Home Oh

Ists are such homophobes!  They don't understand that all men need to shut their eyes, think passionate thoughts about putting their faces in the Lord's lap and think-texting to Him so much that He has a second coming!  It's a complete mystery to me why all men don't want to shut their eyes and think about pleasing a Divine Man so much that man has a second coming.  Anyway, Ists: 

How many babies do two "gay" men produce?  Let's say they are amazing and eff each other 100 times a day.  For every single day of every year.  With a leap year every year.  They start when they're of completely legal age but for math leaving the total of active years 70, and lead really healthy lifestyles, so they do that until each is 98.  In addition, they have an open relationship, and each has 100 new partners per year and effs each of those partners 100 times a day.  

...how many babies do they have?  Remember, that's 100*366*70 for just them, plus 100*100*366*70 for the partners.  That's 2,562,000 + 256,200,000 = 258,762,000.  How many babies?  

Zero.  That is what gay advocacy is: an attack on a breeding group, effected by those who adopt a "me pleasure!" philosophy; a way of making that group go extinct.  You can add as many zeroes as you like.  

Say that Europe had 1000 Cro Magnon/Neanderthal mixes on it that developed into the homo sapiens sapiens (two "sapiens" on purpose; it's called that).  Calling those Europeoids Caucas-oids was a political move disguised as science, like the way that the verse was called a version of united verse ("universe"); calling Europeoids "Caucasoids" was a move of the group of less-violent, larger-brained creatures more to the south, toward the unified Christian origin of "all peoples"; toward the Legacy Christian creationism that became the modern Out of Africa story.  

(People interested in the Europe-generated v. Middle East-generated issue can review how the Irish developed irrigated farmland in wetter areas a bit before the "Fertile Crescent."  Consider also evidence that certain types of humans developed from the Asian orangutan and other types from the more violent, smaller-brained, more-ape-effing African chimpanzee.  Those things being part of the education of children furthers Christian Edenesque "Middle East" [Out of Africa] origins, which is as true as an epicycle proving rockets would shoot through Jesus' living room in the clouds and annoy Him so don't look or make such annoying things.)  

Number of Babies

Back to that initial example.  See how orgasm-acquisition in any other way than sex achieves zero babies?  That is why it is antilife--against life--to promote home oh.  Feelings of being comfortably reliant upon someone, of achieving orgasm by rubbing against another's body, etc., are things humans develop the capacity to feel to cause humans to exist.  Advocating for any kind of way of satisfying those urges without that satisfaction leading to babies is antilife.  Whether you support the unions of humans and lightposts, straight men effing gynoids (female-appearing robots; think "android"), or a sterile devotion to a Divine Man (Jesusianism) you are supporting antilife.  

Trains No Eye

It is presented as something novel each time, but it hasn't been novel for as long as there've been humans.  Human males afflicted with home oh seck shoe alle itee have recurrently presented as female to give orgasm.  Adopting a melodic (higher) voice, lisping, wearing dresses, etc. is part and parcel.  

It is not a new thing.  Male humans desiring to obtain orgasm by achieving friction from the bodies of other male humans is a constant among large populations.  Modern trains no eye stuff is just more home oh.  Girls/women doing their version of that is, as with lesbians, entirely different from men doing their version of that.  Like attempting to use the male defecatory orifice to replace the vagina, speaking in falsetto, and so forth, lumping the two entirely different things together is ridiculous.  Like priests refusing to look through Galileo's telescope, humanity's inability to investigate the recurrence of male homoeroticism, claiming it just a preference like unto female homoeroticism, has caused a great loss to science.  

Pee Dough

A human society able to investigate the genetic organization that causes a male offspring to have homoerotic desires would be able to investigate other things too.  For example, the conflation of the meiotic-species-perpetuation male standard "desire to achieve genetic coding transfer" and "desire to obtain spastic friction from a physically smaller recipient" can have horrible, illegal results.  Thus men made up including homoerotic coding are far more likely to desire smaller, physically inferior partners of the same sex, which is why there is a long, dark Legacy Christian history of those who give vows against providing for and physically coupling with a consenting adult female committing what is called sexual abuse upon legally underaged males.  I.e. the vicars are at the choirboys again.  

The immense, longstanding nature of Jesusians seeking orgasm from the underaged children of their entrapped parishioners springs from this.  Why did early Legacy Christianity get rid of all the figurines of Divine Females and Divine Families for figurines of a naked then underclothed Divine Man?  Why did so many priests sexually abuse little boys?  For the same disgusting reason that the ideological weapon of Christianity changed the punishment for buggering some little boy to "telling people you had thought many words in your head to an invisible rabbi who forgave you for it" instead of capital punishment.  

Christianity is antilife, a.k.a. evil.  The "we should talk little girls and boys into taking drugs that mess with their bodily chemicals and cause permanent damage" so popular among Hollywood celebrities now is an expression of the same thing.  Some actor's girl getting a mastectomy when she's 10 'cause her parents have made sure she says she's a boy is the same variety of horrid as some CE600 priest cutting off the balls of some male infant in order to produce a castrato he can <redacted> and use as a singer in the choir for praising a Divine Man.  

Clinging to Jesusianism to hold to tradition and goodness as opposed to embracing today's horrors is a mistake.  It is like if you are in the dark, hear a growl, and get scared, but then feel around and there's this big furry thing.  "Ah ha!" today's Jesusian thinks.  "This monster will protect me from that one!"  However, the big furry thing is just one of the back legs of the monster that growled.  People who've tried to be pagan are closer, but remember that the Christians had quite a while--over 1,000 years--to destroy pagan relics.  This included the errant portrayal of false Christian-based nonsense such as "the pagans believed in sky people with super powers!" etc., which is basically like if a group of murderers claimed it was okay because their victims believed in the X-Men.  Some Europeoid who embraces rabbi-worship passionately (sic--lolsigh) to fulfill a desire for tradition is like if a happy carnival were destroyed by a biker gang and someone tries to rediscover the joys of tradition by forming a biker gang that kills carnival staff.  It is so literally bad and wrong, yet commonly selected.  

Life

If a male has 16 or 1 kids and also effs 300 men, his genes go on, and if he has zero children and only effs his committed life partner Phil, his genes expire.  That's the lens through which home oh is "acceptable" in the sense in which 100 years later there are either kids or not.  Mother Nature made those rules, not Father God.  

That's a lot of what modern Sai-untism is about.  By making home oh seen as acceptable, as a viable alternative to getting married i.e. having kids, the move was meant to cause men who liked that kind of thing (ew, but you get all types) to not be normal productive members of society who also eff men in their spare time to people who are completely non-productive of life.  All of the orgasms, feelings of togetherness, fulfillment, etc. was designed to make life get created and nurtured along, whereas all of the modern home oh acceptance of Bangism is a move in the long game: turning all that life into "never happened."  You yourself probably had some ancestor long ago who was a dude who liked that and did it a couple times but also had a wife and five or whatever number of kids; changing that kind of person from "part of the chain of life" to "dead stop" is the effective strike.  

That's why Christianity, both Jesusian and Bangism, is a high quality weapon.  It disguises what it's doing, as though men revering a divine man and people devoted to love are just really nice and not repurposing life-creation (which means advancing death but it can be pretended as not, and its doers often don't even know that's what they're doing).  

A Divine Man

The way that the advancing antilife toxin of Christianity destroyed/defamed the women/family aspirations of prior European culture is an expression of this antilife.  The confrontation of this kind of life, which always and every single time uses matter, and the celebrated ender of matter--the "savior" from matter--is literal.  "For life" or "against life."  Being pro "everything ends and a happy place called heaven is there to replace it" is just a nice way of being pro death.  

Aphrodite, Athena, Artemis etc. were hot.  Replacing goddesses with some dude on a cross is, besides being utterly bad visually, an expression of death, because men + a man makes zero life, while a man alone for however many years also makes zero life.  

The expressions of hope from Europe from before the Christian invasion began, and after the Christian invasion began--a man representing the ending of matter--are indicative.  The many, many centuries of secretly home oh priests/etc. abusing little boys, and of bitter home oh women having a respectably childless devotion to the unmarried man and the virgin mother, are revealing.  It is death that is being  revered; that is what being saved from the matter every single person for every second uses to live, to imagine, etc., means.