The homosexual lobby always targets Christians as the enemy. Never Muslims. Why? It is non PC to critise Muslims, you might get accused of Racism

Lothar Machtan's work isn't reliable and has been dismissed by reputable holocaust scholars, Hitler was definitely heterosexual and enjoyed normal relations with Eva Braun and several other women before her. All of the speculation about Nazism being a homosexual cult is bogus, it comes either from anti Nazi sources or anti Gay sources, neither can be taken seriously.
The main sources, William Shirer and Scott Lively are neither historians nor unbiased writers and neither of them employ any scholarship in their writing, their books are widely read but largely fiction. Fanatical right wing Christians like Lively use Nazism as a stalking horse, their real agenda is opposition to homosexuality on biblical grounds, Shirer was an anti Fascist and the numerous pornographic "profiles" of Hitler assembled by Jewish psychoanalysts and OSS operatives who'd never met the man can be taken with a grain of salt.
Think rationally for a moment, if Hitler and his inner circle were "not 10% of them normal men" then don't you think that one of the factions opposed to Hitler would have used that information to depose him? The Third Reich was a deeply divided and factional regime with cliques and warlords all plotting against one another and trying to gain advantage, if homosexuality had been rife at any level of the power structure then the avaricious ladder climbers would have used it against each other and against the bosses, no question about it.

JoM, you obviously haven't read Machtan's study: some precious reputations may have ignored Machtan's breakthrough analyses and source discovery (a fitting legalistic term), but no-one has been able to "dismiss" his work at all. The silence of its reception has been deafening, just as is the silence when one brings the issue up in discussion of "Gay" politics and agitation for such ongoing legal upheaval as the redefinition of "Marriage".

Interesting that you use only second-hand English language scholars as specific reference, because such secondary sources are all literally and substantively "foreign" to the wealth of forensic and legalistic primary sources which Machtan makes available.

Machtan himself comments on the stunning echo of silence on this subject: the Nazis' publicity machine for that (mostly, deeply) dysfunctional plastic actor was bizarre and confected then; now it's as though such grotesque contrivance has greater durability than some granite monument in Nuremberg.

In fact, it's fair to say that Machtan's work has not only been ignored but actually suppressed due to the many deeply uncomfortable aspects it confirms about Hitler's and the Nazis' self-projection, especially where so many others have accepted such Nazi self-projections or personae still today.

However, the detailed intimate sources, key facts and context have all been there for us to consider. Even bunker intimates confirmed that AH never engaged in physical congress with Eva Braun (who attemptyed suicide twice after having supposedly “netted the country's most eligible bachelor”!)

Indeed, Machtan dissects the origins of much of the closer OSS portraiture by reference to AH confidante Ernst Hanfstaengel and his drawn-out efforts at blackmailing Hitler via his own intimate knowledge. Machtan exposes several successful earlier blackmails too, made before Hanfstaengel's abortive move too little and too late (hence his over-the-top caricature to Donovan's OSS).

"No doubt" indeed, "the avaricious power climbers" did use "it" against each other when it suited them: AH used it against Roehm when Roehm, with lawyers' backing, held that blackmail trump against AH, and AH and the Party wanted the opposing Army, churches and Junkers onside. Brinkmanship won and still, sadly, prevails on this horrific truth.

David, I'm sorry your property was vandalised. But perhaps people would have more respect for your beliefs if you could actually demonstrate how 'laws that institute single-sex marriage and parenting' deprive a 'child of her mum or her dad'. Children who have mums and dads will presumably continue to have them (or not have them) at more or less the same rate they do now; while children of gay marriages can't be 'deprived' of something that they never had. It's this kind of silly manufactured hysteria that irritates your critics.

So JonJ gives apologia for property damage / vandalism a la "sorry 'bout that - you brought it on yourself". That's a "slippery slope" right there, and all to endorse blatantly and biologically sham "marriages".

And if David does not change his views and stop irritating the prevailing "elite"? Physical attack on the person as has already been threatened?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Trouble is, they doom also those of us too who have learned from history. Thus the urgency of the lesson about the hysterical SA "Gay elite" and their promiscuously Gay leaders Hitler and Roehm.

Gawd, speaking of "hysterical"...