2003.) How am I guilty of prejudging homosexuals when I hear about homosexuality up to twelve times (I counted once) a day? I can use my Bible-based judgment without judging; until I’m actually throwing stones at a gay person, I’m not in violation of the “Do not judge...”commandment of my LORD, who defines marriage as being between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6!

Just as I wouldn’t associate with a man who was having safe, consensual sex with his parent or adult sibling or adult child, I won’t associate, in my personal life, with a man who has sex with other men. And people who wouldn’t want to hear about the sexual activities of their married, biological parents, are the same people that vilify me for not wanting to hear about two men sodomizing each other!

Although heteroseparatism is about walking away from all or some members of the glbt community, it isn’t about hating or persecuting anyone. There’s anti-gay and there’s pro-hetero. There’s standing against and there’s standing apart. There’s the red pill of heteroseparatism verses the blue pill of homofascism.

I’m not out to create laws to segregate gay people to the back of the bus, I’m out to prevent laws that prohibit me from getting off of the bus when two men start French kissing right in front of me. I’m not a heterosegregationist or a heterosupremacist, I’m a heteroseparatist. I am separating from the glbt community and the homophobes of this world. And my stand isn’t against gay people, my nonviolent stand is against gay propaganda.

A heteroseparatist would never stand near the funeral or memorial of a gay person with a “God hates fags” sign. And vandalism, proactive violence, and economic oppression (like firing or not hiring a person because they’re gay), are not a part of heteroseparatism. Even when a heteroseparatist is attacked by a homosexual, a homofascist, or a homoappeaser, (unless the attack is physical) the aforementioned code-of-conduct still stands.

I walk this Earth in a man’s body and I can say, with God-given data and great compassion, that; if you are male and past puberty, and you are not solely attracted to the female of our species, you are perverse and self-deceived. And, because of the insults, slander, and mischaracterizations that I’ve received from homofascists, (people who persecute people who won’t accept the concept that the glbt lifestyle is normal) homoappeasers, (people who fear the scorn of the glbt community) and homosexuals, unless it is to share the good news of what Jesus Christ has done for humanity, I will no longer associate with people who belong to these ideological divisions. I’m done with homofascists, homoappeasers, homosexuals, and homophobes. That’s it. No hatred. No fear. No ignorance. No assimilation. No surrender.

And that’s it. Version 1.5 (26 September 2014) of my Internet Manifesto. My intellectual property is loaded with land mines of explosive truths that destroy the vehicles of homofascism, and my blog is an Everest-sized iceberg of truth in front of a titanic lie. In cyberspace I am called “Mantronikk.” (I can’t use my real name or I may be fired!) I am the creator of the word, the author of this manifesto, the designer of the logo, and the World’s first heteroseparatist.


  1. I found your post on Erik Rush's column. Thank you for finally saying what I have been thinking for years.

    I will never understand why homosexuals think that they have the right to browbeat us with their opinions and call us names and then expect that we would want to associate with them after they have treated us so horribly.

    Who wants to associate with a bully and an abuser? I don't. No sane and mentally healthy person would.

    I was taught that it's ok to agree to disagree. Anything else, especially from those who bully and then claim victim status, is simply unacceptable. Honor, honesty, and integrity are things I live by. The truth doesn't change. Why would I associate with someone who violates everything good and everything I believe in? I wouldn't.

    1. As far as shooting yourself in the foot goes, I'm pretty sure you just took off both legs. It is exactly, word for word, for the reasons you've described that the LGBT community tends to feel animosity towards the extremely religious. Except however, christians haven't been persecuted in the western world for several hundred years. Neither was it recently illegal, punishable by death or hard labour. I also don't recall hearing of a time when Christians couldn't enter a legally registered union with one another. Or hearing about all those teen christian suicides, but maybe I'm just really thick.

      "Honor, honesty, and integrity are things I live by."

      Well, it may shock you to your very core Jinger, and please sit down before reading this next part if not already, but even as a homosexual, those are morals I also live by. Unbelievable isn't it? That human decency spans beyond a religion.

      Speaking of decency... "Why would I associate with someone who violates everything good[...]" is not a very decent thing to say. I mean, really? Everything good? Really?! Can you not see how someone might take that as, well, abusive? Something you proclaim to be against. Can you really claim that, in good conscience, about millions of people you've not met, that they defy everything good? Again. Everything?

      I'd like to make it clear I'm not victimising myself, or trying to browbeat you in any way, I'm merely agreeing to disagree, which we were both taught was okay. However, I used your own arguments to hopefully highlight the logical inconsistency of some of your attitudes.

    2. 2/2

      But don't worry, I'm about to make a small incision into my own foot with a bullet now to balance things out. I'm about to get just a little bit catty. In my defence, I'm very tired, accidentally stumbled across this website and the vast array of provocatively mean, mindlessly offensive, things said on here and I'm afraid your comment was just the one that broke this camel's back. This next part I'll admit is twisting the knife more than is necessary and just a tad personal. Well, very. But it is merely in the spirit of giving you a taste of your own horrible medicine, judge not yet ye be judged and all that. I couldn't help but click on your name, have a glance at your profile, and see that you are a veteran.


      If by your moral standards, homosexuality is a sin, because of that one verse in Romans (don't worry, I'm not gunna deny it's in there, but discounting Leviticus for obvious reasons and using proper translations, there's only one reputable mention of it being wrong) and don't get me wrong, once is more than enough. Well actually it's the minimum, but hey. One bible verse is just as valid as the next, unless its in the old testament, in which case you can take it with a hefty pillar of salt.

      Killing, on the other hand, is mentioned quite frequently. The big JC himself even mentions it, several times, which he annoyingly failed to do about homosexuality, I guess he must have thought it was more important, I don't know, I don't profess to know the mind of god. But I wonder how someone that voluntarily belonged to an organisation as blatantly evil as the US army (and I preemtively sense your indignant rage to this statement, "How dare he say this, a godless homosexual attacking the US army?! How dare he! On what grounds can he make such statements?" Well, I ask you, what countries have the US gone to war with since WW2? Aaaand which one of those countries ever attacked the US...) An army train to actually kill other actual humans, which is actually the worst thing you can actually do. Actually. So bad in fact it even made it into the top ten worst things your god said you could ever do. And you not only did it, but you got paid for it. That's like a double whammy of evil.

      If you think your god is happier with you, someone who has voluntarily killed, or has at the very least devoted themselves to supporting killing - than he is with me - someone who has never killed anyone, nor has any current plans to, BUT who involuntarily likes guys (who like guys) instead of girls, then I would have to say you're following a pretty nasty god. To have the audacity to wager your two cents on moral matters when you're so blind to your own atrocities is nothing less than staggering.

      Finally, Matronik, I was very careful to stay within the guidelines you have posted below, if you do remove this post, which I have a sneaky inkling you might, would you be so kind as to message me the reason why.

    3. Why do you use the words of Jesus Christ, yet reject his definition of marriage?

    4. Though I am no longer a christian it doesn't mean that I can't find inspiration in Jesus' teachings, he had a great message, as have many other religions and philosophies. Also, considering the people on this forum are all christian, a religion I'm well versed in having been one for much of my life, I wanted to use examples from the bible to show that there are much larger issues for christians to be concerned with than how others chose to live their life. Having said that, and sorry to be a pedant, but I didn't actually quote any verses, but instead merely gave an overview of one of Jesus' key messages, that peace and love are the way. Is that not way more important for a christian?

      I know you guys view all 'sin' as the same, but if you were to stop either a murder or a gay wedding, would you not stop the murder? I know this is a heightened hypothetical situation, deliberately designed to push you towards a certain answer, and I know that you (I should hope) would stop the murder, as it is obviously worse - yet - from your actions - your devotion to this blog - homosexuality clearly bothers you more, if it didn't, this blog would be about ending war, not accusing large amounts of the gay community as being pedophiles - which I've seen you do in a number or your posts. Although I perfectly respect your different views on marriage, the aforementioned accusations you include in several of your posts I read this morning were what made me so livid that I snapped at poor Jinger.

      That said, personally, I'm not bothered at all about what its called. In the UK we had civil partnerships before we got gay marriage and I was personally very happy with that, it didn't offend the religious, and for all intents and purposes it is a marriage, awarding couple the same legal rights. But you must be aware that most people aren't really that into religion, or marriage for that matter. There are more divorces than ever before (where's the indignant blog about that?) and I think for most people the difference between 'marriage' or 'a civil union' or even 'a committed relationship' is purely semantic. Given that most people think it's just semantic, a loving committed relationship being a loving committed relationship, I think that the many non religious in society felt like they were being constricted by an extremely religious minority, and I'm afraid in a democracy the majority win whether you like it or not.

      I think what perhaps shocks christians such as the ones frequenting this blog most of all about this, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, is not just that something they deem immoral has been approved by the masses, it's that, for the level of support needed for something like this to have happened, it means that most christians also disagree with you.

    5. You did say,"judge not yet ye be judged."

      "But it is merely in the spirit of giving you a taste of your own horrible medicine, judge not yet ye be judged and all that."

      Those are the words of Jesus Christ, are they not?

      Psalms 50:16-17
      But to the wicked God says: “What right have you to declare My statutes, Or take My covenant in your mouth,Seeing you hate instruction And cast My words behind you?

      The Word of God says that as an admitted member of the glbt community, you have no right to use His words.

      You know, or should know, that the Holy Spirit has the power to correct your same-sex attraction. Yet you have chosen to leave God and become an active member of the glbt community. God still loves you, but you left Him.

      This is why you don't understand how to rightly divide scripture, and you wrongly think that Christians hate you. You are woefully wrong. True Christians are trying to save you. False "Christians" are one of Satan's best tools to deceive people and turn them against the truth.

      Also, religions come from men. What is currently called "Christianity," comes from God Himself.

    6. @ Joe Ridley

      I want to address all of the points where you are wrong.

      Jesus Christ Himself defined marriage as being between one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6.
      4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

      The “what” in verse 6 pertains to the definition of marriage. The same “what” in the original Greek is used in Matthew 6:8, 7:2, 10:27, and 20:15.

      And the “two shall become one flesh” pertains to the sex between a married couple. So Jesus simultaneously spoke out against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, pederasty, and pedophilia.

      The redefinition of marriage defies the Word of God, not human “bigotry” or “prejudice.”

      Also, the Word of God supports interracial marriage in Numbers Chapter 12, when Moses’ brother and sister were objecting to his marriage to an Ethiopian woman.

      Non-Christians harass members of the glbt community since the Bible commands all believers to live at peace, whenever possible, with all men. 12:18&version=NKJV

      You say you embrace honesty, yet the homosexual lifestyle is a clear rejection of intellectual honesty by ignoring the sexual complementarity of human genetalia.

      A soldier in the army is not guilty of murder when killing an enemy soldier because that killing is his job. The sin of murder falls upon the head of the head of the army if the killing is unjust. This is why Adolf Hitler is in hell. A soldier defending his country from an invading force cannot be guilty of murder when he kills an invading soldier. Also, the Armed Forces of the United States of America is what is keeping you from being thrown off of a building by ISIS. I think a little more respect from you towards them is in order.

      Your same-sex attraction comes from one of the following; too much of the wrong type of attention, not enough of the right kind of attention, or a desire for attention. Or any combination thereof.

      When you fail to capitalize God, Jesus Christ, and Christian, you are being disrespectful.

      Although all sin is a death penalty, there are gradations of sin. Stealing a grape to feed your hungry child is the same as raping and murdering a child? That makes no sense. God makes sense. This is why Jesus Christ, an actual part of God, came to live among us to preach salvation for our sins and die in our place for our sins.

    7. 1/2

      Hoisted by my own pedantic petard! You're quite right I did say that, must have over looked it as an idiom. However on 'not being able to talk about or quote the bible' I'm rather put in mind of this visual gag from The Simpsons -

      Though you believe (which I respect) the bible is the word of God, I don't. Also, if all non believers aren't allowed to read the bible, how can christians have a dialogue about their faith?

      It seems a pointless and terrible shame to exclude oneself from another's culture. I wonder if you could inverse the rule and apply it to yourself - not that I think the lgbt community would be so petty as to demand you do so. Think of all the music, art and literature you would be excluding yourself from. Alan Turing, the inventor of the computer, was a homosexual - does this mean you'd throw away your laptop because you disagree with how he lived his life? Why then, can I not enjoy the good messages of the bible, whilst not believing in all of what it claims?

    8. 2/3 (not 2)

      Regarding your comment "the Holy Spirit has the power to correct your same-sex attraction" - I doubt I'm going to say anything you've not heard before. Nonetheless, testimonies have merit, and perhaps the more people tell you their story, the more understanding you'll have.

      I'm well aware that many christians believe that with 'the power of the holy spirit' one can change ones sexual orientation and a host of other miracles. I once thought by the same power, when praying for someone at a revival festival, I could heal them of their deafness in one ear. He told me many others before me (and no doubt since) had thought the same, yet unremarkably nothing happened. Doesn't this seem to be a worrying trend? I hate to quote Dawkins, disagreeing entirely with his approach and many of his views, but on this he's on point - 'where are the healed amputees?' Sure, you've heard stories of what's happened in India or Africa, but I can guarantee you've never seen it happen, or met anyone with a regrown limb.

      Having hopefully illustrated this point, I'd like to talk personally for a moment. I did indeed, every day, for THREE YEARS, pray and received prayer to correct my orientation. I was part of a lively evangelical church who were, as you say, full of the spirit. Every day I genuinely believed I'd wake up and it'd be gone. Needless to say, like the deaf gentleman I prayed for, this didn't happen. This obviously made for a miserable few years. I became severely depressed and suicidal, because God wasn't answering my prayers and I was still 'wrong'. It's not that I didn't want to change, I desperately did, I hated myself for 'going against God's law'. I gave away my things, my money and spent all my free time with the church - and still nothing changed. After so long of nothing happening, I simply couldn't go on any longer and attempted to end my life, then those worries would be over and I would be with God, though I knew that was also a sin, I 'knew' God would understand. Fortunately, and obviously, I survived and started getting counselling. After that it was very hard to believe in an accepting loving God that would take me to that point.

    9. 3/3

      Now at no point during those three years did I think that any Christian hated me, as you seem to think that I think, I merely believed that I could change and when I was unable to felt, well, crushed.

      Anyway, that's my story, I'm sure you've heard other's like it and I can half anticipate your response - basically boiling down to 'well you must never have properly received the holy spirit', 'that I wasn't truly a christian', or 'that I didn't want it enough'. I know you won't believe me, but, I did, I was and I certainly did (respectively). Also, claiming that I can't correctly interpret the bible is a little insulting, and uses quite childish logic - 'you disagree with what I got, therefore, you're wrong and I'm right'. It couldn't be, perhaps, the Bible's an ambiguous text with several possible interpretations (the same as ANY text) - one only has to look at all the different branches of Christianity - are they too equally godless? Actually from what I can gather you seem to think so.

      Where you mention my becoming an 'active member of the glbt community' - I'd like to flag up a few things - as you really have the wrong end of the stick. In most of your posts you depict lgbt people as pantomeimish villains with an agenda, like they're the illuminati or something. So far my being an 'active member' of the glbt community has involved going to a gay bar about five times in as many years, and I didn't really care for it (the same way a lot of straight people don't do the same). I've never tried to 'turn someone' nor do I sleep around - a lot of gay people don't, despite the stereotype (which is precisely that). I'm not 'proud' to be gay, but neither am I ashamed, I merely accept that I'm attracted to men and not women, and that my sexuality doesn't define me, what I do defines me.

      Lastly and leastly, your final point 'Christianity's not a religion' thing - just look the word up in any dictionary. This is just semantics used by the religious right to distance themselves from other branches of the same religion, the whole: "They're following a religion, I'm following Jesus" thing. My mum used to say it all the time, but I'm sorry, the definition of religion is perfectly clear.

    10. @Joe Ridley

      I'm off to work. Planning a detailed response to you tomorrow.

    11. Regarding your second reply... (1/2)

      Firstly, I apologise for the lack of capitalisation – I do try, it’s just typos. Didn’t mean to cause any offence. If it happens again I assure you it’s purely accidental.

      “The redefinition of marriage defies the Word of God, not human “bigotry” or “prejudice.” As I mentioned in my last reply, I don’t mind what it’s called, so long as there’s a legally registered union that affords gay couples the same legal protections as straight couples – eg. That the partner is automatically next of kin etc.

      What you’re doing is not arguing the definition of marriage, you’re dictating that everyone should share the same definition as you. You don’t seem to appose Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or Jewish weddings, even though they vary from Christian marriages. Though I respect your right to have and practice your beliefs within your church and religious community – eg. for your church to not allow gay couples to get married there and so on - but expecting everyone to bow to your personal beliefs in a democracy is well, rather fascist of you. And before you turn round and say – but that’s what the lgbt community are doing – may I once again remind you that the majority of people are in favour of it. We live in a democracy. When Christianity started, Christians were the minority for hundreds of years, their faith was following a personal set of beliefs – not dictating them to rest of society and demanding they step in line. The lgbt community are merely fighting for equal rights about what is an inherently personal issue. Quite simply, if you disagree with gay marriage, don’t have a gay marriage, don’t attend gay weddings, you’re free to not condone it – what you cannot do however is say that no one can have them. Take the example of other religions, though you no doubt believe they’re all going to hell, you still tolerate their freedom to practice their religion, how is this any different?

      “You say you embrace honesty, yet the homosexual lifestyle is a clear rejection of intellectual honesty by ignoring the sexual complementarity of human genetalia.”

      Now this is again rather insulting. All I can really say to this is, you have absolutely no frame of reference on the issue. You’ve never been attracted to the same sex and not the other, so you don’t believe that it’s even a natural possibility. It’s understandable, if not close-minded. As a thought exercise however, rather than think that about one in ten people are mentally ill, and very very stupid, consider the possibility that they’re not. Consider the possibility that it’s not a choice. I mean, why would anyone chose to be gay? They wouldn’t! Its obviously immeasurably better to be straight. My life would have been SO much easier, and a lot less emotionally painful were I straight, and as I mentioned above, for many years I tried to be.

    12. Regarding your second reply (2/2)

      I’m barely going to respond to your points about the military, as I really doubt that in good conscience you could even begin to think that Jesus would’ve condoned killing given everything he said on the matter of not only violence but on political allegiance. I know you’re wanting to disagree with everything I say, but really, you don’t have to be a biblical scholar or priest to work that one out.

      “A soldier defending his country from an invading force cannot be guilty of murder when he kills an invading soldier.” - no one has invaded America, or tried to, in over two hundred years… So, still sounds like murder to me. Definitely to Chomsky.

      I also have to disagree with the ISIS point, ISIS would never had existed were it not for the West constantly attacking Muslim countries. Though they are barbaric - and I’d never defend what they’re doing - it was the West who pushed them to the brink. Say someone regularly beats a dog, then one day the dog bites back, who do you blame? But would you mind terribly if we don’t discuss geopolitics? It’s getting really off point, and besides it wasn’t even addressed at you – it was to make a point to Jinger, that her community could be attacked more savagely with the same book and morals she uses to attack other communities.

      Also, to tell me the reasons why I’m homosexual is so presumptuous it’s absurd. You’re definitely not a scientist or a researcher, so I ask on what grounds you make these unfounded claims. You’re using a simpler version of Freud’s theories - well done for keeping with the times. The truth is, people don’t really know, but there is evidence to suggest it’s genetic. Not that early development doesn’t play its part, but the scientific community agree that sexuality is set by the age of 5, so again – it’s still not a choice. Also the reasons you give are so broad it could apply to anything. Broken down into an equation it looks like this,

      ‘You either had: X, -X or Y. Or X + -X + Y.

      It’s ridiculous. I may as well say the reason people are left handed is because; they either got too much attention from left handed people growing up, they were neglected by right handed people growing up, or simply that they wanted to constantly bash their elbows against the person sitting next to them in class. Also ‘a desire for attention’ is this not an inherent quality shared by all? By using such vague terms you actually detract from your argument as someone who disagrees with homosexuality for religious and moral reasons, as someone trying to pass themselves off as having properly thought about it. Which is frustrating, because no one’s had to think about it more than the people that’ve had to struggle with it. It’s like if someone still in school tried to tell me the about the working world.

      Lastly, though you conceded that there are gradations of sin, I’m afraid you missed my point. My point was your unhealthy devotion to a sin that is surely not that important in the grand scheme of things, otherwise it would have been more clearly discussed. You argued with me about war, but again I ask you, what would Jesus be more concerned with? How an unchristian society defines marriage (not how Christians define marriage I’ll point out), or Christians that go to war in His name? The fact you rebuked my attack of the US army I rather think proves my point, that you have morally scrambled priorities – and are using religion to justify your personal feelings.

    13. Look forward to it, I do enjoy our little chats!

      Isn't it ironic that despite our very different views on this topic, we're remarkably alike. Each performing two sides of the same dance, no doubt a little bored at the monotony and repetitiveness of it all, each quietly resigned to not changing the other's mind - but despite that - hoping desperately that perhaps this... this could be the one person I help.

      The greatest irony of all however, is that both of us are just trying to heal ourselves in some way. I realised that writing several long replies - to a stranger - on the internet - was kind of ridiculous.

      What sparked me off was a comment you left below a video of a kid dancing at an LGBT march. The dance was very inappropriate and clearly a sign of bad parenting, no child should be dancing like that at that age. That said, here is what you wrote about it:

      "How many homosexual men are looking at this young boys behind? Look at the approving gazes of the adults surrounding this homosexual-in-the-making."

      Your fixation on the lgbt crowd being pedophiles and wanting to turn children gay is so ignorant and offensive I couldn't help but get angry. It reminded me how hard it was coming to terms with myself surrounded by people with views as strong and as wrong as yours. I was surprised that after all these years something like that could still make me angry. In a psychoanalytical sense, you could say the needlessly long comments I made were an attempt to heal that anger. It was when I was thinking about this, that I started thinking about you.

      You're keen to flag up that you're not homophobic (which is like someone saying “I’m not racist, but…”) yet you clearly have a massive issue with the lgbt community demonstrated by your sheer devotion to the blog. You say it’s for religious reasons, but surely such a devout Christian would be far too busy giving all they have to the poor, helping the needy, and praying, to have time to run such a blog.

      I’ve already mentioned why I have bittersweet memories of Christianity, and for all that, I’ve wasted about an hour replying to all these, writing what must be close to 4000 words, which I’m sure anyone reading this will agree is waaaay too many. It’s fun to watch goats lock horns a couple of times, but not forever… Anyway. If what I went through has lead to this exchange of essays, I wonder -what could possibly have happened to you? Something must have happened in your past. What happened that you’re trying to heal by writing this stuff everyday?

      Have you ever thought about why you run this blog? Why you care so much?

    14. @ Joe Ridley

      Your rejection of the Word of God is the cornerstone of your misunderstandings. You rejected God because He didn’t do what you wanted Him to do when you wanted Him to do it. How wise was that?

      The concept of the computer comes from a heterosexual man named Karel Capek. He is the sci-fi writer that coined the term “robot.” Due to the fact that a mechanical man had to have a mechanical mind, Karel Capek created the concept of the computer. The way technology follows science fiction was my thesis for my degree in electronics. The Alan Turing argument is one of the latest falsehoods from the glbt community.

      The dictionary calls me a “bigot” for my belief in the Word of God, yet I also fit the definition of an angel by being a messenger of God. I’ll continue to put the Bible above the ever-changing dictionary. This video will explain my point.

      You say that I want to “dictate” what a marriage is to others. You are wrong. It is the glbt community that wants to punish those who refuse the redefinition of marriage. God invented sex, gender, and defined marriage, and I will continue to listen to Him above all others.

      When you compare homosexuality to race and being left-handed, you are being dishonest with yourself. Skin color and left-handedness are morally benign issues; neither good nor bad. Sexual conduct is either within or outside of the boundaries set by God.

      My manifesto explains why I maintain this blog; I was attacked by homofascists and I’m simply using facts and truth to defend myself. I hate propaganda, and fights glbt propaganda.

      It was NEVER my intent to offend you. I spend so much time studying the Truth, that I sometimes forget the mindset of others.

    15. 1/3

      "You rejected God because He didn’t do what you wanted Him to do when you wanted Him to do it. How wise was that?"

      To be fair mate, I gave it three years - and it wasn't like I wasn't trying, very, very hard. The logic of your argument here was glumly predictable and infantile.

      "You can change your sexuality through the power of the Holy Spirit"
      "Yeah, I actually tried that, it didn't work"
      "Well you must have been trying it wrong"
      "No I was a devout evangelical Christian, just like you”
      "Well you mustn't have tried it for long enough!"

      I feel there is no amount of humanly liveable time I could have listed that you wouldn't have gone... "Yeah... you should have kept with it mate - waited for God to sort it out"

      No matter what I say, how many logical points I make or how much backstory I give, you immediately jump to the first assumption that pops into your head that protects your beliefs, rather than thinking critically and challenging your own, even purely as a thought exercise to better your arguments (which could really use it). Have you even properly read what I've put - or did you just scan for buzzwords and auto draft a reply?

      Also, what does "Your rejection of the Word of God is the cornerstone of your misunderstandings." even mean? The fact that I no longer think all the bible is correct means that, when I was a Christian and did, that somehow I couldn't understand the Bible? Or the Christian perspective of life? You're using arguments suited for an atheist on an Ex-Christian and they are invalid.

      The next two paragraphs just got a bit weird, didn't they? It's like you wanted to do a point by point response to what I said - couldn't respond to the actual arguments, so tried to pick apart an analogy as an attempt to prove yourself. The problem is, you didn't even manage to pick apart the analogy correctly! (Please scroll back up for my actual point, this is ever so tedious, I don't want to repeat myself having spoken at great length about it already)

      Anyway - I said Alan Turing invented the computer. Which is a fact. You replied the 'concept' of the computer came from science fiction writer Karel Capek. Which is also a fact. You seemed to think this was:

      a) relevant to what I was saying.
      b) rather clever
      c) proof that gay people are trying to ‘write themselves into history’ (no doubt so we can fool all you heterosexual idiots into thinking we’re human beings that just want to live decently like everyone else, rather than us all being rapist pedophiles that wants to turn everyone gay, so everyone can be gay in hell forever. Step one, gay marriage. Step two – FORCE EVERYONE TO GET ONE.)
      Okay I got a bit off track , ignore the a – c and just re-read the three lines above it if you’d be so kind.

      How about we use an example of the exact same logic you used, eh?

      NASA built a rocket that took the first men to the moon in 1969. Correct? Errr. No. One of the latest falsehoods of the American community! H.G Wells wrote 'The First Men in the Moon' in 1901, a book in which some men build a rocket and go to the moon. Therefore all of the credit for NASA's ACTUAL space missions really belongs to a Mr. H. G. Wells.

    16. 3/3

      “When you compare homosexuality to race and being left-handed, you are being dishonest with yourself.”

      Okay, you definitely read what you wanted to read and not what I actually wrote. You clearly have pre-made answers and sprinkle them in where you think its appropriate. I did not compare homosexuality to race or being left-handed. I did however deliberately mention left-handedness in a different context just to see what you would do. In the quote below I originally wrote two examples, one about flavors of ice cream, the other about glasses, but thought the left handed thing had a better punchline and that you’d probably jump to assumptions again. Hopefully now I’ve proved that you do this, you’ll go back and re-read some of what I’ve written just in case?

      However, this is what I wrote

      “Also the reasons you give are so broad it could apply to anything. Broken down into an equation it looks like this,

      ‘You either had: X, -X or Y. Or X + -X + Y.

      It’s ridiculous. I may as well say the reason people are left handed is because; they either got too much attention from left handed people growing up, they were neglected by right handed people growing up, or simply that they wanted to constantly bash their elbows against the person sitting next to them in class.”

      Satisfied I didn’t compare homosexuality to being left handed? The whole reason I used the absurd left-handed example was to demonstrate how clumsily thought out and badly worded your 3 possible reasons why people are gay are. But to rephrase it the point so you’ll hopefully get it this time.

      Sponges/Elves/Tornados/Whatever are caused by:

      Not enough of one thing.
      Too much of one thing
      Or something else.
      Or all of them.

      You see, kinda vague. Also I’d like to remind you, you’re not a scientist. Nor do you appear to have the mental faculties to be a researcher, I mean, you can’t even read what I write – and the bits you do, you don’t seem to understand. Therefore, with what authority can you speak on anything other than your faith? What can back up your claims? You can talk to the cows come home about what you believe, but you’ve yet to provide any facts to support your horrible claims.

      Lets rush through some things before my last point.

      “I was attacked by homofascists” - You know, given some of the things I’ve seen you write, I’m surprised you haven’t been arrested for hate speech.

      “I’m simply using facts and truth” - Yet to see any…

      “I hate propaganda” Yet you willfully knowingly spread it.

      “It was NEVER my intent to offend you. I spend so much time studying the Truth, that I sometimes forget the mindset of others.”

      The fact you would write this in response to me saying I found what you said about ‘gay men looking at that boys behind’ offensive, rather than commenting on the offensive thing you said, I think is rather sad. It also seems to imply you still don’t see how what you said is wrong. Do you see how it’s wrong? A yes or no would suffice. That’s one of the questions I would love an answer to when you scroll back up in a moment looking for question marks. (If that sentence made no sense, thank you for reading this properly)

      Okay this is my last point PLEASE READ THIS if you’re just skimming through.

      I have asked you many direct questions, just scroll up and look at the amount of question marks (you can ignore the sarcastic dictionary bit) – I would really like a direct response to any or all of them. Particularly the one where I ask about you personally, what incident(s) involving an LGBT person(s) has fuelled your unwavering commitment to attacking the LGBT community?

      I would also like you to properly read what I’ve written, as you clearly haven’t. I carefully read your replies, not to mention your manifesto and much of the blog, so could you please not dismiss what I write immediately. I’m not asking you to agree with what I’ve said, just to think about it.

    17. @ Joe Ridley

      What kind of church did you belong to? Did they teach you the Jesus Christ was divine? That he was sinless? Did you have a female pastor or something? I left Christianity for 20 years due to a Pastor who turned out to be a false prophet. But I began studying the Bible on my own and I unraveled how the Pastoral staff of my first church has been twisting scripture to control the members of the church and drain them of money. I prayed that God would lead me to a true church and I found one. There are many false Christians. I now read scripture every day. One scripture in particular comes to my mind concerning you.

      In order to “invent” something, one must conceive of it and then build it. Karel Capek came up with the concept of a mechanical mind and Charles Babbage tried to create one before Alan Turing.

      NASA can’t say that they invented space travel, but they can say that they did travel through space.

      You say that you’re surprised that I haven’t been arrested for hate speech. How do you define hate speech? Have I condoned violence against the glbt community?

      Also, here’s an excerpt from my manifesto that should, again, answer why I blog like I do…

      “…It was late June 2002. And I was, as usual, minding my own business. I was maneuvering through cyberspace, checking out the various threads on, on which I had just created my own profile. In my first month, not yet fully aware of my surroundings, I posted a question with words to the effect of...“Can’t I disagree with homosexuality without being a homophobe?”

      Oh. My. God. It was my first encounter with homofascism.

      A bit disturbed by the group attack that ensued, I set out to clarify myself since the word “homophobe” was a complete mischaracterization of my point of view, an accusation of cowardice, a rallying word, a silencing word, and a social stigma. How clever. All that... in one word. And one of the most powerful scarecrow words of my generation. …”

      I don’t take kindly to being called out of my name. I’ve also noticed your insult, “Nor do you appear to have the mental faculties to be a researcher, …” Your insults are going to stop or I’m going to remove you from my life.

  2. @Jinger

    Would’ve gotten your comment up sooner were it not for internet problems yesterday. I knew that there were millions of people that felt like I did, yet there was no one word to describe us. I got tired of being mischaracterized and slandered as a “homophobe,” for my refusal to accept the concept of a man having sex with another man as normal.

    Your comment is welcome and appreciated.

  3. I look forward to the establishment of Catholic ghettos. Decent people need to know where you are so that we can avoid you. THANKS!

  4. @Frank
    Your comment is a bit off-the-wall. What is a "Catholic ghetto"?

  5. Out of chillicothe ohio, gay activists have a juicy, grand opportunity to cherrypick details of a news story where a gay kid got himself in hot water by surruptitiously photographing other students, got found out, and one of them beat him up over it.
    He was posting their photos on his facebook, adding sexual comments about the boys, and one of those boys retaliated from his damaged reputation and humiliation.

    THe local stories are painting the beaten gay student as a hapless, oppressed, innocent victim. That gay students assailant did indeed post a nasty comment himself "..faggot" and that facebook post is the only thing the news stories will acknowledge.
    The news stories are trying to say that the assailant acted on homophobia alone, and that this was simply a hate crime.

    Google chillicothe gazette.

  6. Thanks for the info. ABC news doesn't say anything about the homosexual provoking the guy that beat him up.

  7. Unbelievable!! those "public-relations aces" (my term), the gay activists, have deigned to make promoting "" a full-blown smear campaign.
    But they've strayed from that integral, all-important rule of promotion: that NO publicity is "bad" publicity. In this endeavor, they've made Rick Santorum a household name within the subconsciousness' of a wide range of people who've not even pondered the next Presidential Election!! And soon, as the way these kinds of things always turn out, they'll delve into the myth that's been created about this man, and a large number of them will like what they see!!

    Faux pas, gay activist, faux pas. Really shot yourselves in the foot with that one.
    And it's very telling: in order to find something objectionable enough to juxtipose onto his name, they had to delve into the realm of gay sex to find an example revolting enough. Apparently, they couldn't find anything nasty enough in heterosexual sex to objectify him with.

    Seems these undisputed masters of propaganda are losing their stride.

  8. @Ronnie

    I SPECIFICALLY designed heteroseparatism to be attacked by the glbt community. The more attention that homofascists bring to me (and not all gays are homofascists), the more damage they do to themselves.

    Look at the free advertising I got here...

  9. Your Heteroseparatist's Internet Manifesto - which I came across after following your link at WWWW - is a forthright and well written 'mission statement'.

    I note that you sometimes use the word 'gay (in quotes which indicate irony perhaps), but refer to the so-called gay community without quotes.

    Why do you think homosexuals have hijacked the word 'gay' - their preferred description - and which used to mean lighthearted, cheerful, and carefree?

    I believe that truth is best served by calling things by their proper names.

  10. The glbt community uses the word "gay" to distract people from the sexual aspect of their relationships. Homosexuals and lesbians constantly use emotive terms to get people to know how they feel. The glbt community wants people to feel with their hearts instead of think with their minds.

    The word "gay" is so entrenched into the psyche of the American mind, I reluctantly use it.

  11. Replies
    1. Could you be more specific? Which "bunch" are you referring to?

  12. You have a _very_ informative and much-needed blog on this distasteful topic, Mantronikk. One major reason, in my opinion, that the homofascists have been able to get as far as they have (i.e., enforcing _acceptance_ of their perversions through the police powers of the state, in many places) is because they have met such weak opposition at every step in the Long March over Judeo-Christian sexual morality . . . in large part, I think, because homosexual sodomy _is_ a distasteful thing to contemplate for most people. (A subset of this phenomenon is the "kumbaya" mentality that has come to pervade a large proportion of the Christian clergy--including [especially?] my own denomination, Roman Catholicism, where the easiest way for a priest to get himself gagged by his bishop is to speak out forcefully on matters of sexual morality--but that's a different topic for discussion.)

    I thank you for your defense of 3,300 years of Judeo-Chrisitan teaching on sexual morality.

    1. As a servant/friend of the Lord, I thought I should use my ability to dismantle clever arguments to serve Him. I grew up with manipulators and I made a conscious effort to configure my mind in such a way as to find the weakness in a deciever's argument and take apart said argument point-by-point.

      When the homofascists attacked me, I was inspired to break to back of the word "homophobe," but there was no one-word response to the accusation of "homophobe." So I went to work...

      Thank you for your encouraging words.

  13. Well done, sir.
    I have distributed your blog to my address list.
    Please continue the fight.
    Dave B.

    1. Thanks Dave,

      I WILL continue the fight to have my hate-free disagreement with the glbt lifestyle. The glbt community is so taken-aback by the word "heteroseparatist," that there are websites that ban the mere mention of my word.

  14. I fully and wholly disagree with this entire website.

    Heteroseparatism is homophobic.

    1. Can you give a specific, emotion-free, point-of-logic that supports your statement? Where is my hatred? Where is my fear? Perhaps you are homophobic since you fear the scorn of the glbt community.

  15. Those who think that, once the homosexualists have their way on same-sex marriage, we shall have hit rock bottom in what Gertrude Himmelfarb called the _de-moralization_ of the West, allowing us just to suck up the new (ab)normal and declare an armistice in the culture wars (or, at least, their sexual front), think wrong. The cultural Marxists who are behind the homosexualist project will not be appeased with the total, state-enforced acceptance of homosexuality that legalized same-sex marriage signifies; nothing will satisfy them short of the total collapse of the family as the core institution of Western societies, overturning the ancient legal principle of _patria potestas_, i.e., the right of parents to exert authority over and guide the intellectual, moral, and spiritual formation of their children. And that requires the complete sexual de-moralization of Western societies; the remarkable growth of the alphabetic string abbreviating "alternative" sexualities deemed politically correct (e.g., GLBTTQIA) is an index of this process. I fear it is only a matter of time before MG (man-girl), WB (woman-boy), MB (man-boy), and WG (woman-girl) are added to the string.

    Those who doubt that this is already happening have not been reading this blog regularly, or even just the general news. A case is point is the recent case in Washington state, reported by Fox News blogger Todd Starnes at the following web address:

    Perhaps Mantronikk will wish to publish the report on his blog.

    1. Mr. Perera,

      I have posted on the information that you've provided. I would've done it sooner, but I was STUNNED by the story, and it took me about three days to absorb the horror of the information.

    2. I was myself stunned to the point of near-incapacity, when I first read the article: I was so dispirited by the fact that (a) this could happen at all and that (b) the response to the gross indecency and endangerment of _little girls_ was so incredibly feckless, that I could not force myself to bring it to your attention for two days.

      I think (b) was the harder phenomenon to absorb mentally: a man exposes himself shamelessly in a shower room reserved for women and girls, and no responsible adult in the State of Washington, from the coach who first confronted the pervert--only to apologize cravenly after the magic word, "transgendered," was uttered like an incantation--to the police and prosecutors, seems willing to acknowledge either the physical or the moral reality of the event.

      Something truly demonic is at work in our culture, when truth and reality can be twisted so, even when the welfare of children is threatened. It puts me in mind of Jesus' famous dictum, "The devil is a liar and the father of lies." The only heartening aspect of this sorry event is that the overwhelming majority of commenters on the article expressed outrage that it should have happened without consequences for the perpetrator . . . though the sophistries employed by a few to justify it were almost as mind-numbing as the event itself.

    3. We now live in a society where a man can say, "I'm transgendered." And people will apologize to HIM for his being naked in a female locker room.


  16. I just found this blog. As a person with waning same-sex attraction (still fighting and understanding aspects of it), I applaud your efforts and hope you'll continue research. And keep us posted. It's funny reading your categorizations of "lesbians" and I might have found myself in "disappointed" and "betrayed" lol. I've gotten to the point where I really could care less about establishing a relationship with anyone seeing how neurotic I really am! xD

    1. Thank you. I will, indeed, keep you posted. A young woman challenged me to categorize lesbians as I categorized homosexuals. When I did, she never contacted me again. I think I surprised her.

    2. You're welcome~
      Maybe you had good guesses on said categories and she couldn't find a way around it *shrug*

    3. I really believe that she read what I wrote and couldn't honestly refute my observations. She attempted to confound me and ended up making my manifesto even stronger.

    4. I just accidentally deleted your last comment. Sorry. Please try again.

    5. It's fine xD
      I think I mentioned something along the lines of "It's good that you were able to come up with it" =]

    6. I just deal with so many hateful comments, I must have knee-jerk deleted yours whilst trying to post it. It's amazing how many comments I have deleted because the commenter refuses to abide by my simple commenting rules.

    7. I get a number of "hateful comments" from speaking my own mind too. Although it depends whether I keep said comments intact or delete and block the user.
      I understand why you might have accidently deleted mine; no worries ;)

    8. Is it even possible to block a commenter on Google Blogger?

    9. I have no idea; I've barely used mine up to this point x'D

  17. Heinrich Himmler would be so proud of you. Proud that you are going to hang at the neck for your crimes against humanity just like he would have had the anti-gay coward no killed himself first.

    1. Himmler was a Nazi who murdered Jewish people, I am a servant of Jesus Christ who wishes to separate myself from homofascists and the influences of homofascism. What "crime against humanity" have I committed?

  18. Great blog. You should start a Facebook page as well.


THERE WILL BE NO MORE ANONYMOUS POSTS HERE. You must choose a name. Banned people's comments are deleted WITHOUT being read. Comments with obscene language WON'T be posted. Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned. ALL emails become my property!