Tirade on the "Gay Complex" et al
This is a recent reply to a comment in an earlier post
Get to the bottom... Hoo-Hah
Why would I care if you get angry?The more I look at this whole Gay Complex, the more I see some kind of victim strategy. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it eventually.
Next!
I am not going to hold your hand through the research. Go get the comparative statistics on Gay versus Straight mortality (that's morality with a "t" in it) from any source you want to find, Use an insurance company, the National Center for Disease Control or medical or psychiatric journals. I can't believe this isn't bedtime talk for you guys.
Did I say Gay couples were dangerous? Noooooooooo. I asked a question with the premise that statistically, (measured across a representative population) there appear to be risks in gay behaviors that are not present in heterosexual behaviors.
I also didn't say anything about killing yourself off. I hinted that anthropologically, a gene that decreases the probability of reproduction eventually self-eliminates from the gene pool. Strategic thinking isn't part of the the whole liberal thing, it must not be part of the Gay thing either.
I also didn't say or indicate homosexuality is or should be a crime. I listed other behaviors that have increased risk and asked if we should federally subsidize them too.
As for homosexuality not hurting anyone, I'm afraid I know different. It hurts people.It kills people, Maybe you're just new at this. Has anyone warned you about Hepatitis? E. Coli? There was some obscure thing going around called HIV too. These diseases spread when infected body fluids break into the circulatory system. Certain tender, loving gay practices are ideal for causing this. Do yourself a favor, get every inoculation you can. I tell you this because I care.
You said homosexuality can't be cured. Hmmmm. they used to say that about a lot of things. If we just don't really know what causes it, we really don't know if it is a condition that can or should be cured... do we? Maybe it shouldn't be cured. Maybe it's the solution to global warming and all of society's problems. Let's not assume it's the end of the world but let's not assume it's the greatest innovation since paisley prints either.
You wrote that there's no evidence that heterosexual behavior is genetic. Actually the evidence that straight behavior originates in the DNA is pretty conclusive. There's tons of psychology, anthopology, OB/gyn and other science. All that stuff about how the male reproductive stuff and the female reproductive stuff work together would be a pretty good clue. Heterosexual behavior is the only sexual behavior that has direct genetic causal effects. If one stopped thinking with ones emotions, one would be able to see that. One more comment like that, and I'll declare you a frickin' idiot and ban your posting.
The real question follows from that - why does all that genetic coding not work in some people? What causes a willingness to participate in homosexual behaviors when they have no obvious reproductive or anthropological precursors. Until we know what motivates gay behavior and can come to grips with the apparent risk factors, it would be silly and short-sighted to promote it equally with other models of behavior that lower risk factors.
There is also the statistical blip that an increase in gay behavior sometimes pre-curses the collapse of cultures. (Greeks, Romans, and certain other eastern and western dynasties.) Is there a connection? Or is that increase just an outcome of the other factors that precede the fall of empires.
Gay is not something to be hated or feared. But it needs to be understood before it should or will be fully accepted and validated. Natural selection would appear to rule out a purely genetic cause. Therefore it seems reasonable that we look at cultural, psychological, metabolic, nutritional, precursors that may carry influence.
I ask the questions because I refuse the "it's just the way I am" excuse. We are who we are based on genetics, learning, nutrition, exercise, nurture, metabolics and perhaps other factors. Blindly accepting oneself or another as "the finished product" is a limiting, self-destructive view. If you don't understand this, think of it as an application of the third law of thermodynamics as applied to the human being. If you don't know what the third law of thermo is, maybe I'm not as ignorant as you think I am.
I manage the careers and employment of about 100 people where I serve. I reject "It's just the way I am" as a strategy with them too. "It's just the way I am" seeks to avoid accountability, fails to ascertain causal factors, and undermines ambition or progress. I frequently am called as motivational and leadership teacher.
Caught your note about my high school education. First, don't believe everything you think you know. Your information is flawed. It's another fact you don't have straight. (Notice the clever use of the word straight there.) Second, Your premise is flawed too. Don't put too much faith in college. In the vast majority of students, it doesn't take. It may indicate to future bosses that you are willing to take a long term view and finish the chore. It doesn't mean you know anything or can apply it effectively. Where I work, all the post-graduates refer to me as the "adult leadership".
As for your social view that we use and unfair share of the world's resources. We produce more efficiently than everyone else. That means we get more out of those resources. That's one of the reasons we can afford a huge trade deficit year after year. Other people around the world are being enriched by our labors. It also means that we pollute less per pound of production.
Africa is not poor because we have stolen their resources. When I was in Angola in 1992, gas was 25 cents per gallon, 1/4 of the price in the US. Africa has coal/oil reserves and rare and precious strategic minerals and metals. They are poor because tribalism and nepotism don't respect property and the sanctity of contract. The powerful steal from those with the drive and talent to produce. So those with ambition - -leave. They go to the US, Europe, the Caribbean, Canada and even Asia to avoid the deficiencies of anachronistic political/social structure.
What you fail to grasp is that the laws of supply and demand put resources where they will be used most efficiently to meet the greatest demand.
If someone else could put those resources to better use, the supply chain would rip them away from us and deliver them elsewhere. It's starting to happen with China. Unhampered by environmental regulations, trade unions, confiscatory taxes, chinese industry is ramping up efficient capability. As they do, they are putting enormous pressure on the oil and steel markets. One way or the other, resources go to the most efficient use.
And don't tell me that feeding the starving is better use. Feeding the unproductive starving so that they breed more unproductive starving people is an idiotic proposition. What they need is cultural change. Cultural change will fix the problem. Throwing resources at it just delays the problem till tomorrow.
This post is closed to further ramblings. When you have something scientific to say, Post it. But I will delete any further emo twaddle.
Get to the bottom... Hoo-Hah
posted by ironcross11 | 4:16 PM
13 Comments:
I just want one source; you don't have to write me a thesis. Trust me, I wouldn't call you out on it if I didn't thoroughly research the topic myself.
I guess it's easy to lump people, but you would throw a fit yourself if you were accused of something that you're not.
Maybe we will be 'eliminated' eventually, but it's not looking like that. We've been around for how long? Documented as far back as the Spartans, the Romans, and the Greeks? Hmm. And it's only getting 'worse' (as you might refer to it).
"Among men 15-44 years of age who had at least one sexual partner in the last 12 months, 39 percent used a condom at their most recent sex. Among never married males, this figure was 65 percent, compared with 24 percent of married males. Among males who had ever had sexual contact with another male, 91 percent used a condom at their last sex, compared with 36 percent of men who never had sex with another male."
Seems gay people are fixing this problem? Sure, HIV is prevalent, but it's becoming outdated because for the most part, people are being educated and the problem is diminishing.
Homosexuality can't be cured because it's not a disease.
"Clinically, heterosexual acts are considered most common in today's cultures (statistically most likely), but the concept of "normal" and "abnormal" with its connotations of sickness or moral judgment are no longer considered valid by most medical professionals."
"The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.” (American Psychological Association)
You could go as far as to say that having red hair is a disease merely because it's abnormal. Just because it's in the minority (4% of the population), doesn't mean there's something to 'cure' it.
And I apologize, I do say some uneducated comments like 'heterosexuality can't be proven through genetics'. It happens to the best of us.
There are certain things you can help and there are certain things you cannot. You cannot help the color of your skin, the color of your hair and yet, it's the way you are. You can't help who you are attracted to, and yet it's not the way I am?
"And I suppose I might read the articles after exam week when I’m not so stressed out. And if I don’t get really angry, I’ll attempt to make my way through them."
And I said nothing about your high school education. Read it wrong maybe? I said I might read the articles after exams, if I don't get mad, I didn't mean to insult your education (if I had known in the first place).
Certainly, it's been a pleasure debating you. You need a sparing partner, this blog has gone uncommented for too long. Even if it is someone who is as new to debating and defending their opinion as I am. I need someone to refine my logical and research skills on, if you don't mind.
And Africa may not be poor because we’ve stolen their resources, but they are certainly poor because of colonialism. Various European nations would just go into the countries and just rape them for the resources, then just leave. Then they drew lines arbitrarily and tried to establish government in these places. Obviously something like that isn’t going to work and is going to cause trouble.
Guess most of the problem stems from these mistakes done throughout history. I mean, it seems obvious why people in Africa resort to tribalism and nepotism. They can’t go to the government like we can. Their governments are corrupted beyond anything we can imagine. For years and years, they were only able to rely on their tribes and relatives for support because the government certainly wasn’t going to help them.
Sure, it’s easy for you to say that the ambitious just leave Africa. Certainly cannot be that ambitious when you barely have enough food to make it through the day, drinking dirty water and have no medicine for diseases. There’s not much one can do in that situation. Certainly, I agree with your idea that the unproductive do not deserve but to say that merely because they are in a bad situation is wrong. The culture the awful system we call welfare has created are undeserving and unproductive people. The people who fight in Africa just to keep leaving from day to day…now I don’t think there is any other people more deserving. Talk about being fucked over by the life lottery, eh?
IIt took 20 Seconds. I googled "Homosexual Mortality Rates" and took the first hit Since you asked for one, that's what you get. It's kind of old, but hopefully it piques your interest. Now, go find a credible study that classifies mortality rates by sexual orientation and indicates that there are no statistical differences between gays and straights. Any researcher publishing such a study would be laughed out of the building anywhere except the DNC headquarters and American Academia.
Here's references on GLBT sucide stat's from a number of sources.
As for the APA, you can fill volumes with the things they've been wrong about in the past 50 years. A quote from a organization with a left of center axe to grind is really not very scientific. Lets see, Any APA member will tell you that two six year olds in a schoolyard having a fight is a serious condition that must be addressed immediately, but if a man that wants to insert himself into an orifice lined with bacteria feeding on human waste as an act of romance, that's healthy, exempt from categorization of normal/abnormal and not subject to a little scientific scrutiny. Yeah, I get it. It's a good thing they are so scientific and objective.
The APA or AMA has no franchise to define normality or reality. Their opinion is merely an opinion. If they don't know what makes it happen, the premise that they can rule out that it is a disease is pretty unscientific. But I'm sure that sentence makes all of the gay association members feel good when they're tucked in bed at night. Conversely, for someone to say that it is a disease is also not scientific.
I never said gay behaviors could or should be cured. I said that it shouldn't be subsidized until we know more. If it were a cancer curing medical protocol, it would never make it through the FDA process with the statistics it has.
There's a difference between criminalizing a behavior and subsidizing it. I vote for neither until more is known. My position is not closed-minded, homophobic or moralistic. It has to do with causes and effects.
The statistics on studies are: 1 out of 2 are wrong on the first effort. Science is hard. New things are being discovered everyday, other things are disproved. I wonder if the study on the accuracy of studies is accurate.
My criticism vaults from the scientific indications that it carries significantly higher risk. That's all, no moral condemnation, no criminal charges, no rallying cry that "it's the end of civilization". I also reject the hue and cry from the left that it is a "right" to marry someone of the same sex. If there is a God, he defines right and wrong. If there isn't, the right and wrong is defied by consensus. There is no middle ground. Society defines words. That's the way it is. They are defined by consensus. Marriage means something specific.
Your comment about my education wasn't on this site. Even an ignorant wretch like me knows when some traffic on my site is coming from a new place. It's not that what you think makes any difference to me. But it surprised me coming from someone that seems interested in intellectual discussion.
"Life's lottery" is another way to spin the "It's just the way I am" excuse for failure. We at once a cause and effect of genetics, learning, behaviors et al. Conditions are because they were caused to be that way by investments made by those that went before us. To blame colonialism for what goes on in Africa today is ignorant. Why isn't the US a mess? Bahamas, Bermuda, India, Malaysia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico. The vast majority of ex-colonies are doing fine. Only the places that have failed to institute a western democratic model are basket-cases.
The starving poor are the offspring of starving poor that didn't do anything bold to improve their condition.
If you look carefully you'll notice that British colonies historically did far better than French, Italian or Dutch colonies. ever wonder why that is?
I hope you do well on exams provided they're teaching you something with some redeeming value. Confidence is low. My guess is that they're not teaching you critical comparative thinking. They're just demanding that you reject all traditional ideas and filling your head with liberal tripe.
Question what you think you know. I do - everyday. Truth is like a fast ball, if you are looking for it, you can catch it. If you are oblivious, it'll smack you down.
And don't use the F word on my blog. My wife reads, and she doesn't like that word. It doesn't enhance an argument either.
I admit, I don’t have old studies to prove my point but I do have everyday experiences where I am bombarded with things telling me to practice safe sex unlike those back in the late 70s and 80s. Sure, they had some, but not nearly the amount of knowledge we have today.
And I don’t know what the GLBT suicides have to do with anything in this argument. Those have obvious reasons not focused on HIV or anything of that matter. It’s about being not accepted, being beat up in school, being called names, not being able to relate to people, a multitude of social problems, nothing to do with disease.
I guess I’m just not seeing it but I don’t know of any science that has not been disproven thousands and thousands of times. If I can’t rely on national scientific groups such as the APA to prove my point, then what do I use to back up my point?
And twist it all you want, but you can make any kind of sex disgusting given enough words. There’s ton of bacteria in a vagina, mouths are gross orifices. Granted, the anus can be a little dirty when not cleaned properly, but ever heard of safe sex?
To say that homosexuality is a disease is ignorant in the face of so many facts of today. Sure, the APA and AMA is an opinion, but it’s an opinion backed by books and books of information. It’s isn’t just an opinion, it’s a scientific opinion.
You’re right; society dictates what’s right and what’s wrong. Marriage used to mean a multitude of things; it’s always been modified throughout history to fit the needs of society. Each generation, people are getting more and more accepting of gay people (interesting study in itself, if you want the link) and more and more accepting of the idea of gay marriage.
I think it’s best that I don’t argue about global problems such as starving people; I give in. I admit, I don’t know as much as I should. I’m only a freshman in college, bleh.
And yes, my exams are teaching me something of redeeming value. It’s engineering. They are not filling my head with liberal trite as you call it, seems it would be a little difficult in a physics or engineering fundamentals type class.
And if you don’t question what you think you know everyday, what kind of human are you anyways? A close-minded, boring one, that’s what you are.
And the F word is nonexistent now.
And that was stupid of me to link directly to the site so you could look at referrals, eh? To defend myself, I just wanted to see the opinions of others, even if they are the dirty liberals I associate with. I had no intention of you seeing it and pissing me off.
How's Kacy? I'm glad we figured that out. There was a causal piece missing...
I admire the fact that you are studying the hard sciences. I didn't know that. I'm Impressed.
As you become involved in the production of goods to improve quality of life, be proud of that. Efficiency is the thing that provides the room for leisure and art.
If you get mad in a discussion, it means that your information is not carrying the mail. That means that either you picked the wrong side, or you don't know what you're talking about. Change sides or get better information.
I think it's closed-minded of you to use the term dirty liberals. Stereotypically, I think they are illogical, anti-American and anti-progress. Some of them are nefarious liars. Some of them are virtuous folks that just don't take a causal view of events, they are focused on fixing symptoms. I wouldn't use the word dirty unless I was speaking of specific liberals and was citing a specific behavior.
I also distinctly remember detailing that classification of homosexuality as a disease would be innappropriate when the cause is uncertain. Does it make you feel better to build an innaccurate portrayal of my positions? I'll bet it does. Questioning that soft cuddly blanket of liberal tolerance can be so frightening.
The APA and AMA may be right - but they may be wrong. The APA and AMA reverse themselves all the time. Perhaps you'd like to declare the human race omniscient (knows everything) right now and call an end to exploration. A few years ago, the AMA ridiculed a team that proposed that stomach ulcers had a bacterial/viral origin. It ends up the AMA was wrong. The study and cure were both vindicated. Do you know how much revenue a "gay vaccine" would generate?
What suicides have to do with the issue is that they are a health risk associated with gay behavior. I seem to remember that some study found that even in societies without substantial social represion of gay behavior there is still a significant elevation in depression, suicide, drug abuse and violence. Does that not make you curious?
Is there a self destructive predisposition that helps foster gay behavior? Or does a predisposition to gay behavior emplace a less risk averse mindset? That's a hard one.
Oh I have a good idea. Lets just pretend that if everyone wears a condom, everything will be fine.
Congratulations! You are a full grown liberal now. When presented with the scientific questions that make rational people look deep and get away from the emotion. You got mad, pouted and called names.
You just experienced cognitive dissonance. It's that troubling alarm in your head when your treasured worldview is in jeopardy.
The comment that implied that the Vagina is somehow innappropriate for sexual intercourse was a new low even for a liberal. That's specifically what it's made for. Although it's not a surprise that you didn't know that.
As for the comment that I'm closed-minded. I'm still waiting for some evidence that I'm wrong. I'll change my mind when there's some science.
As for me being boring... I'm positive that I'm not anxious to be the object of your excitement. But the crowds that I speak to don't seem to have the same concern. I'll get over it.
As for people getting more accepting of gay people, I think that will continue right up until the time that we know what causes it. Then if it can be treated/prevented, parents will race to the Pharmacy/Genetic Lab/Shrink/Witch Doctor to get the cure/vaccine/antidote.
People accept anomalies that can't be explained or affected. Once controls are available, they are usually enthusiastically implemented. More science - sorry to crush your world view - again.
Does this mean you'll be mad again?
Me get mad doesn’t really affect the argument. In fact, it’s part of why I love debating. It angers people to challenge them; it brings their emotions to the surface and such. Maybe anger is the wrong word? Anger is part of my excitement I suppose.
How long are you going to wait around for someone to invite this ‘gay vaccine’ as you call it? It’s not a disease right now nor is there anything hinting that it is. Just because it doesn’t conform to some ‘social standard’ that people have built up, there must be something wrong with it, eh? I don’t understand it, when has being different been a reason for having a disease?
Sure, you can hold on to the believe that there may one day be a ‘cure’ for this ‘disease’ but for now I’m going to put my faith in the words of the APA and AMA, as faulty as you say it is. Sure, science has been proven faulty many a time but if I can’t put it in something as often studied as science, then what do I have to turn to?
Hmm, I think I would be interested in seeing a study done to see if it is indeed a destructive behavior or indeed social pressures that cause a GLBT teen to suicide. Especially considering it seems to be all social pressure to me, but what does my opinion count? I just experience this sort of thing everyday.
Sure, not everyone wears a condom, but 91% do. Seems to be about as close as you’re going to get to me.
My point was not that vagina is inappropriate for sexual intercourse; it was that the vagina is not some pristine orifice in the human body like you make it out to be. Hygiene determines a ton in all sexual orientations.
And again, I was not calling you boring; I was saying that I agree in that you must analyze the truth everyday. But then again, I think many people do and if they didn’t, that would be pretty stupid, close-minded, and over all…boring. Not insulting you in the least, and if it was read as that, then I’m sorry. As you prolly notice by now, I address you based on each paragraph, not in a flowing manner like you sort of do.
Indeed, when homosexuality is classified as a disease and then a vaccine is developed, I’m sure people will rush to buy it. If homosexuality was ever a choice, how many do you think there would be? Not many I don’t think, except for the ones that cry out for attention already.
You still aren't getting it.
I am not declaring it a disease. I am not longing for a cure. I am not advocating prosecuting the behaviors.
I am also not jumping on the bandwagon to endorse it and declare it healthy, because indications are that it isn't.
Your last sentence really made me think. Is that something that you've observed? I guess I sub-consciously sensed that there is an attention seeking component in some gay folks. It explains some of the stereotypical theatrics and drama. I never thought of it as a possible motivator until you pushed it that way.
Ok, just to get this straight (haha), you say that it shouldn't be subsidized or sponsored by the government until it is fully understood? What determines if something is fully understood or understood to a point where you would be satisfied? Not attacking, just a point of curiousity. Is there ever a point where you could see yourself accepting of homosexuality if certain things were researched, discovered, and proven?
Sure, I don’t know if it’s sub-conscious for them as well, but the flamboyant gay men have always been about the whole ‘Look at me, I’m gay’ but it seems many GLBT people of this generation are trying to get away from that stereotype and just want to live normal lives. They don’t want to be a separate culture. They want to integrate and they want people to accept them. Sure, the gay sub-culture has helped GLBT people get some recognition in the ways that they are being repressed but personally, I don’t think it’s going to last long. Sure, I’m all for activism, but I’ve never been one for the whole gay culture. I think as homosexuals are accepted into mainstream culture, the less you’ll see of the flamboyant male and more of men acting masculine and not trying to be so different from the mainstream as a way of making a statement. Hell, it’s obvious today with my everyday friends. Sure, I have four or five friends that are total queens, but for the most part, they are just everyday kids with the slight fact that we like the same sex. It shouldn’t be a big deal but it’s been blown out of proportion.
Blown out of proportion... Good Onnnnne!
I am already accepting of gay people. I haven't assaulted a gay person in months...years. Technically, I think it's been over a quarter century. I also haven't lately assaulted a nymphomaniac, smoker, alcoholic, prostitute, bulemic, drug addict, or bigot. But I don't believe any of those behaviors are healthy. I think we should be trying to understand why people select these behaviors as well.
However, I prefer the government not give people tax breaks for engaging in these behaviors because tax breaks constitute a government incentive and endorsement. I also think the government should get out of the business of sugar subsidies, milk subsidies, and most other subsidies. The subsidies I think should stay in place is the child tax credit and the standard deduction. Gay people already get both of them. See how tolerant I am?
Approval is something alse.
I won't approve of any behavior unless I'm convinced it's healthy. I won't come to the conclusion that it is healthy until I see the credible science. And as much as I believe that you actually feel what you feel, I hate to think that pursuing your inner compass might be destructive.
I look for the best for everyone...it's my personal brand of bigoted hate.
Anal sex is unhealthy you say, something practiced by both sexualities alike. Guess it seems all right enough to make it legal in the United States with the Lawrence vs. Texas case. Sure, anal sex has health risks, but what sexual behavior doesn't? There are precautions for every sexual behavior that lower the health risks obviously.
If you're referring to homosexuality as being unhealthy, I'm afraid I don't see why you say it is. The examples you give are unhealthy because all the people in that group practice the same thing. All Smokers are unhealthy because they smoke cigarettes, all nymphomaniacs because they have extreme sexual urges but I fail to see how this applies to homosexuality. Sure, you could say that because some people in the homosexual population are like nymphomaniacs, that's unhealthy but you could apply that to many things. Example: African-Americans with a low income are bound to turn to gangs for answers but does that mean we should punish the entirety of all low income African-Americans? Seems like backwards logic to me.
GLBT people are a large and diverse group. It's not a group that you can just make big assumptions on. It's not that easy.
Yada-Yada-Yada.
I understand that you and many others are willing to pursue the feelings you have even if there are elevated risks. I understand that some take action to mitigate those risks more than others. I don't care.
Until someone can show me credible science that there aren't any elevated risks; physical, psychological or by cultural vectors, I won't "approve".
On the other hand, who cares if I approve? But I will vote to block the gay agenda until I'm convinced that it isn't destruction of human potential.
Be happy in your choices.
By the way, the Supreme Court has reversed itself at least as much as the APA. Lawrence/Texas didn't contain any argument about the relative safety of sexual behaviors. It was about a constitutional right to privacy that is not specified in the Constitution. And by the end of 2008 we should be rid of a couple more liberal justices. And then the basis for Lawrence/Texas Roe/Wade and other destructive rulings will be gone and laws will be made by legislation instead of judicial fiat. States that want to recognize gay marriage will be able to and states that want legal abortion will too.
Just the way the framers intended
You say that it is an unhealthy lifestyle and you’ll approve when there are sources proving that it doesn’t have any elevated risks but you don’t care that some people try to minimize these risks?
Example: Problem: you say there are physical risks such as putting a penis in a dirty orifice. Solution: proper hygiene and condoms
Example: Problem: there are psychological problems with GLBT people, especially among teens. Solution: It’s already fixing itself because there are more and more people for teens to relate to who are struggling with their sexuality. No longer will they feel alone and feel more like another working part of society.
Example: Problem: GLBT people feel threatened because culture doesn’t understand them. Solution: People just don’t understand and through groups such as HRC, PFLAG, etc. people are beginning to understand that we aren’t freaks and that we are normal people.
And I fail to see how being gay is destruction of the human potential. What is this human potential that you speak of?
Approval? Let's take it one step at a time. Understand us first in the least.
Yawn...This is boring. It's a one-dimensional swordfight between science and emotion.
For you to postulate that I don't understand is pedantic. I understand the science and psychology of the issue better than anyone you've ever communicated with.
I wonder how many parents feel robbed of their sons at Christmas time. They look at empty chairs and remember that they accepted their sons for what they were, and it killed them. Human Potential.
I understand more than you do. I look at it from the total perspective.
As for gays feeling threatened, do what the rest of liberals do when they feel threatened... surrender. When I feel threatened, my muscles go taught, My adrenaline kicks in, time slows down and I get ready to strike. This is the reaction that purpetuates survival of the fittest.
I'll give you a little hint about human psychology. When someone cowers in front of the threat, it means they aren't committed enough to take an asskicking for the cause.
Which makes an analytical mind wonder: "Why do gays spring for the fetal position? What is missing? Is it the survival instinct?"
If your cause makes you into a victim, then it ain't ready for primetime. Oh pity us! Mean straight people say hateful things to us! Gimme a break! In Sub-Saharan africa, they stone gays to death. Get over it.
There's a lot people that can't put their finger on what leaves them uncomfortable about the gay agenda/complex. When they hear me express it, They say "Yeah! That's it!"
Parent's know intuitively that there are risks inherent in gay behaviors. If we warn our kids to look both ways before crossing the street, why don't we include charts and statistics when teaching them about the risk differences between gay and straight behaviors? They are not equal. There is one that we are anatomically designed for, there is one that we are not. Think of it as multiple choice. One answer is arguably better than the other. It should be taught that way.
But that doesn't happen - because the leftist educational establishment is more concerned about pushing an agenda than they are about science or the health and safety of young people. The more openly this is discussed, the worse it will be for your cause. Scientific thought will prevail. Emotion will tube.
You can change my mind with credible science. Let's consider this closed until you bring the science. I want to blog about success, leadership, scientific process and productivity for awhile.
I deleted a post here. It was repetitious.
The author failed consistently to integrate my staements into his perception of my positions.
Thus convincing me that he is wasting my time.
Post a Comment
<< Home