# Guillaume Faye, *Sex and Deviance* (2011)
### The Egoism, Egotism, and Superficiality of ‘Gay Culture’
> The homosexual, along with every ideology that supports and surrounds him on the pretext of progress and emancipation, displays a peculiar social self-centredness and a deep indifference toward future generations. Again we see the reign of presentism. The homosexual — especially the masculine type — seeks only immediate gratification, he is a born consumer who is at core rather superficial despite perhaps being gifted and refined (as is often the case). His ancestry, nation, and descendants do not interest him. Only his ego and libido, only his sexual and material satisfaction are important to him. When homosexual associations pretend to be humanists preoccupied with the fate of humanity (for they are for the most part Leftist), it is pure hypocrisy. For example, homosexual associations (notably ACT UP[8]) take the lead in the struggle against AIDS — mainly in favour of research funding — but rise up to oppose any mandatory screening or any shutting down of places where they meet, despite knowing perfectly well that the male homosexual community, especially in the United States, was the rocket that launched this viral pandemic.
> When the homosexual has a creative and artistic sensibility, as often occurs, it is usually turned toward superficial refinement, fashion, baubles, and frills. More than anyone else, the homosexual is a victim of fashion. Whether poet, writer, singer, or similar, the homosexual rarely turns his gifts toward weighty matters, great subjects, or serious analysis, but instead toward a kind of para-feminine aestheticism, bright in the way a glow worm is bright, marked with a sort of pettiness and oozing with a sort of baroque minimalism, all this centred on his pet subject: homosexuality itself. Heterosexuals do not put their own sexuality at the centre of their personality or their works; homosexuals do. It is the very definition of obsession: one is a homosexual before one is oneself. The homosexual’s sexuality governs him, precisely because it is pathological and non-reproductive.
> Let us return to the clearest example of the self-centredness and irresponsibility of the ‘gay community’, beginning from the 1980s. Its attitude toward the AIDS pandemic — a pandemic for which male homosexuals around the world and principally on America’s Pacific Coast — have been largely responsible due to their compulsive libidos and the frequent practice of sodomy with multiple partners and without the use of condoms. Drug addicts, sub-Saharan Africans with their primitive sexual customs (speaking in a non-pejorative manner), and immigrants in Europe also bear responsibility for the spread of this disease, of course.
> In regard to this pandemic, the attitude of homosexual associations have combined duplicity, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, and a stubborn determination not to change anything about their pathological and risky behaviour. Two points must be emphasised: first, by a sort of reversal of the actual situation, the homosexuals (via their lobbies) have proclaimed themselves to be victims of the pandemic, when in fact they are its instigators; second, they have risen up against any ‘fascist’ prophylactic measures that might have encroached on their practices, such as the closing of gay nightclubs and their back rooms, mandatory testing for sexually transmitted diseases, public listings of those contaminated, and so on. Any such measures would have put some restraints on the epidemic.
> The homosexual lobby succeeded in ducking these measures by putting pressure on politicians terrified of being accused of homophobia, for when the AIDS pandemic broke out, homosexuals were very anxious that their role in the outbreak would receive mass public attention and that they would be put under scrutiny. What concerned the committed homosexual was not public health but his own freedom to give way to his unbridled impulses.
> Indeed, the basic preoccupation of the homosexual, who has a much more intense libido than the heterosexual, is the immediate satisfaction of his desires as often as possible, and to talk about it as much as possible. This is the principle of all deviance in any domain: it is obsessive. He must talk about it constantly. His sexuality (its ‘eroticism’ lost on account of its impulsivity) assumes such a position in his mind that it prevents him from conceiving a broader view of life and of the world. Everything revolves around his sexual tendency. Homosexuals have gone from the repression and dissimulation of their obsession (when they suffered oppression) to the irrepressible need to shout it from the rooftops.
### Proselytising the Gay Religion
> Thus we have gone from dissimulation to a kind of homosexual proselytism. It is as if male homosexuality had become a kind of religion, an enlarged sect with its rituals, ceremonials, ideology, media, and social network. Like imams, the priests of the gay cult are protected by law from being mocked or otherwise attacked.
> Like with any religion, the goal is to win over disciples. The aim, obviously, is to bring as many young heterosexuals as possible into the homosexual clan, for the more the hunting grounds are extended, the greater the number of one’s potential partners. Hence we have the courses promoted within the national education system (which is neither national nor educational) for the purpose of convincing adolescents that homosexuality is not pathological. The real objective, of course, is not tolerance at all, but the recruitment of new members; it is time to say so out loud....
> Homosexuality is not merely a sexual option, but involves a parody of culture — gay culture — which incessantly tries to win new audiences of impressionable young persons. The homosexual community is said to have its own special culture. It claims to be initiated into a new, superior, and esoteric sensibility that others do not possess, one which has been introduced to experiences and sensations of which poor heterosexuals haven’t the faintest inkling. The representation of heterosexuals as bovine yokels and primitives is implicit in the phraseology and clichés employed by gay magazines and websites.
> Current homosexual discourse manifests paranoia and persecution mania. In a style very similar to that of certain ethnic and religious groups, homosexuals are at core bored with no longer being persecuted; it bothers them that their demands have succeeded beyond all expectation. They enjoy the comfort of the position of victims of persecution, and they are furious that they are no longer attacked, that people like them and, worse, that most people are indifferent to them. The homosexual is an autistic who loves to be talked about, who loves his special status as a victim. This is why, as soon as an obscure provincial Catholic deputy declared that homosexuality is an inferior disposition to that of heterosexuality when it comes to the future of the race, the homosexual lobby was sure to capitalise on this attack by having the deputy publicly condemned. The dominant homosexual is comforted by the idea that he is indeed still persecuted, even if he is the one persecuting others and seeing that they are punished. In this respect his attitude is very similar to that of Islamists.
Okay, here's the second part, where Guillaume Faye explains the non-existence of gay marriage; this could be a second part unto itself but given that marriage is such an integral part of culture, it seems appropriate to lump these sections together.
### Psychopathology and Fraud of the Male Homosexual Couple
> While male homosexuals are demanding and indeed winning the right to marry, to adopt children, and to start a family, the whole process is based on a lie — on mimicry and hypocrisy. They want to ape heterosexuals not because they desire ‘the right to love and home’, but in order to obtain fiscal, social, and proprietary rights. The most comical part (and the proof of their hypocrisy) is that ever since the male and female homosexual movements got into bed with Leftism and feminism, they have not had words harsh enough to describe the ‘petty-bourgeois couple’ (considered a sort of repression and corniness) or the family and marriage, to which they prefer concubinage. But look at them now, wanting to emulate precisely the petty-bourgeois model they once spoke of so disparagingly. Civil unions are no longer enough for them. These antics should not fool anyone, but alas, they fool most people.
> When Thierry Le Luron (who was a homosexual and died from it, though he did not advertise it) and Coluche, as a heterosexual aped a homosexual marriage to get a laugh out of the gallery, no one took any issue with such mockery of homosexual couples. No one imagined that one day homosexual marriage would no longer be a gag but a reality taken very seriously. Today, those sketches by Luron and Coluche would be considered politically incorrect; they would receive no laughter from the cultural elites, rather, they would be subjected to careful editing and censored when rebroadcast. The ideology we are surrounded by is pseudo-festive and pseudo-libertarian, but in fact rigid, dogmatic, authoritarian, and solemnly humourless.
> But in reality it is known (and homosexuals themselves know it perfectly well) that there is nothing more unstable and faithless than a homosexual couple. (This remark is much less valid for lesbian couples, who can experience a lasting and even monogamous relationship.) By definition, homosexuality presupposes a multitude of partners, and often briefness of the relationship, which is often even with total strangers. They are superficial, epidemic, purely orgasmic, and without much in the way of preliminaries. The baroque effeminate refinement displayed by the homosexual in his daily life or works does not exist in his sexual practices — quite the contrary. This is striking, for psychologically, homosexuality is based almost entirely on the libido and the immediate desire to copulate, and not on romantic sentiment or the need to form a long-standing relationship. It is an impulse. Obviously there exist exceptions: the relationship of Yves Saint-Laurent and Pierre Bergé is one such example which has been celebrated in the media to the point that it has become almost iconic.
> Wanting to bring the male homosexual couple and homosexual marriage into the same logical schema as that of the heterosexual couple is not only an ideological farce, but marks a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality, especially in its male variety. Homosexuals will never be able to emulate the heterosexual couple as the latter is not primarily based on the libido, but on emotional attachment, procreation, and on the nurturing of offspring.
> By demanding the right to adopt children as well as to marry, male homosexuals are trying to ape heterosexual couples, and this is quite simply pathetic — more so when it comes at the very time when the heterosexual couple is disintegrating! What an abyss of morbidity. The proof that they regret not being heterosexual, not being normal, lies in their suppressing their own abnormality complex and transfiguring it into a supernormality. Homosexual marriage and parenthood thus function as simulacra of heterosexual marriage. They regret not being able to marry a woman and to procreate, so they construct a dream: homosexual marriage with the adoption of children. (By a similar psychopathological process, radical lesbian feminists regret not having been born men; I will discuss this further on.)
> The homosexual is generally a solitary being, one who is emotionally impoverished and whose primary and hypertrophic sexuality demands a constant change of partners. This primal, copulatory, intense sexuality involving many temporary lovers obviously renders impossible, indeed ridiculous, the patterning of male homosexuality and the normal couple. The homosexual knows only a zigzagging emotional life and never fundamentally satisfies his sexuality, which is a constant headlong rush, an unbridled pursuit of sensations. Satisfaction being problematic, the homosexual is always looking out for new experiences, ones ever more salacious — hence their common drift toward seriously pathological practices.
##### part 2
> We are insufficiently aware to what extent the very idea of homosexual marriage (which emerged in a Western mindset that had already been bludgeoned by anti-values amid sugary talk of ‘rights’) is novel, though one suspects that it is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity. This notion (which had appeared to be only a provocative gag just thirty years ago) is perceived by all mindsets in all societies as a veritable and revolting rape of nature. Well-balanced minds that tolerate homosexual practices in the private sphere, who allow homosexuals to discreetly cohabit within their own four walls, who reject all social discrimination against homosexuals nevertheless consider the idea of homosexual marriage to be pure and simple madness: all the more so when it is an attempts to mimic heterosexual marriage. It is seen as a servile imitation, a ridiculous carbon copy.
> In any case, the whole thing amounts to a denial and devaluation of marriage, depriving the union of husband and wife of all legitimate distinction when in fact it is the keystone of our society’s reproduction and survival. Raving egalitarianism, confusion of values, mental pathology: these things preside over the idea of the homosexual married couple.
> Indeed, one might ask whether, beneath the demand for homosexual marriage (and its pseudo-form, the civil union), there is not an unavowed and perverse need to undermine the heterosexual couple by imitating it; by presenting it as ‘one possibility among others’ and no longer as a norm. Across all continents, no established religion, whether monotheistic or pagan, has ever imagined such an aberration; and they can only consider the homosexual marriage that is spreading today in the West as a sign of civilisational collapse. Even the cultures that have displayed the greatest degree of tolerance for male homosexuality (mostly military cultures like ancient Greece or Gaul) could not stand the idea of bachelorhood and even less so the idea of two men or two women married to each other. A crazy idea which never occurred to anyone. We are faced here with an inversion of values: those who oppose homosexual marriage are presented as extremists, while the extremists, lunatics, and madmen are those who are demanding it. A comic gag has become reality, as in an insane asylum like that in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
> The very idea of homosexual marriage is not at all a demand for an egalitarian right, for the partisans of gay marriage are hypocrites who know perfectly well that it cannot work. It is simply another thinly-disguised means of destroying the traditional European families.
##### part 3
> All this being said, gay marriage, as serious a symptom as it is, is not the worst that could happen to us. This phenomenon only affects a minority and does not threaten our genetic patrimony. It is unlikely that gays who get married will have offspring anyway. Cases where a homosexual couple would be authorised to have a child via surrogacy will likely be rare. Homosexual unions will always remain a marginal phenomenon with few demographic effects, practically none of which will have any influence on the biological composition of Europeans. Moreover, as is the case with everything that is against nature, the homosexual couple does not last. Gay marriage only poses a problem because it is part of an ideological (not biological) dissolution of the natural order.
> In fact, homosexual couples (even those that are married) are insignificant in relation to the catastrophe that is mixed-race heterosexual couples, especially in cases when the woman is White. The reason is that in these cases, the door is left open to irreversible mixture, that is to say, an irreversible alteration of our genetic patrimony. Rather than concerning ourselves with fighting legalised homosexual unions, it is more urgent to focus our efforts on combating interracial unions.
> The biggest danger is the capture of White women by extra-European foreigners, or what might be called uterus theft. Every such case equals the elimination of another reproducer from the White gene pool, as I shall explain in another chapter. This type of mixture is, of course, much more serious than the instances in which a White man impregnates a non-European woman.
> In short, we must repeat to traditionalists — especially Catholics — that the ideology of race-mixing (even ‘between Christians’) and the constant media defence of race-mixing couples inculcated by our bien pensants is much more dangerous than the prospect of homosexual marriage, the latter of which will have no biological consequences. Biology counts for more than ideology.
