Protestors really don't have anything better to do, do they?
With all of this pressure from the religious right to sit back, relax, and take it like a man, we at Heterophobia find comfort in knowing that each time the children from another God feel compelled to shield their eyes from the "abomination" known as an alternative sexuality, it is actually the heteros themselves who are destroying society more than the homos they persecute.
Now we could go about this by citing statistics, reports, and findings; but, if you wanted to read those, you’d probably have read them by now anyway. Plus, many people in this country—most specifically, the people who cause us to be “Heterophobic”—are not able to deal with statistical logic anyway; so, we’ll just use their own logic against them and laugh in their faces.
Okay, this is how we’re going to do it: we’ll say the idea homophobes use against homosexual tolerance, and then say the way we see it, which, of course, is generally the complete opposite.
Them: Homosexuals destroy nations with their “gay agenda”
Us: Heterosexuals destroy nations with what’s “natural” in their eyes.
Them: The common argument made by homophobes is that “the gays” will convert everyone in a population to being gay. This would result in no children being pumped out, and consequently cause the end the society as we know it. Damn, and we thought the apocalypse would have fire, brimstone, and big explosions—not some weak, pussy ending.
Us: Let’s assume they’re right for a moment. Even if they are, it’s still really the straights that destroy nations. Each baby pumped out is another mouth to feed, and each extra mouth to feed is another expenditure. As it stands, the world carries about 6.8 billion people, and, incidentially, many of the people who do not support homosexual families are the same people who do not support contraception. Therefore, let’s get realistic.
Seeing as nobody is going to pay to support the 50,000 people who die each day due to starvation, including the 23 children who die every minute of every day because they don't have food, we need to formulate better solutions. Therefore, I propose, if contraception is out of the picture (and most definitely, abortion in the third world), that we take another approach: turning the breeders in that part of the world gay.
Yes, Turn Them Gay!
So, aside from sterilizing parents who can’t support their kids, what else can be done? That’s right we turn them gay. After all, that’s what the gays are trying to do with their “agenda,” right? Hah! If people actually could be “turned gay” we would have solved the hunger problems plaguing those families in developing countries consisting of 13 or more children by simply making 50% of the population gay. Hell, only having 6 children per capita is better than having 13. Maybe we could teach them “straight aversion therapy.” Or maybe teach them that if they lead a heterosexual lifestyle they’re going to hell. I’m sure the homophobes out there could help us with this movement.
Better yet, we could convert these “terrorists” that everyone’s afraid of getting attacked by into homosexuals as well. Once they start to pounding man-ass, they won’t have kids to whom they can teach their hateful ways, and we will end up self-extinguishing the entire population of terrorists within 100 years. We could make those low-income families in the US gay as well, and keep them from failing to raise kids they can’t financially support-- if we’re taking the Republican stance on poverty, that is.
Therefore, I’d say let’s hope and pray to god that “the gays” are able to convert people to homosexuality, because our massively bloated, densely-populated earth needs less breeders. Imagine the glory: the gays come to the rescue once again, I get my Nobel Prize for ending the world population and hunger problem, and everyone is happy that they don’t have to pay billions of dollars a year to support everyone else in the world… and who says fags are only good for fashion?
The reality of it is that if it was actually possible to “convert” people’s sexuality, we wouldn’t have problems with the population to begin with. If, for straight people as an overwhelming majority, it was seriously more enticing, erotic, and exciting to have gay sex, then there wouldn’t even be 6.8 billion people worldwide… in fact, there wouldn’t be anyone worldwide—period. Men and women alike would have never even procreated from a global population of six to six hundred to six thousand to six billion if it was more pleasurable for men and women throughout time to just have sex with members of their own sex.
Thus, while it is inherently natural for heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex (as referenced throughout the progression of time), it is probably logical to assume that they will continue to have sex and pump out babies for the next several thousand years or so, depending on when World War III erupts and we all blow ourselves up. If heterosexuality seems to have survived for such a long period of time despite persecution, genocide, prison sentences, and death, I have a strange feeling that it might-- just might-- survive the evil “gay agenda.”
Oh well, so much for trying to convert people. I guess we’ll just have to solve world hunger, war, terror, overpopulation, and the depletion of natural resources in a different manner.
As for the rest of the “gay agenda?” Hell, I wish I knew about it. It’d make shopping for groceries a hell of a lot easier. It’s depressing when I can’t even keep a *daily* agenda, and now I’m coming to learn that the rest of my “gay pals” apparently have this hidden one that they can actually keep track of as a whole. Funny… I always thought they were like the rest of society and just wanted to get a paycheck, watch TV, and be peaceful, loving individuals. Thank god the conservatives have opened my eyes to this new menace.