God Hates Fags

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20220722-GodHatesFags.mp3 — Downloaded 13462 times


God Hates Fags

At least occasionally, I am compelled to do a topical presentation, rather than a commentary. This particular presentation is made because all of the diverse ways in which supposed Christians twist Scripture in order to justify their own perversions is quite wearisome. So we shall address some of their wayward claims this evening.

Within fifty years, America has become Sodom and has come to not only represent, but even promote and force the acceptance of Sodomy throughout the entire world. American diplomats hang rainbow flags from their windows in capital cities everywhere, and “freedom” is measured by the number of faggots per square mile that any particular nation may have. This is not a surprise, as direct Jewish influence and participation in government has increased tremendously over the same period. A few years ago, The Boston Globe had published an article titled Welcome to Tel Aviv, the gayest city on earth. The Sodomite website gaycities.com is more reserved, stating only that Tel Aviv is “the gay capital of the Middle East”, and perhaps they are more intimately acquainted. But they even boast of Tel Aviv’s Gay Holocaust Monument and falsely claim that Sodomites in concentration camps were forced to wear pink triangle emblems, which is a complete fabrication. As in all Jewish media, pandering to favored special-interest groups has always trumped truth. In fact, the term “special-interest group” itself is generally only a euphemism for googles of faggots and beasts that want something for themselves at the expense of all others.

In response to a recent shooting in Buffalo, New York, American president Joe Biden was quoted by CNN as having declared that “In America, evil will not win, I promise you. Hate will not prevail. White supremacy will not have the last word.” Won’t he be surprised in the end, if he even sees the end. But even if we can argue that the Buffalo shooter was certainly no true representative of so-called “White supremacy”, how does Joe Biden define evil? What is his moral guide for what is evil? The same Joe Biden issued a proclamation just weeks before, which opened with the words “To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your President sees you. The First Lady, the Vice President, the Second Gentleman, and my entire Administration see you for who you are — made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.” The calendar is now full of such special recognition days for perverts. At the same time, the Jewish Virtual Library reports that Biden has appointed more than 40 Jews to the top positions in his administration. So it is no wonder that Sodom is his example of morality and righteousness.

This past June, even the United States Marine Corps was compelled to make an official statement in support of faggotry. It said “Throughout June, the USMC takes Pride in recognizing and honoring the contributions of LGBTQ service members. The USMC remains committed to fostering an environment free from discrimination, and defend the values of treating all equally with dignity and respect.” So these supposed warriors are marching from the halls of Montezuma into the throes of STDs, and no little boy will ever be safe in the next war.

The Marine Corp Commandant, David H. Berger, is so “woke”, invested in “cancel culture” and supportive of Critical Race Theory that even JewishPress.com has published an article demanding that he be fired, because after the purges of “dissident” Marines, it estimates that the Marine Corps can no longer win a battle. Called to testify in Congress before the House Subcommittee on Defense in April, evidently Berger did not talk about the failures in Afghanistan, but spoke instead about institutional racism and Marines who “hold extremist views” or “homophobic / transphobic ideologies driven by hate, fear, and ignorance”. Evidently, they will soon be teaching gender-bending as part of the combat training at Parris Island, if they aren’t doing that already.

True Christians are not “homophobic” or “transphobic”, and we do not even accept those false Freudian Jewish paradigms. We are not scared of faggots and trannies. Real men do not fear trannies. What we fear is God, and Yahweh God is all that we fear, as He is our final judge and not some faggot Marine Commandant.

Berger was a Trump appointment in 2019, if we need more evidence that the love for faggots and Marxists transcends political party affiliations. Every branch of the American government and every large corporation is eager to ingratiate themselves with the most depraved elements of what they consider to be humanity. The truth is that God would think that it is Joe Biden who is evil, and David Berger, but not White Supremacy. In fact, the entire American government is evil, because they are all in agreement with so-called “wokeness” and faggotry. If any of the politicians in Washington are not in agreement with these things, we certainly have no reliable indication of their disagreement. The Canaanites of Sodom were the first example of the will of God for faggots, and Yahweh God has promised to destroy all of the Canaanites, even those whom a Trump or a Biden may appoint into government posts, because God hates fags.

Collectively, Jews, who by their own admission are the descendants of the ancient Canaanites, have endeavored to globalize Sodom, and America is their primary agent for enforcing global faggotry. JewishPress.com is really only upset that many good White men will no longer be employed as canon fodder in Jewish wars, merely because they oppose faggotry. In April, 2013, the newspaper which calls itself “The Times of Israel” reported in a headline that US Jews [are] among the most supportive of gay marriage, citing a Pew Research survey and stating “Pew figures show 76% of Jews support legalizing gay marriage, higher than all but the youngest and most liberal of Democrats.” Of course, “the youngest and most liberal of Democrats” are also those who have been the most brainwashed by the Jewish media. The survey actually set the figure at 77%, with 5% stating that they did not know and only 18% in opposition. We could safely estimate that 100% of Jews in government support it. Another Pew Research survey said that 81% of Jews think homosexuality should be accepted, with only 16% in opposition. These are much higher ratios than what is generally found among non-Jews, and especially those claiming to be Christian. While we do not entirely trust surveys, the media and personal testimonials linking Sodomy and Jewishness are endless. A Google search for the words “Jews ‘Gay’ America”, putting the word gay in quotation marks so that it is a necessary component, returns over 26 million results.

The day shall come, that fire comes down from heaven and destroys Sodom once again. But the churches will never sound a warning. In fact, most churches seem to have become fully complicit in the Sodomizing of the entire world. While the Roman Catholic Church may seem to be a vanguard in opposition, it too has facilitated the trend, even if we ignore the tendency of at least some of its priests to actually turn little boys into Sodomites by molesting them in large numbers. They should be called altered boys, rather than altar boys. But generally, Catholics are not far behind Jews, as a Google search for “Catholic ‘Gay’ America” has over 23 million results. Examining some of those results, one may think that Catholic fags are the most oppressed group in history behind Jews, yet they consistently assert some sort of right to be both a faggot and a Catholic.

While the latest Roman Catholic pope, Francis, has refused to consider the possibility of so-called “same-sex marriage”, he has openly vocalized support for homosexual civil unions on frequent occasions, so further compromise with the Roman Catholic Church is sure to follow. The pope and other Catholic bishops have expressed the sentiment that abstaining homosexuals are welcome in the Church. Yet the entire concept of an “abstaining homosexual” is an oxymoron. How can someone who is not participating in sexual acts define themselves by their preferred sexual activity? But the Jewish and gay world has always been full of contradictions. Paul of Tarsus never said that “there is neither faggot nor Greek”, but instead demanded that all sinners repent, and that fornicators and other sinners be put out of the congregations of Christ (i.e. 1 Corinthians chapter 5). Faggots must sincerely repent in order to be found acceptable, and not merely abstain.

Many Catholics defy even the pope’s liberal stance on faggotry, as they would like to actually marry Sodomites. For example, throughout 2021 the BBC, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and many other media outlets had reported on the defiance of German bishops and priests, who are publicly blessing so-called “same sex couples” in ceremonies, even if they are not quite marrying them. Of course, these newspapers themselves would also favor the changes in Church policy. The German churches have been pressing for Sodomy for several years, and in 2019 the Washington Post reported that German bishops want to modernize the church, and asking Are they getting too far ahead of Pope Francis? This evokes the words of Tacitus in his Germania, which were actually a commentary on the Rome of his own time, where he said “No one in Germany laughs at vice, nor do they call it the fashion to corrupt and to be corrupted.” There are other witnesses apart from the Bible, which testify that depravity certainly is not “modern”. With the perpetual capitulation to faggots, soon the entire Roman Catholic Church will be openly endorsing Sodomy, and neighborhood drag queens will have a host of new venues.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has also assisted this situation with an ambiguous statement on Homosexuality which declares that “The Church seeks to enable every person to live out the universal call to holiness. Persons with a homosexual inclination ought to receive every aid and encouragement to embrace this call personally and fully. This will unavoidably involve much struggle and self-mastery, for following Jesus always means following the way of the Cross… The Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance are essential sources of consolation and aid on this path.” Here there is not one explicit word of any need for repentance from sin, and then with great audacity, it cites the words of Yahshua Christ found in Matthew chapter 11 in reference to this statement.

There in that chapter of Matthew, Christ had beckoned His people to come to Him as His yoke is easy and His burden light. However, in that regard the Church seems ignorant of His Words in the Gospel of John in chapter 14, where He said that: “21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” Every time that Christ was asked about the commandments, He had cited the commandments from the Old Testament, from the law as it was given to Moses, and not only from the lists of the ten commandments which are found in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 6, but also from Leviticus chapter 19 and elsewhere. In fact, Christ cited Leviticus in reference to what He had called the second “great commandment”.

If one accepts the commandment to “love thy neighbour as thyself”, which is that second great commandment, and which is only found in Leviticus chapter 19, how can one reject the commandment punishing homosexuality with death, which is found soon after that, in Leviticus chapter 20 where it reads: “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” It is also found soon before, in Leviticus chapter 18: “22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” These commandments have obviously been ignored by countless Roman Catholic priests and monks throughout history, but they have tried to veil their purposeful ignorance with secrecy, since at one time there were serious penalties for such sin. However many modern evangelical churches, or Protestant churches, are now intentionally corrupting the meaning of these commandments, in order to avoid having to acknowledge that Sodomy is a sin. While doing that, they promote the embrace of Sodomites and therefore also, the grooming of new generations of faggots.

But we will not start there in the law with our examination of the Scriptures which lead us to the conclusion that God hates fags. Rather, we shall start in the beginning, in Genesis chapter 1, where we read: “27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…” So the intention of God in creating man “male and female” is clear where it says “be fruitful and multiply”, something which two men together cannot do on their own, or two women. Then in Genesis chapter 2 we read: “18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him… 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

That word for wife is the same word for a woman in Hebrew, אשה or ishah (802), which is a woman, wife or female, depending on the context in which it appears. The word is the grammatically feminine, but apparently also contracted, form of שיה or ish (376) which was translated as man in verses 23 and 24 of the passage which we have just cited, while man is from the Hebrew word אדם or adam (120) in verses 22 and 25. So here it is clear, that a feminine ishah is a proper and natural counterpart to a masculine ish, or adamic man, and that only an ishah, but never an ish, can be a wife to a man, as wife is defined by that same word ishah. So the very language of Genesis defines a marriage as being between a male husband and a female wife, and any deviation from that must be viewed as a corruption of the original intention of God, the Creator of all and the author of language itself.

Yahshua Christ upheld this definition of marriage, for example where we read in Mark chapter 10: “2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

In that passage of Mark, the Greek word for man in verse 2 is ἀνήρ (435), which is a male or a husband, depending on the context, and on occasion it was used to distinguish an adult male from a young boy, as Liddell & Scott attest from the Classical Greek writings. The word for wife in that verse is γυνή (1135), which like the Hebrew term ishah is literally a woman, but in the context of marriage is often a wife. So in Greek as well as Hebrew, the concept of a wife is also inseparable from the feminine gender.

The words for male and female in verse 6 are ἄρσην (730) and θῆλυς (2338), which are somewhat more technical terms. The word ἄρσην means masculine, the male sex, of men, plants or animals. Likewise θῆλυς is feminine, the female sex, of women, plants or animals. In certain metaphorical uses, ἄρσην describes things which are tough or robust, while θῆλυς describes things which are soft or delicate. Finally, in verse 7 of this chapter of Mark, the word for man is the common word ἄνθρωπος (444), while the word for wife is once again γυνή. This word γυνή was used as a general term for woman, or wife or spouse, as opposed to a man or husband, or even of the female mate of a male animal. It also stood in contrast to παρθένος (3933), a maiden or virgin, although a man’s wife could be called his virgin in a special sense, as every woman was expected to be a virgin up to the point at which she became some man’s wife. So in the language of the Bible, a male of any species cannot ever be confused for a wife, as there is no term for wife that is void of references to the female gender, or natural biological sex.

There are other terms in Scripture, both Greek and Hebrew, which describe male and female children, both boys and girls, but they are never used within a context of natural sexual relations, and rarely of unnatural sexual relations. For example, we read in Joel chapter 3 concerning the sin of the Tyrians for which Yahweh would punish them severely: “3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.” The terms for boy and girl there are from the same root word, respectively the masculine and feminine forms of the Hebrew word ילד or yeled (3206, 3207) which is a child or more generally, a descendant. So the masculine form of this word describes a boy, and the feminine describes a girl, and if in the law a male boy was meant specifically, this word would appear, and not the general term for male, zakar, which is found and which generally means male, but not explicitly a male child, as we shall see.

This brings us back to the law in Leviticus. Many modern so-called pastors are twisting these laws to claim that they only forbid a man from sleeping with boys, rather than with other men. That is a lie by which they attempt to justify faggots, Sodomites who have sex with other men of any age, which are an abomination in the eyes of God. So we shall read the laws again, and examine the terms. First, from Leviticus chapter 18: “22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Then also from Leviticus chapter 20: “13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

The term for man in chapter 20 is שיה or ish (376), the same term which we had seen in Genesis chapter 2, describing an adult male or husband. But the point of contention is the word for mankind in each of these verses, which is זכר or zakar (2145) and which basically means male, and is used of the male gender of both men and animals. In the Greek Septuagint version, zakar was translated as ἄρσην, the same word which means male in Greek, which we saw here in our citation of Mark chapter 10. The evangelists who wish to accommodate faggots insist that zakar refers to young boys, but not to adult men. Furthermore, in the passage from chapter 18 the word for womankind is once again ishah, which we saw was translated as both woman and wife in Genesis chapter 2. So it is evident that if one wants to claim that zakar refers to little boys, it becomes evident that perhaps it was ordinary for a man to lie with little girls, and that is also an abomination. But as we have already said, faggots are always full of contradictions.

So now we shall examine how this word zakar is actually used in Scripture. This particular form of the word, as a noun, appears over a hundred times in the Old Testament. In some circumstances it does refer to a male child, where in the King James Version it is translated as man child. But in those passages, the word child is inferred from the text, and it is not explicit in the Hebrew original. Examples of this are in Genesis chapter 17, in verses 10, 12 and 14. In those passages, zakar is man child in the English of the King James Version, in spite of a lack of any reference to age in the Hebrew, and for that reason it is simply ἄρσην, or male, in the Greek of the Septuagint. So later in the same chapter, we read in verse 23: “And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.” Where in the King James Version it says “every male” the word for male is once again zakar, and because it is clearly used of men where the word is a plural form of enosh, a grown man, the word child was not inferred by the translators. So zakar clearly describes a male of any age, and not merely a child.

Yet there are many other explicit examples of the use of zakar which prove that assertion beyond doubt:

In Genesis chapter 34, in verses 15 through 24, the word zakar is translated as male three times, each of them describing the adult men of Shechem.

In Leviticus chapter 27 we read: “1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. 3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. 5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. 7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 8 But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.”

In that passage, the word zakar appears in verse 3 where it describes males over the age of 20 and up to 60 years old. Then in verses 5 and 6 it is used to describe males from 5 to 20 years. Then in verse 7 it is used to describes males older than 60 years of age. Here it is absolutely clear that the word zakar describes a man or boy of any age, and therefore by itself it simply means male, without any implication of age.

In Numbers chapter 1 we read: “ 2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; 3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.” The word zakar appears in this passage as male, referring to men age 20 and over, and again in verses 20 and 22 of the same chapter. Later in the Book of Numbers, zakar appears in many other chapters in reference to adult men, in chapters 3, 5 and 18.

So there should be no doubt that zakar refers to a male of any age, where there is no qualifier which signifies a specific age. Therefore in the law, it refers to a male of any age where it states in Leviticus that “18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” and “20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” So a man who lies carnally with a little boy should die, and a man who lies carnally with an adult male should die, as all are equal under that law. The faggots cannot pervert the law to justify their faggotry, since God hates fags and in the end, He is not going to accept their faggotry, as He states here, it is an abomination.

Now we shall visit the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. There are several lies which we have observed being spread among various American Protestant denominations in reference to the destruction of the Sodomites. One example is the claim that the account is not about men wanting to have sex with other men, but rather, it is about men wanting to have sex with angels. That is a blatant lie, because as Genesis chapter 19 describes plainly, the men of Sodom believed that the guests of Lot were men, and did not know that they were angels. Then, whether they were angels or not is immaterial, as they fully appeared to be men. Thirdly, when Lot offered them women in their place, they refused, demanding Lot to turn over the men so that they could have sexual intercourse with them.

Exemplary of the faggots who deny that Sodom was destroyed for faggotry is a website which calls itself The Conversation. In an article titled A thousand years ago, the Catholic Church paid little attention to homosexuality, they pretend that it was once acceptable to be a faggot. They make assertions which reflect the idea that it was the Roman Catholic Church which had suppressed faggotry, and not the Law of God which has forbidden it. Justifying their positions, they state in part the following: “For example, Genesis 19 records God’s destruction of two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, by ‘sulphur and fire’ for their wickedness. For 1,500 years after the writing of Genesis, no biblical writers equated this wickedness with same-sex acts. Only in the first century A.D. did a Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, first mistakenly equate Sodom’s sin with same-sex sexuality. It took centuries for a Christian consensus to agree with Philo’s misinterpretation, and it eventually became the accepted understanding of this scripture, from which the derogatory term ‘sodomite’ emerged.”

The opinions expressed in this one quotation are blatantly devious. This is what Jews call chutzpah, which is extreme insolence and audacity. For 1,500 years no Biblical writer had to explain what had transpired at Sodom, because it is quite clear in the account in Genesis and should need no further explanation. Secondly, Philo of Alexandria dates to the early first century AD, as he was born about 25 BC and he is esteemed to have died around 50 AD. It can be established with certainty that the very first epistles of Paul of Tarsus, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, were written from Corinth in 50 or 51 AD. There are no other surviving Jewish commentaries or even Targums which predate Philo, and of course there are no surviving Christian commentaries which predate Christ. The only exception to this is whatever may be found among the doctrinal literature and commentaries of the Qumran sect represented in the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls, from the circumstances described within them, can be dated with certainty to the Roman period of Judaea, after about 60 BC, but no later than the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, so they probably predate the writings of Philo. But any commentary that the Scrolls may have contained in reference to the destruction of Sodom seems to be lost.

However the testimony of Flavius Josephus and his interpretation of the destruction of Sodom cannot be attributed to Philo, and it is nearly as old as that of Philo. So Josephus had written the following, in Book 1 of his Antiquities of the Judaeans: “200 And when God had replied that there was no good man among the Sodomites, for if there were but ten such men among them, he would not punish any of them for their sins, Abraham held his peace. And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites, and Lot entreated them to accept lodging with him; for he was a very generous, and hospitable man, and one that had learned to imitate the goodness of Abraham. Now, when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; 201 and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer anything immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised, that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust instead of these strangers – neither thus were they made ashamed. 202 But God was much displeased at their impudent behaviour, so that he both smote those men with blindness, and condemned the Sodomites to universal destruction. But Lot, upon God's informing him of the future destruction of the Sodomites, went away, taking with him his wife and daughters, who were two, and still virgins; for those who were betrothed to them were above the thoughts of going, and deemed that Lot's words were trifling.”

This language, which is the translation of William Whiston, is filled with polite Medieval euphemisms, and could have been much stronger. However it is clear that the Sodomites desired young men in order to gratify their own lusts, and even refused virgin women of a marriageable age in their place. Furthermore, in the ancient world, as it was described by both Hebrews and Greeks, guests were highly honored, and if a sojourner suffered damage in the home of a host, the host was greatly disgraced. So men would do practically anything to defend the honor of a guest, even to their own hurt. Therefore Lot had no qualms about offering his own daughters to gratify the lust of the Sodomites rather than see harm come to his guests, as the Sodomites sought to rape the young men.

So we shall read the pertinent parts of Genesis chapter 19:

1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

This portrays the extent of the graciousness of Lot, who was evidently very generous and actively sought to help others. This is also the first time that the word angels appears in Scripture in the plural, although it is in the singular in reference to “the angel of Yahweh” which is mentioned several times in Genesis chapter 16. But in Genesis chapter 18, where these same angels first appeared, they are called men in verses 2, 16 and 22. The Hebrew word on each occasion is enosh (582), which refers to a mortal man, and not to a particular race of men as the term adam designates. The word angel is merely an office or function, as it means messenger, while the word for a mortal man is used to describe these angels throughout this entire account.

So we continue where these men have entered the house of Lot and feasted:

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

The word for know, ידע or yada (3045), was often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, for example in Genesis chapter 4 where we read “17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch…” or “25 … Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth…” So it is also here, which is revealed with certainty when Lot offers his two virgin daughters in place of the men. There he said that his daughters “have not known man”, so Josephus was correct to inform us in his Antiquities that they were virgins.

Lot met these men at the gate of the city, so he was thus far the only man in Sodom to confer with them, yet others must have seen them and known where they had gone. So now it is described that many men from the city came to Lot’s house, and not just a few, where it said “both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” That certainly indicates that a very high percentage of the men of Sodom had taken to faggotry, or there would have been no other interest in their having joined this crowd.

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

Lot attempted to show kindness to the Sodomites, and ingratiate them in spite of their depravity, even offering them his own daughters so they could use them to gratify their lusts. But they refused, and in turn they threatened to rape Lot even more harshly than they would rape the men. Just like today’s Sodomites, these men rejected Lot’s call to not do wickedly as if that were an unjust judgement. This portrays the fact that sinners need other men to be silent and accept their sins, lest their own consciences are burdened by their sin.

We need only to read two more verses:

10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

Regardless of any display of supernatural ability which these men may have had, they are nevertheless portrayed by Moses, who is the author of the account, as men in the words of the Sodomites in verse 5, in the words of Lot in verse 8, and in the subsequent narrative in verses 10, 11, 12 and 16. They may have been angels, but they were also men, and the Sodomites not knowing that they were angels, wanted to forcibly have sexual intercourse with them because they were men. While the Sodomites were certainly sinners in other ways, this is the account which Yahweh God Himself had chosen in order to illustrate the grievous sins of Sodom. For that reason, when the first Bibles were translated into English, the word Sodomite appears to describe men who participated in what we may kindly describe as homosexual activity, but that is a euphemism for something which is better called faggotry or Sodomy.

So we read, in 1 Kings chapter 14, during the reign of Rehoboam the son of Solomon: “ 22 And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. 23 For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. 24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.”

The children of Israel, and at least many of the children of Judah, had already taken up Canaanite paganism at that time. The word translated as sodomites in that passage is a form of the word קדש or qadesh, which signifies someone or something that was devoted to the temple of a god, thereby becoming the property of that god. In the ancient pagan world, which is often seen in Greek literature as well as in Mesopotamian inscriptions, when a person was devoted to a temple, which happened often to slaves, to captives in war, to the poor, and even to unwanted children, the pagan priests would often put the devotee out to prostitution in order to make money for the temple. Since women usually had few rights, in ancient times they would generally not have had an opportunity to enjoy a male prostitute. The male prostitutes were chiefly used by corrupt men. Male and female prostitutes were quite popular in the pagan temples of antiquity, and of all the Greek cities noted for their prostitutes, Corinth was the most famous. In ancient Greece, the name of that city became synonymous with prostitution.

In Strabo’s Geography, Book 11 at the end of chapter 14 (11.14.16), we have this example of temple prostitution: “Now the sacred rites of the Persians, one and all, are held in honour by both the Medes and the Armenians; but those of Anaïtis are held in exceptional honour by the Armenians, who have built temples in her honour in different places, and especially in Acilisenê. Here they dedicate to her service male and female slaves. This, indeed, is not a remarkable thing; but the most illustrious men of the tribe actually consecrate to her their daughters while maidens; and it is the custom for these first to be prostituted in the temple of the goddess for a long time and after this to be given in marriage; and no one disdains to live in wedlock with such a woman. 533 Something of this kind is told also by Herodotus (1.93, 199) in his account of the Lydian women, who, one and all, he says, prostitute themselves. And they are so kindly disposed to their paramours that they not only entertain them hospitably but also exchange presents with them, often giving more than they receive, inasmuch as the girls from wealthy homes are supplied with means. However, they do not admit any man that comes along, but probably those of equal rank with themselves.”

Therefore with that understanding of ancient temple prostitution, we read in 1 Kings chapter 15, after the death of Rehoboam: “9 And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. 10 And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. 11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. 12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.” The word for sodomites in that passage is a plural masculine form of qadesh.

Then a bit later, in 1 Kings chapter 22, where the word is also qadesh: “42 Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. 43 And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD: nevertheless the high places were not taken away; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places. 44 And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. 45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

Finally, during the revival in Judah which was led by the young king Josiah, in 2 Kings chapter 23: “ 6 And he brought out the grove [the asherah, or idol of Astarte] from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people. 7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.” Once again, a masculine plural form of the word qadesh is sodomites. Here the Septuagint has an obscure word, καδησιμ, which is only a transliteration of the Hebrew word qadesh in its plural form, qadeshim and which Liddell & Scott also define as male temple prostitutes, as there is no other plausible translation other than the archaic term, sodomites.

Of course, breaking down the houses of Sodomites and casting them out of the land is always a good thing for a king to do. Hopefully soon it shall happen once again, because God still hates fags.

In a Hebrew parallelism which likens female and male temple prostitutes to whores and dogs, we read in the law in Deuteronomy chapter 23: “17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” In that passage the word for whore in verse 17 is a feminine singular form of qadesh, but in verse 18 we see that is equated to a word which is more literally used to describe a prostitute, which is also feminine, זנה or zanah (2181), for which the Greek of the Septuagint has πόρνη. Then in verse 17, sodomite is from the masculine singular form of qadesh, and its correlation to the feminine form and the words zanah and πόρνη fully establish the interpretation of this word as sodomite in all of these scriptures as being a correct interpretation. In verse 18, the wages of a dog are what is earned by a male prostitute, a sodomite or faggot selling himself to wealthy faggots for money.

The Latin Vulgate has a word in place of sodomites in these four passages of which the root is effeminatus, or effeminate. But it meant more than merely acting like a woman, it actually described a man who was acting as a woman. The verb effeminare is defined by The New College Latin & English Dictionary to mean “to make a woman of; to represent as a woman; regard as female; to emasculate… passive to become unmanly”. So while that does not fully reflect the act of prostitution in which these male temple faggots had engaged, it does describe a man playing a role which a woman would naturally fulfill. That leads to our next topic of discussion. Not only does God hate faggots. God also hates trannies, transvestites or transsexuals.

This is fully apparent in the law in Deuteronomy chapter 22: “5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” So a man should not wear the garments of a woman, and the word is ishah, the common word for woman. But where it says “that which pertaineth to a man”, the word for man is not the common word. Instead, it is גבר or geber (1397), which is defined as a combatant, a fighting man, or mighty man. So women can get away with a pair of bluejeans, but they should never wear soldier’s or policeman's uniforms, or pretend to be warriors, and men should not wear dresses or pantyhose or anything typically worn by women. This, says the law, is an abomination, so God hates trannies, and He also hates women who pretend to be warriors.

To the ancient Greeks, as well as to the Israelites, transvestites engaging in homosexual acts were not unknown. The Judaean historian Flavius Josephus wrote of events which transpired shortly before the ministry of Christ began, where he wrote the following in Book 4 of his Wars of the Judaeans (4:558-562): “558 Now this Simon, who was outside the wall, was a greater terror to the people than the Romans themselves, as were the Zealots who were within it more heavy upon them than both of the other; and during this time did the mischievous contrivances and courage [of John] corrupt the body of the Galileans; 559 for these Galileans had advanced this John and made him very powerful, who made them suitable requital from the authority he had obtained by their means; for he permitted them to do all things that any of them desired to do, 560 while their inclination to plunder was insatiable, as was their zeal in searching the houses of the rich; and for the murdering of the men, and abusing of the women, it was sport to them. 561 They also devoured what spoils they had taken, together with their blood, and indulged themselves in feminine wantonness, without any disturbance, till they were satiated therewith; while they decked their hair, and put on women's garments, and were besmeared all over with ointments; and that they might appear very comely, they had paints under their eyes, 562 and imitated, not only the ornaments, but also the lusts of women, and were guilty of such intolerable uncleanness, that they invented unlawful pleasures of that sort. And thus did they rove up and down the city, as in a brothel house, and defiled it entirely with their impure actions; 563 nay, while their faces looked like the faces of women, they killed with their right hands: and when their walk was effeminate, they presently attacked men, and became warriors, and drew their swords from under their finely dyed cloaks, and ran everyone through whom they came to.” There Josephus was certainly describing the Bolsheviks and Jewish Antifa of his own time.

In the even more ancient world, there is another example in the writings of a 5th century BC Greek author named Ctesias, part of whose work was preserved in the writings of Diodorus Siculus. This describes Sardanapallus, who evidently lived in the 7th century BC but whose memory, or at least whose precise identity, did not survive in known Assyrian records.

So the following is from of Diodorus’ Library of History (2.23.1-4): “Sardanapallus, the thirtieth in succession from Ninus, who founded the empire, and the last king of the Assyrians, outdid all his predecessors in luxury and sluggishness. For not to mention the fact that he was not seen by any man residing outside the palace, he lived the life of a woman, and spending his days in the company of his concubines and spinning purple garments and working the softest of wool, he had assumed the feminine garb and so covered his face and indeed his entire body with whitening cosmetics and the other unguents used by courtesans, that he rendered it more delicate than that of any luxury-loving woman. 2 He also took care to make even his voice to be like a woman's, and at his carousals not only to indulge regularly in those drinks and viands which could offer the greatest pleasure, but also to pursue the delights of love with men as well as women; for he practised sexual indulgence of both kinds without restraint, showing not the least concern for the disgrace attending such conduct.”

This Sardanapallus was a Sodomite as well as a transvestite, which is certainly not surprising. Diodorus, who lived and wrote over 40 years before the birth of Christ, clearly considered this behavior to be disgraceful, and apparently Ctesias also did. Sardanapallus would have been in good company with Odin, Thor and Loki, and even Zeus. Then, after remarking and recording a funeral dirge which he had composed for himself, Diodorus wrote further and said: “4 Because he was a man of this character, not only did he end his own life in a disgraceful manner, but he caused the total destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which had endured longer than any other known to history.”

Sodomites and so-called transsexuals also often abuse the words of Christ concerning eunuchs in order to support their perversions. This is found in Matthew chapter 19, where the following conversation with His disciples is recorded and Christ had said: “‘9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.’ 10 His disciples say unto him, ‘If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.’ 11 But he said unto them, ‘All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.’

Here Christ was not speaking of men who make themselves eunuchs so that they could commit fornication while pretending to be women, so that they could promote perversion. Rather, he was speaking of men who divorced their wives, that they should remain celibate after doing so, in pursuit of a righteousness which is even beyond the law, because as He also explained earlier in that same discourse, in verse 8: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

Those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven do not mutilate themselves. Rather, they train their bodies to abstain from worldly lusts and unseemly desires. Today there are many young men who cannot find suitable wives, because of all of the whoredom and perversion in the modern world. So they would rather not marry, and they will certainly not take part in the perversion. These men make themselves eunuchs for sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, but the modern society denigrates them as “incels”, using the abbreviation of the words involuntary celibate in order to mock them. At the same time, the modern society celebrates depraved Sodomites who would mutilate themselves in pursuit of gratifying their own sick lusts and perversions.

As it says in Isaiah chapter 5, “ 20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” Here we must add: Woe to faggots and trannies, because God hates all of you, and all those who enable you. The general acceptance of Sodomites by society today leads more and more people to choose Sodomy, so that just like ancient Sodom, ultimately there are not ten decent men in a whole city, and only Lot is left while all the others are faggots.

This also leads to a brief discussion of the word gender. This word gender came into the English language from the Latin word genus, which according to The New College Latin & English Dictionary is primarily “race, descent or lineage”, but was also used in other ways, of birth and its circumstances, so it is “kind, sort, species” and also “genus; sex; (grammatical) gender”. So gender cannot properly be separated from what one is born.

In Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language the word gender as a noun is said to have been derived from the Latin term genus, and was defined as follows:

1. Properly, kind; sort.

2. A sex, male or female. Hence,

3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female. But although this was the original design of different terminations, yet in the progress of language, other words having no relation to one sex or the other, came to have genders assigned them by custom. Words expressing males are said to be of the masculine gender; those expressing females, of the feminine gender; and in some languages, words expressing things having no sex, are of the neuter or neither gender.

But the gender benders, modern day Sodomites and trannies, have now perverted a word of which the generally accepted definition has been firmly established for thousands of years. All of a sudden, they claim, gender is fluid, or that there are many, even dozens of genders. Yet God created men male and female, as we shall not accept Jewish psychobabble. God hates fags, and what Paul of Tarsus had called λογομαχέω, which was used to describe men who argue over the meanings of words in 1 Timothy 6:4.

Where the Bible is silent on many things, it is ostensibly because there is no substantial occasion or opportunity to address those things. That is evident in the words of Paul in relation to inconvenient circumstances for marriage, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, where he admits having no Scripture to guide him, and therefore he only gives his own advice instead, which he admits in verse 25 of that chapter. So there is not much about effeminacy in the Old Testament or in the Gospel of Christ. Neither did Yahshua Christ have an opportunity to condemn faggots, although He is the incarnation of the God of the Old Testament who wrote the law in Leviticus, and He is that Word made flesh, the law which He came to fulfill and not to destroy.

So even if Christ did not have occasion to condemn faggots, he already condemned them in the law, and Paul of Tarsus condemns them in his epistles, as we shall see. Like Yahweh, Paul also hates fags, even if he never expressed hatred in his epistles but had rather called for repentance. Paul condemned men who broke the law by having sexual relations with other men in two of his epistles, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. He also condemned them rather graphically in Romans chapter 1, as well as their female counterparts, those women who have sexual relations with other females. These passages we shall discuss here presently.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 6, from the King James Version, we read: “9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

There are two words we should discuss here. First, the word for effeminate is μαλακός, which is literally soft. Men who are soft are fainthearted, soft or weak men, as we read in Deuteronomy chapter 20: “8 And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren's heart faint as well as his heart.” There in that passage, the word for fainthearted is רך or rak (7390), which is defined as tender, soft, delicate, weak or for that reason, timid. In Revelation chapter 22, in the words of Christ we read that the fearful, among others, shall be cast into the Lake of Fire and punished along with murderers and other sinners. There the word is δειλός, which also means cowardly or timid. Men who fit these descriptions were considered effeminate by ancient Greeks as well as Medieval Englishmen, and also by Paul of Tarsus.

But the word which is translated “abusers of themselves with mankind” is from a masculine plural form of the Greek word ἀρσενοκοίτης (733), which was spelled ἀρρενοκοίτης in Classical times, and which Liddell & Scott define as sodomite. Contrary to some claims, Sir Henry Stuart Jones did not revise or add to this definition in his 1996 Supplement to the 9th edition of the Lexicon. This is a compound word from the Greek words ἄρσην and κοίτη. As we have already explained, the word ἄρσην is male. The word κοίτη is a bed, and especially a marriage-bed. The phrase translated as “lie with mankind” in the law condemning Sodomites in Leviticus 20:13 was represented in the Septuagint with the Greek words μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην. In Leviticus 18:22 the phrase is represented in the Greek Septuagint with the words ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην. The verb κοιμάω is to sleep, so a man must not sleep with a male as he would a woman, which is, to have sexual intercourse. So ἀρσενοκοίτης, utilized in the masculine gender, can only describe a man who has sexual intercourse with other men, which is a Sodomite or faggot.

In the second passage in which Paul had used the word ἀρσενοκοίτης, in 1 Timothy chapter 1, we read: “10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” There the King James Version rendered the single Greek word ἀρσενοκοίτης as “them that defile themselves with mankind”. They may have written Sodomites, as they had in similar uses of the word qadesh in the Old Testament, but they did not have the euphemism homosexual in the 17th century, or the vulgar use of the term faggot which we have today, which is literally and originally a bundle of sticks.

In any case, here it is fully evident that Paul was only upholding those same commandments which Christ had commanded His disciples to keep, and that are found in those two passages of Leviticus which we have discussed. God hates fags, Jesus hates fags, and Paul hate fags. But Paul’s ultimate condemnation of faggots, as well as lesbians, is found in Romans chapter 1. There we shall also see that while faggotry is a sin, it is also a punishment from God for other sins. Faggotry is therefore the disgrace of sinners.

From Romans chapter 1 we read: “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

Here Paul describes the Romans as idolaters, while also illustrating their historical connection to ancient Israel, that at one time they knew God, and they had the truth of God, and as he says in the subsequent verses, had willingly turned it into a lie. This is true, and that historical connection goes back to ancient Egypt and migrations which occurred even before the Exodus of Moses. Later, all of the ancient Israelites went off into that same paganism, for which they suffered the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations in the 8th through the 6th centuries BC.

So on account of their idolatry, Paul explains in the next verse of the chapter that: “24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

Once again Paul asserts that their act of dishonoring their bodies is a punishment for their idolatry, and now as he continues, he explains precisely how they were dishonoring their bodies: “26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

So here Paul has clearly described Sodomy, a word which we would use to describe the manners of both homosexuals and lesbians, as being contrary to nature, and as being a punishment from God for idolatry. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus was born just a year before Paul wrote this epistle in 57 AD, and in his Germania, as we have noted, he too made a reference to the sexual immorality in Rome, which the Romans had evidently considered “up to date” or fashionable. That same depravity is evident in the writings of other Roman historians, and especially in Suetonius’ Lives of the Twelve Caesars, where he often railed against it. Suetonius was born a few years after Tacitus, in 69 AD, and wrote histories of the twelve emperors from Julius Caesar through Domitian. So what Paul had described was indeed fully evident in the Roman society of the time.

So speaking of these same Sodomites, Paul continues to list their other sins: “28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:”

Now Paul concludes by condemning such people, in the same manner that the Old Testament law had condemned them: “32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Paul is explaining that not only those who commit such sins, but those who have pleasure, who embrace those who commit them, are worthy of death. Jesus loves, but He does not love faggots or lesbians, and the law does indeed condemn men who condone sin in the same manner that it condemns the sinner. The churches say “love the sinner”, and they condemn themselves by saying it. We should love repentance, but we must not love sinners. Even men who remain silent about the sins of others, which they witness, are condemned for not testifying of it, in Leviticus chapter 5. The Septuagint reading is truer to the meaning of the Hebrew than the archaic language of the King James Version: “1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and he is a witness or has seen or been conscious, if he do not report it, he shall bear his iniquity.”

Today men such as Joe Biden and David Berger evidently get their moral authority from places other than Scripture, or actually, they pretend to be their own moral authorities, in the same manner as the Talmudic Jews. But in the end, God will not be mocked. God hates faggots and lesbians, and ultimately they shall all be punished, they and all those who approve of them. As we have said in the past, this is not White Supremacy, but rather, it is God Supremacy.

CHR20220722-GodHatesFags.odt — Downloaded 126 times


At least many men also hate fags

Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots - PsyPost

Isn't that the truth!