So I had a little conversation with the 'Youth organiser' of the british national party today. Here is the delightful conversation:
Robbie Bone: Your views on pretty much everything in life are so far from the truth I don't know whether to feel disgusted by them or feel sorry for you. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual because the bible is a fictional book written by roman authorities 2000 years ago, and there is not one shred of evidence that god exists. Not to mention it makes no sense for a god to exist at all, as how can you explain his existence? Did his giant complex mind just pop out of thin air? Or is it more logical to say very simple sub atomic particles came first? I just hope you look at life more rationally and question all the religious dogma in your head and request evidence before you believe in anything. That way you'll realise there's nothing wrong with being gay, as we are just products of evolution.
Jack Andrew Renshaw: Yes, the only people who have a problem with homosexuality are God fearing Christians.
My problem with homosexuality is it being completely against the nature - the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction, and homosexuals, through their own choice, partake in an unnatural lifestyle that goes against this natural instinct to reproduce.
That said, I stand by the rights of homosexuals to be what they are, but only if they keep it between two consensual adults. Don't flaunt your sexuality; don't expect the education establishment to teach children about homosexuality, like Peter Tatchell; and certainly don't adopt children, thereby bringing a non-consensual person into the unnatural relationship.
Robbie Bone: This argument makes no sense what so ever. Just because we happened to evolve in a way where males have sex with females to produce children, means that people of the same sex can't love each other?! What logical reason is there to say that evolution and our biology should bear on our morals?! You think I should be with a woman to fullfill some random natural process?! That's like basing your sexuality on earth's past climate. Also how the hell do you think it's a choice when homosexuality is usually seen as a bad thing? Why would people go through the stress of 'coming out' when it's just a choice? And there is this thing called scientific evidence that proves it is not a choice. There is also scientific proof that people like you are more likely to be gay yourself. Therefore I challenge you to have a gay test done where they measure the size of your erection whilst watching gay porn. If you deny this test then I will only makes the obvious conclusion. Also if I had it my way every child would be taught about homosexuality, how it is normal and natural to be homosexual (otherwise why would monkeys and various other animals be homosexual), and I would also encourage Disney to make their first gay prince movie. Not that being natural means it is good. If everything should be natural you wouldn't use facebook or the device you're using. It is unnatural to send messages across large distances through electromagnetic waves. You should also not wear glasses. People wearing glasses are so evil aren't they. Making their vision unnaturally better than it is. So evil. #Idiot
Jack Andrew Renshaw: I never said homosexuality was a choice. I said the lifestyle was a choice. Evidence seems to point towards it being a product of brain defections in the womb (high levels of dopamine) making homosexuality more likely, and the rest of it, down to improper socialisation.
You're contradicting yourself. You're on one hand saying it is natural, and on the other hand, comparing it to glasses enhancing vision to beyond its natural state, insinuating that you believe homosexuality is not natural.
As for me being homosexual, that's a tell tale sign of a militant homosexual. "This fellow disagrees with my perverse lifestyle and my wish to push it onto children - must be a pervert."
Robbie Bone: Well that's what a lot of psychological studies have concluded. So if you don't have the test done I'm only going to assume you're a closet case. I'm saying that other animals, who don't make moral choices, are gay and therefore it is natural in that sense. However in the design sense that the penis is designed to impregnate a female I would say it is 'unnatural'. So it depends what kind of definition of natural you're talking about. But in all senses of the word, being 'natural' does not in any way infer goodness. If your friend bought a cup but used it as a bowl for his cereals - would you really care this much? No. So why do things designed by evolution make any difference if the thing under discussion isn't used in the way it was biologically intended? I'm sure our biology meant for our feet to touch the ground and walk, therefore are people who do hand stands and walk with their hands violating your natural moral creed too? Another sense of unnatural would be altering your own biology, which I would argue is more unnatural than the design sense of unnatural. For example, it's not natural to shampoo your hair, or take medication. But I assume you do, and don't think doing these incredibly unnatural things that alter your biology are 'perverse'. I've also not seen one monkey shampoo their own hair in the wild, or alter their biology through drugs and medication. However they do have gay sex. So therefore you do things that are far more unnatural than homosexual sex. According to your logic, altering your own biology through surgery and medication is unnatural yet ok, but using an organ for things it wasn't primarily designed for isn't ok? You're not being very consistent if that's the case. Otherwise if you were consistent with your argument you would reject cancer treatment if you got diagnosed with it tomorrow. Cause you know, #TeamNatural and all.
Jack Andrew Renshaw: Assume all you want. Your analogy of the cup of cereal and homosexual intercourse are on a different scale. Eating cereal from a cup does not render him unable to produce children and more likely to die of HIV. By unnatural, I mean things that have a detrimental impact on society due to unnatural factors. Shampoo cleanses. Cancer treatment saves people.
Robbie Bone: Being with someone you love and are sexually attracted to has a detrimental impact on society?! And how exactly are homosexual men all sterile? You do realise we have functioning sperm, right? Lots of gay couples use a surrogate, or adopt. Plus as I have studied biotechnology, and the fact technology grows exponentially, I would predict that the technology for two gay men to have biological children is only twenty years away. All you'd have to do is get an egg, remove the woman's DNA from the egg, transplant one of the gay men's DNA from his sperm into that egg and viola. You have an egg with a man's DNA, all ready to be fertilised with the other gay man's sperm. So it will actually be possible for gay people to have children. Assuming i'm right, what is your argument then? Also if you haven't noticed, it is 2014 not 1990. It is increasingly rare for people to die of HIV these days in the UK, as the drugs make it practically impossible for the HIV to progress to AIDS. People diagnosed with HIV today are predicted to live as long as they would have being negative. And that's without taking into account new drugs which are coming out all the time (and a predicted cure in the next few decades).
Jack Andrew Renshaw: The best way to socialise a child is through the instrumental role (biologically suited to men) and the expressive role (biologically suited to women). So you not only want to have the right to be a pervert, but you want to bring children into your perverse lifestyle. Disgusting.
Robbie Bone: The best way to socialise a child is through not indoctrinating them with right wing, nazi-like bullshit. If that's the case then I assume you think all single parents are evil? Why don't you go and campaign on single parenting being wrong instead? I love the way you keep using the term 'pervert' and 'pervert lifestyle'. It's a sign that your are disgusted by the idea of two men having sex, and don't actually care about the shit arguments you've come up with. Just like a Nazi was disgusted by the thought of a Jew or being Jewish, and didn't actually care or believe in their argument that Jews were causing economic problems.