Homosexuality is a subject most people, including myself, would probably wish to avoid. If one so much as critiques homosexuals or homosexuality, one faces a barrage of deconstruction in which the critic is simultaneously accused of homophobia (a phobia, we remember, being an irrational fear or hatred) and ‘projection’ – in which the critic projects his own self-hatred as an alleged homosexual onto other homosexuals at large. It silences many, because it uses the fear that mud sticks, no matter the truth. Yet such illogic would mean that a xenophobe is really a foreigner or even that an extreme aversion to snakes is because one is really a snake, would it not? As seen, the politicised ‘-phobia’ suffix is given to make anyone even mildly disquieted by homosexual activity appear hysterical, yet real common phobias are often exaggerations of natural aversions to potential dangers.

Generally speaking, and we will be speaking in general terms throughout the essay, rather than about individual exceptions, what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes ought, in theory, to remain a private matter. Yet can homosexuality ever truly remain a private affair, completely separated from the public sphere? The subject of how homosexuality impacts upon society is too vast to cover in just one article, so we are going to look at just some of the main philosophical arguments from a rightist traditionalist perspective, which will hopefully fuel debate among nationalist thinkers.

Certainly, the issue has become very difficult to ignore in contemporary society and has been thrust into the public consciousness in many ways. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the issue at the moment (besides adoption) is that of homosexual marriage. Again, this perversion of the spiritual and legal pact between man and woman has been imposed upon society from above without debate or referendum. I say without debate because the way the media (especially the BBC) has framed public debate has meant that certain opinions and discourses (philosophical and otherwise) too dissentient from the agenda have been excluded from the outset.

When one looks at how François Hollande’s extreme leftist government imposed the perversion of marriage upon French society, one also realises the anti-democratic nature of the imposition. I am not a democrat in the political sense, but one has to remember that politicians like Hollande have pretended themselves the champions of democracy and have supported wars purportedly to bring democracy to countries governed by or in danger from allegedly oppressive regimes (the latest episode being Mali). In Paris alone, 300,000 people gathered to protest against the proposed legislation. Across the whole of France, the figure was 1.4 million. These demonstrators – largely families with young children – were deemed to be ‘members of the extreme right’ and the ones in Paris were tear-gassed by police. Witness the difference in policing when the homosexual lobbyists held their demonstrations advocating the law.

Instead of a referendum, what the French got was a tidal wave of propaganda. Programmes and advertisements told of the injustice, discrimination, adversity and prejudice homosexuals face in society. There was the inevitable play with linguistics and semantics: the proposed law to allow homosexual marriage was worded as that which allowed le mariage pour tous. One notes the implications in such a slogan: if what is proposed is marriage for all, then the proposition is for inclusivity and equality: two buzzwords of the left that have become ubiquitous. One must remember that égalité is enshrined in the very motto of France.

Why is Homosexual Marriage Wrong?

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman from its very beginning even in pre-Christian times – although it is noteworthy that all the great religions of the world have upheld this tradition. The extreme left would argue, of course, that tradition has no moral value in and of itself and, indeed, that Western tradition is immoral and must be overturned. This is really what is at the heart of the campaign for homosexual marriage.

The comedian Julian Clary has included as part of his show an episode in which he drags a male member of the audience up on stage and marries him at the end of every show. At the nub of comedy is always a little piece of propaganda; why else would leftists have spent so much time and effort trying to get rid of Bernard Manning? Clary is doing two things in this piece of farce: he is disarming the audience through humour when it comes to a very serious issue and he is treating marriage as something ephemeral and insignificant, when it is in fact so significant that homosexuals and their lobby groups are petitioning for it, including Clary himself. Clary says of his show: ‘We also finish with a song, Cool to Be Queer. It’s a serious song about gay marriage and persecution.’

If homosexuals like Julian Clary thinly disguise their disdain for the institution of marriage, ones like Jewish LGBT activist Masha Gessen are open about what their true intention is. In a recent radio interview, she said: ‘It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should be allowed to marry, but I also think equally that the institution of marriage should not exist. …fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.’

Clary and Gessen wish not to have equality within existing structures, but to debase them, pervert them and ridicule them until they crumble under a tide of deconstruction and ordinary people are alienated from them. The result will be complete social upheaval in which their way of life is normative and that which was formerly normative becomes abnormal. We will look at the reasons for this in due course.

All this, however, does not really get to the philosophical crux of the matter. To explore why homosexual marriage is immoral, one must look at the function of marriage itself. The primary function of marriage is to create a stable bond between a man and a woman ready for procreation. While marriage has an intrinsic beauty in its bringing together for all eternity a man and a woman who love each other, the primary purpose is to provide a permanent structure for the protection and nurture of society’s weakest members: children.

The homosexual act does not further procreation, nor can a same-sex couple provide the diversity (yes, I did use that word) of the two genders that a heterosexual couple does. No matter how butch the ‘lesbian’ or how effeminate the ‘queer’, they cannot physically or emotionally emulate the natural man or woman whose place they purport to be taking. This can only be psychologically damaging to the child.

Indeed, Clary’s song Cool to Be Queer rather lets the cat out of the bag. The last thing most homosexuals want for their child is for it to be ‘normal’. Is it not the dream of all parents to want their child to grow up to share the same set of values that they hold dear? As, according to ONS statistics, only 2% of the population of Britain consider themselves homosexual (and figures do not diverge much throughout the West), the overwhelming chances are that a child destined to be heterosexual will grow up confused and with psychological trauma, such as ‘gender dysphoria’. This, however, is the idea and homosexual magazines like Attitude have welcomed the slight but significant rise in ‘alternative sexualities’ in recent years. If everyone were to take up ‘alternative sexualities’, of course, the birth rate in the West, already in decline, would plummet, heralding our voluntary genocide. The rightist view, then, is that the needs given by nature for the success of the group override individualist egoism.

There does indeed seem to be an certain correlation between declining birth rates and the acceptance of leftist dogma:

Above is a map of global birth rates for 2008, while below is a map of countries that have signed up to the UN charter on LGBT rights (in green). Countries in red have opposed the charter, while countries in grey remain indifferent:

The actor Jeremy Irons also made a good point regarding the issue: if homosexual marriage is about equality and freedom, where does one draw the line? Why cannot a man marry his son, for instance, and avoid inheritance tax? After all, if leftists have removed good taste and decency from the moral agenda, why not? If one removes these abstract concerns, then incest laws are only there to protect against genetic defects in any offspring of such unions. Same sex relations negate that possibility. Why can a man therefore not marry his horse or his pig? If what we are basing marriage on is the Utilitarian pleasure principle of self-interest, then one can degrade marriage to accommodate any perversion.

Indeed, the Utilitarian pleasure principle is at the very heart of leftist morality. It is no coincidence that Jeremy Bentham supported homosexual rights and was surrounded by rumours about his own sexuality. Indeed this strand of leftism that comes from classical liberal thought has intertwined with Marxist anti-marriage rhetoric of oppression to produce the philosophy that will ultimately undermine the institution of marriage. It will be destroyed from within by the likes of Clary and Gessen. Yet if leftist Utilitarianism is overridden by rightist natural law, from which the basis for heterosexual marriage comes, it poses questions about homosexuality itself.

Is homosexuality Itself Morally Wrong?

The fundament at the base of homosexuality is the perversion of the sex-act, a natural act designed by nature as pleasurable in order to promote procreation. Therefore the pleasure gained is secondary to the primary function intended. With the homosexual sex-act, there is no primary function; it is therefore a perversion of that given by nature. Advocates of homosexuality often attempt to pervert the argument by citing heterosexual couples unable to have children as being a moral equivalent in that they too cannot produce offspring. Ignoring the fact they have used unfortunate exceptions rather than the rule, this is a straw-man argument. We are not talking about the result, but the subconscious urge given by nature to produce the result. Thus, while all heterosexuals have that natural urge, whether they are physically capable of achieving the result or not, all homosexuals do not have that urge. Homosexuality is thus, by extension of that argument, unnatural, for their urge is a perversion of that given by nature for the purpose of instigating procreation. Homosexuals cannot therefore appeal to nature as a moral force and examples of homosexuality must be taken as aberrations of nature, rather than examples from nature.

In general, the same-sex relationship forces one of the partners to imitate a member of the opposite sex: again, this is a perversion of natural order. To imitate that which one is not is to create a falsehood, a lie. Homosexuality is thus also based upon falseness. This perhaps also explains why so many (especially passive male) homosexuals gravitate towards the arts, especially the performing arts, for one partner always has to perform a role not intended by nature.

In males especially, the pleasure of the one (active partner) is gained by the suffering of the other (passive partner). The pleasure of the other (passive partner) is gained through the suffering of the self. The relationship is thus inherently sado-masochistic and so, again, perverse. In this sense, neither can the relationship be based upon love. Indeed, a homosexual university professor I once knew defined sexual relationships as power-based, not love-based. I realised that he was using his own sexuality as a basis for a universal truth for all sexual relationships.

The left always play upon feelings of guilt and pity when addressing the subject. Appeals are always made to the idea that it is ‘not their fault’. I concur; it is often not (unless it be via the voluntary use of recreational drugs). Neither, however, must guilty feelings or feelings of pity be misplaced, resulting in unwarranted accommodation of something detrimental to society at large. As homosexuality is an aberration of nature, it must be treated as a disease, whether it be mental, like obsessive-compulsive disorder, or genetic, like Huntington’s Disease. The patient must be treated, but not indulged. Before the World Health Organisation bowed to political pressure put on it by lobby groups in 1992, this was the general attitude to homosexuality post-1960s.

Indeed, homosexuality, whether genetically transmitted or developed as part of a complex perhaps due to childhood trauma, results in the degradation of the mind. The perversity of mind arises from the perversity of the body and vice-versa. Therefore, the intellectualisation of homosexuality as normative is perverse for the above reasons. As homosexuality is based upon falseness and a diseased mind, it should come as no surprise when homosexuals cloak themselves under the guise of equality and tolerance. They demand equality and tolerance, but do not tolerate those who disagree with them. Their demand for equality is also nullified by the fact that, as seen, homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is thus morally wrong if one accepts natural law as the fundament for morality; leftism is unnatural, against nature, as homosexuality is promoted as part of its erroneous world-view.

Overturning Society

Certainly, homosexuals have had no small part in moving society away from natural order. Sexuality is a powerful driving force for human action; it is not the only driving force, unlike Freud would have us believe, but sexuality is often intellectualised and helps to shape society. Even the repression of sexuality is an act based upon sexuality itself. Homosexuals have been key in pushing society ever leftwards as an extension of their sexual urge that is confined in a society based upon Western norms and have been aided and abetted by Zionist Jews realising they can use them to further their own interests. In any case, the tendency towards ‘alternative sexualities’ among Jews is quite phenomenal.

The decadence among homosexuals has always resulted in a right-wing backlash: in 1885, all forms of homosexuality were strictly recriminalized (in 1861, a loophole had been created to allow certain sexual acts) as part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (which was designed to protect children from sexual predators) after a series of scandals involving members of the gentry using and abusing young working-class rent boys in their early to mid-teens. This included the Cleveland Street Scandal, in which several members of the aristocracy were implicated, such as Lord Arthur Somerset and the Earl of Euston, and the Prince of Wales himself was heavily rumoured to have been a customer at the male brothel that was uncovered by police.

It was this law that Oscar Wilde was tried under. Stephen Fry often makes reference to the Oscar Wilde case as one of the great miscarriages of justice and as evidence of the intolerance of Victorian British society. What he never mentions is that Wilde was a predatory pederast that preyed upon poor boys in their mid-teens, paying them for sex. Had he been alive now, he would have been facing charges under Operation Yew Tree. At one time not so long ago, there was an assumed link between male homosexuality and paedophilia due to the prevalence of cases of pederasty. One notes, for example, the group NAMbLA has petitioned tirelessly to lower the age of sexual consent for males.

Certainly, one can compare the case of Wilde with another notable homosexual of the time, Edward Carpenter, who lived in Sheffield with his long-term boyfriend George Merrill without ever being bothered by the authorities. The tolerance shown to Carpenter’s situation, however, was not reciprocal, and, a devout Marxist, he set about undermining British social norms by whispering in the ears of our women. He propagated the notion that women were unequal in marriage and that the marriage contract itself was a means by men of oppressing women. These ideas are now commonplace in universities throughout the West. In later life, he influenced the infamous Bloomsbury Group of artists and writers, notorious for their lifestyle of ‘high buggery’.

Such notables in the group included: the novelist Virginia Woolf, who had a long lesbian affair while married to the group’s Marxist Jewish political theorist and Labour Party and Fabian Society member Leonard Woolf; Arthur David Waley, another Ashkenazi Jew responsible for bringing African Studies into the universities; E M Forster, the novelist who wrote A Passage to India, the novel that attacked every aspect of Britishness, because he fancied dark-skinned Muslims; Duncan Grant, a homosexual painter involved in sexual relationships with just about every other member of the group, including his own cousin Lytton Strachey; David Garnett, writer and another lover of Duncan Grant before actually marrying Grant’s daughter; the economist John Maynard Keynes, another lover of Grant, responsible for bringing in liberalism and causing the current economic crisis on the back of his economic theory. All, and the others too numerous to mention here, used their intellectual and artistic powers to ensure the moral corruption of the country by disseminating their amoral ideas through art, education and politics. These ideas are also now commonplace as right-thinking in all Western universities.

In Germany, the Jewish Trotskyite homosexual Magnus Hirschfeld was one of the ‘pioneers’ (I use the word ironically) of what became known as sexology. This is a so-called ‘science’, a pseudoscience that has now disappeared, as much of it has been integrated into modern psychology, was aimed at normalising abnormal sexualities and destabilising normal sexuality. In 1919, Hirschfeld collaborated with the Austrian Jewish filmmaker Richard Oswald to realise the pro-homosexual rights film Anders als die Andern, in which Conrad Veidt starred and Hirschfeld himself played a cameo. Having escaped the censors, 150 films like it followed in just a few months. 1920s Germany became the epicentre of decadence and ‘alternative sexualities’ became all the rage among socialites. It is easy to see why the German people were driven towards National Socialism, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the NSDAP – something one is not taught in GCSE History.

Indeed, the demonization of any right-wing views by linking them with fascist government policies has paved the way for homosexual lobby groups to deconstruct and overturn social norms unchallenged. Jewish MP Leo Abse spearheaded the drive towards decriminalising homosexuality, which resulted in the passing of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967. From this point on, lobby groups have pushed further and further until we now have homosexual adoption and laws which virtually forbid any criticism of the acts of parliament that have been passed to the advantage of homosexuals. Perhaps Leo Abse’s sponsor for the bill in the House of Lords, Earl Arthur Gore, had it right when he was asked why his bill to legalise homosexuality was passed and his bill for the protection of badgers was rejected on the same day: ‘Not many badgers in the House of Lords,’ he said.

Indeed, it is quite astonishing the extent to which homosexuals are overrepresented in politics and political activism; they have been the catalysts for change and have changed society from one that suits the majority to one that suits minority groups such as themselves. They have used the liberal strain encompassed by John Stuart Mill’s catchphrase ‘the tyranny of the majority’ to undermine a society suited to the needs of the majority. In other words, the 2% of society is now dictating terms to the 98%, but, of course, we now have many minorities pulling in various directions. I watched one of those late-night talk shows about three years ago – one of those discussions where several pretentious and obnoxious leftists gather round a table and pontificate on arcane matters of pseudo-philosophy – and the topic was ‘Homophobia: the New Racism?’ I knew at that point that pace was gathering for the left’s next attack on traditional norms.

What is to be done with homosexuals then? If they keep themselves to themselves, nothing at all, but certainly, public restrictions must be put upon them. One cannot have the 2% tail wagging the 98% dog. As seen, it will lead to a further decrease in birth rates and a moral turpitude in society. Encouragement and commendation must be given to homosexuals seeking help – but not celebration, otherwise we would have the same cult of ‘checking into rehab’ that current drug-addled celebrities have encouraged, whereby drug-taking is made ‘cool’, as one must indulge in something before alleviating oneself of it. It would become just another form of degenerate propaganda. Just wait for those words from David Cameron: ‘marriage for all’.