It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: BigAlSouth on December 26, 2013, 05:30:37 PM
-
I must have missed the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle somewhere here at IAL. (I'll get to that in a minute.) I came home from work today, poured a glass of wine (2 Buck Chuck. Cabernet Savignon. I'm experimenting)
On Yahoo, I notice a neat little video presentation of the best "notes of the year." I thought it strange that 30 percent of them were about "coming out of the closet." Is it just me or am I too much a cynic to think that 3 out of ten of the best notes are about the acceptance of homosexual behavior being just the most natural of things to do? (See: http://shine.yahoo.com/photos/2013-letters-notes-slideshow/-photo-2737255-154400804.html (http://shine.yahoo.com/photos/2013-letters-notes-slideshow/-photo-2737255-154400804.html) ) Yeah, I'm thinking they were contrived and/or faked. Sorta like the gay waitress/waiter who posted a pic of some anti-gay slur on the receipt. Turns out she got a nice tip and had lied about it.
And what about this Phil Robertson fellow (Duck Dynasty A&E Cable) who quoted the bible, then used graphic words to express his amazement that men would choose "an anus to a vagina." The result (if you have been under a rock, or celebrating Christmas with the family, too busy to waste time with popular culture) being that the GLAAD Storm Troopers went crying to the A & E execs to demand that he be taken off the air for his "vile and bigoted" comments. My favorite quote was from the GLAAD dude who said Robertson's comments were "Un-Christian." Yeah, them GLAAD guys are the go-to organization when it comes to Biblical interpretation.
Of course, Jessee Jackson Sr. takes a week to get his little thoughts together, and as a "Reverend", criticizes what Robertson said as resulting from Robertson's "white privilege." I'm not making this up. Jessee says old Phil is a racist. Not so much for what Phil said about queers, but some old YouTube video where Phil said the Blacks he worked the fields with were all happy and singing. Yeah. Like that is so racist. (See: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/Jesse-Jackson-says-Duck-Dynastys-Phil-Robertson-is-more-offensive-than-the-Rosa-Parks-bus-driver.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/Jesse-Jackson-says-Duck-Dynastys-Phil-Robertson-is-more-offensive-than-the-Rosa-Parks-bus-driver.html) ) Phil freely admits that he grew up "white trash" and worked the fields with Blacks.
But honestly, the Left isn't totally insane. Just mostly. Noted Feminist and Lesbian Camille Paglia came out and said "leave Phil alone!" Ms. Paglia said to stifle debate and another person's opinion is "utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist." (Remember when Rush Limbaugh attended some awards function and the host placed him beside Camille Paglia for sh*ts and giggles? Limbaugh said he had a grand time and they both shared a couple of cigars.)
So there it is, IAL.
-
BAS: You didn't miss much but I'd say, you've summed it all up in a short essay. ::thumbsup::
-
BAS: You didn't miss much but I'd say, you've summed it all up in a short essay. ::thumbsup::
Right on target.
-
BAS: You didn't miss much but I'd say, you've summed it all up in a short essay. ::thumbsup::
Ditto.
I looked, listened, read & commented about this during the last week & 1/2 - to the point where I got into a little trouble with lukewarm Christian who, while they maintain that they're NOT "P.C" - have clearly been co-opted by it.
One young college-aged woman told me that Phil’s comments were “crass & inappropriate.” I asked “compared to what?” – Proverbs 5: 18-19 tells us:
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be [a]exhilarated always with her love.
And I have to conclude that the writer is thinking of the wife’s vagina & not a man’s anus in that passage.
Another, coming to the defense of the college girl, told me that she “heard” that Phil made some “ignorant” remarks about blacks. I told her to “read” not “hear”, that her judgment was clouded by the fact that she & her husband have adopted 2 black children (admirable, but itself co-opting), and then showed her Phil’s “black” remarks.
• He was speaking of blacks he knew & worked with…not ALL blacks
• He said they were Godly, happy & that he never heard a complaining word from out their mouths, and
• All that in a pre-Civil Rights aware culture
…so I saw nothing wrong with his point of view.
I also think that, as a Christian patriot, rather than looking to be offended by something someone says, my 1st job (like my first love, Christ) is to stand alongside Mr. Robertson & support his leveraging his television opportunity as a nation-wide Christian witness.
On the 21st of January, there is a “Chick-Phil-A Day” planned. And, while the nearest Chick-Fil-A is a good 70 minute ride for me (not many in NJ)…I will be there, speaking with patriots and, uhm…others, too. ;D
(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd27/gablabs/Chick-Phil-ADay_zps8ca9bd71.jpg)
-
Additionally - Christians who want to womp Mr. Robertson had best re-read their Bible
- Leviticus 20:13
- Leviticus 18:22
- Romans 1: 26-28
Romans 1:26-28
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
As for idiots who read this & then begin speaking about shellfish, mixed material garments & slavery - there are reasons for those topics that are nothing to do with the fact the an as$hole was then and still is an exit strategy...not an entrance; fornicate with it if you must (then, get AIDS & die)...but don't ask me to label it "love" or "marriage". It is perversion.
-
Guys, I don't know if you noticed but this "Phil is a bigot" kerfluffle has served as excellent cover for the Zero Administration's India blunder ... you remember, don't you the story of the Indian diplomat who was arrested and subjected to a strip search and a body cavity search by the US Marshal's Service over the super-serious crime of paying her maid less than minimum wage.
Wars have been triggered by less.
Zero heads for Hawaii while Phil gets fried in the media. ::facepalm::
-
Of course, Jessee Jackson Sr. takes a week to get his little thoughts together, and as a "Reverend", criticizes what Robertson said as resulting from Robertson's "white privilege." I'm not making this up. Jessee says old Phil is a racist. Not so much for what Phil said about queers, but some old YouTube video where Phil said the Blacks he worked the fields with were all happy and singing. Yeah. Like that is so racist. (See: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/Jesse-Jackson-says-Duck-Dynastys-Phil-Robertson-is-more-offensive-than-the-Rosa-Parks-bus-driver.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/trending/Jesse-Jackson-says-Duck-Dynastys-Phil-Robertson-is-more-offensive-than-the-Rosa-Parks-bus-driver.html) ) Phil freely admits that he grew up "white trash" and worked the fields with Blacks.
Jesse "American Nigguh" Jackson isn't fit to bag ANY cotton picked by the black Americans alongside whom Phil Robertson worked.
-
And one more thing... ;D
After commenting, I realized that I hadn't yet fired up You.Version today for my audio devotional (read by Max Mclean)...so I did; and this portion of the reading jumped out:
Psalm 37:30-34 | King James Version
30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
33 The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34 Wait on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.
Tell that to your adversaries who harp "Judge not lest ye be judged" & other scriptural misinterpretations.
-
I had some fun with the non-issue at Breitbart's and a few other sites but got bored with the skin-deep excuses for arguments by the leftists. All too often it was one guy dismembering a troll and then thirty-five minutes of high-fiving one another.
I did see some righties getting a little frothy and sought to keep them focused on mocking not murdering the mouth-breathers.
And I did view this as another exercise in proportional response. Take the bleedover effect of Cracker Barrel. In order to avoid possibly offending the fags they took action that definitely offended fans of the Robertsons (they removed Duck Dynasty merchandise). Then they doubled down on stupid by selectively restoring some of the items but calling to attention that they wouldn't store other items to avoid offending. Ultimately they put it all back - but only after revealing themselves as feckless weenies.
Some of my right-wing associates got worn out jumping on & off of the boycott wagon ;')
-
. . .
Another, coming to the defense of the college girl, told me that she “heard” that Phil made some “ignorant” remarks about blacks. I told her to “read” not “hear”, that her judgment was clouded by the fact that she & her husband have adopted 2 black children (admirable, but itself co-opting), and then showed her Phil’s “black” remarks.
• He was speaking of blacks he knew & worked with…not ALL blacks
• He said they were Godly, happy & that he never heard a complaining word from out their mouths, and
• All that in a pre-Civil Rights aware culture
…so I saw nothing wrong with his point of view.
Exactly.
Phil was speaking about his own personal experience. The fact is, poor white trash and Blacks were pretty much on an equal social scale back in the twenties, thirties and forties. Rev. Jackson is the ignorant one, re-writing history to fit his late twentieth century view that the White Man is the Bogeyman. What does the Federal Government have to show for its intervention into the Black Family dynamics as it waged its War on Poverty? A divorce rate, illegitimacy rate and illiteracy rate triple the rates of pre-WOP intervention.
-
What does the Federal Government have to show for its intervention into the Black Family dynamics as it waged its War on Poverty? A divorce rate, illegitimacy rate and illiteracy rate triple the rates of pre-WOP intervention.
And all those abortions...
...killing their own: apparently, though a mind is a terrible thing to waste...when coupled with a body, it isn't.
-
And the Knockout Game.
Yay.
eta: Was responding here to BAS.
-
I moved back to Texas during a downturn in the oil industry and couldn't find work in my chosen field. Since I am not a welfare queen, I managed to find a job as a waitress at a private club. The women and men who worked there were attractive and fit (yes, I was at the time), because that is what private clubs required for their clientele.
A young man I worked with and also partied with afterwards, was a great dancer and a wonderful conversationalist, I adored him, but not in "that way". His roommate used to pick him up after work. This would be around 3 a.m., sometimes later (or earlier, depending on how you look at it).
Anyway, one night this roommate of his was sitting at the bar moaning and groaning about how late it was. I'm thinking to myself what a jackass he is, so of course I must say something to my friend. So, I take a moment and catch him aside and say "Damn, Albert. What is Johns problem? He's acting like your friggin' girlfriend or something."
He looks at me, wide, incredulous eyes and says "Kay! You don't know I'm gay - that John could well be considered my 'girlfriend'?" I'm perfectly shocked. Never saw it. Maybe I didn't want to.
Well, about that time, the Manager, now my husband, walks up and there is some exchange I don't remember that ended with my future husband telling my "newly" gay friend to kiss his butt. Wherein said friend says bare it, wherein future husband turns and prepares to do so, with me immediately shouting NO! STOP! HE'S GAY!.
I truly liked this man. We had conversations afterwards, about his homosexuality, about AIDS, promiscuity, why he chose the homosexual lifestyle, how his parents felt.
There is more to this story, but suffice to say, that in the end I could not overcome my disgust. This was well before the overt activism we see today, but an eye opener nonetheless.
-
KC, in my mind it is perfectly OKAY to love the sinner, not the sin. I have many friends who I like, and some whom I LOVE, that I do not approve all that they do. Christ told us we would have to leave the world to avoid them and that He did not demand that. We cannot allow it to masquerade as Christianity, of course, but we need not stop loving these people.
This issue has not been about us not loving them, it is about THEM not accept us. We need to keep that perfectly clear. Phil spoke about loving the people, even though he could not understand their decisions. It was GLAAD that went on the attack. Phil was just being an Elder in the church. What else could he do?
But as for you, there is no guilt, or should be no guilt, in loving and enjoying a human being, even if you do not understand and do not approve of their choices.
-
KC, in my mind it is perfectly OKAY to love the sinner, not the sin. I have many friends who I like, and some whom I LOVE, that I do not approve all that they do. Christ told us we would have to leave the world to avoid them and that He did not demand that. We cannot allow it to masquerade as Christianity, of course, but we need not stop loving these people.
This issue has not been about us not loving them, it is about THEM not accept us. We need to keep that perfectly clear. Phil spoke about loving the people, even though he could not understand their decisions. It was GLAAD that went on the attack. Phil was just being an Elder in the church. What else could he do?
But as for you, there is no guilt, or should be no guilt, in loving and enjoying a human being, even if you do not understand and do not approve of their choices.
I did say there was more to the story. I did adore this friend of mine. I was comfortable, though concerned, that he was a homosexual. His grief about the rejection he endured from his family was truly pitiful. I even advised him to fake it - act straight before his family. But he chose honesty.
I was honest enough with him as well. He was free to bring his friends to my apartment. One day, as they were sitting on the sofa, I asked "so, are you sitting girl, boy, girl, boy...or girl girl...boy boy.." It was all great fun ...they actually discussed it.
And then, before I found out it was a compliment, my friend called me a "fag hag". (ie..a woman who hangs out with and likes to be around, gay men). He was right. I did. A gaggle of attractive men at my beck and call. Nonthreatening drinking and dancing partners, men who could decorate my apartment and dress me in style as well...what is not to like?
It was then that I realized I was a bit too accepting, too approving. I had accepted my friend and his lifestyle because I really liked him. I was losing the battle of common sense. I was losing the argument against the homosexual lifestyle and being drawn in.
It's been so long ago, I cant remember how the friendship...fizzled. It didn't end. I didn't end it. It just stopped. But it stopped because I could not accept it. Damn.
I still think about him from time to time.
-
One of my nephews is a quiet gay and doesn't push his beliefs on anyone. That's all I can say........
-
I understand. My refusal of acceptance, though totally without hatred, is that I will not use the word, "Gay." To me it means happy, and in these people's lives, I have seen anything BUT happiness. They are Sodomites, or homosexuals, but not gay. I will not give in to the Sodomy Lobby. I can love them without lying about what they are or what they do.
-
. . .
This issue has not been about us not loving them, it is about THEM not accept us. We need to keep that perfectly clear.
. . .
I have a problem with their demand that their behavior be accepted. And if you don't accept their behavior as normal and well-adjusted, then there is something wrong with you.
One of the interesting asides about the Phil Robertson statement is that he reduced the homosexual behavior to terms that most everyone could relate to. People could not accept the light of truth about what gay behavior is: Preferring an anus to a vagina.
-
People could not accept the light of truth about what gay behavior is: Preferring an anus to a vagina.
And maybe one step more. It's not that those 2 orifices serve the same purpose & one simply has a preference. It's about abusing ones body for sexual gratification instead of using what God has given us for pleasure within the confines of a marital relationship. We've already discussed what the repeated misuse of the anus brings about.
It's about accepting deviancy & perversion as simply an "alternative"...and reducing marriage to an emotional bond between ANY mixture of human beings, instead of 1 man/1woman.
-
To be honest, most people don't really give a c#$p about "homosexuals". I think if a survey was taken of the general public, about issues of the day, it likely wouldn't even be on the list, let alone the top ten. For a segment of the population that is likely .0001% they get a lot of attention.
Unfortunately, the media and Hollywood are fascinated by it for some unknown reason, so that's why its in our faces all the time (like the yahoo thing). Until that fascination goes away (which it will at some point) we will have nonsense about non issues like the Duck people. Hopefully that fascination ends sooner rather then later, though what they move on too, likely will be just as annoying and useless.
-
It's about accepting deviancy & perversion as simply an "alternative"...and reducing marriage to an emotional bond between ANY mixture of human beings, instead of 1 man/1woman.
That's rather bigoted and anthropocentric of you! Who are you to judge those who have alternative species preferences? Or the nascent alternative lifestyle of those who prefer robots?
-
It's about accepting deviancy & perversion as simply an "alternative"...and reducing marriage to an emotional bond between ANY mixture of human beings, instead of 1 man/1woman.
That's rather bigoted and anthropocentric of you! Who are you to judge those who have alternative species preferences? Or the nascent alternative lifestyle of those who prefer robots?
Mmm, mmm, mmm..apologies all around...
Monty Python - The Mouse Problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK92NYwBMts#)
-
Sadly, it wasn't entirely in jest:
http://moonbattery.com/?p=37484 (http://moonbattery.com/?p=37484)
(http://moonbattery.com/davecat.jpg)
-
And one more thing... ;D
After commenting, I realized that I hadn't yet fired up You.Version today for my audio devotional (read by Max Mclean)...so I did; and this portion of the reading jumped out:
Psalm 37:30-34 | King James Version
30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
33 The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
34 Wait on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.
Tell that to your adversaries who harp "Judge not lest ye be judged" & other scriptural misinterpretations.
Another example comes from this passage...
1 Corinthians 2:10-16 KJV
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.
[15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
-
When homo men fight, does one tell the other he is just an anus to him? ::mooning:: ::puke:: ::slapfight::
-
How can a gay orchestra conductor conduct a symphony with his limp wrists?
It seems the musicians would be playing all over the place looking for the time.
-
One of my nephews is a quiet gay and doesn't push his beliefs on anyone. That's all I can say........
That is commendable, Jeff. But it is within our personal lives, revealed here or not, that the truth should be spoken.
I lost a friendship because I did not condone an adulterous affair of a friend. She wanted me to stand by her while she left one mans arms for another. The devil is in the details.
Sure. Your marriage is in shambles, and you must leave as last resort, I'm with you, but your marriage is fine, but you don't get a tingle up your leg every time you see your husband, you want perpetual romance over substance? Don't count on my support.
So, you're gay and I should not mention the pitfalls? If I love you, I will speak the truth as gentle and caring as possible. If you love me, you will listen in the same way and perhaps.....think about it.
-
Personally, I am sick and tired of the whole kit and caboodle..
-
I have a homosexual cousin. He looks remarkably like Rachel Maddow. He's a nice enough guy. But he's been a flaming girlie-queer since he was about 10 or 12. Always effeminate. Thankfully I only have to deal with him at weddings and funerals.
The last wedding weekend we both attended, he arrived in average clothing with normal behavior. After Day 1, he discovered there were some young people there who were liberal, so he showed up the next day in wayfarer sunglasses and a skin-tight body-shirt, wearing a Palestinian Keffiyeh as a scarf around his neck, hips swishing and swaying like a little faggot.
He's convinced me he's a fiscal conservative. But of course he votes against fiscal conservatism every single time, because gay.
-
Once again, Kay is correct, and I fully agree with Tania.
I had a 3rd cousin that tried to get - ummm - "personal" with me back in my high school days. He had been adopted and was effeminate. I let him know in no uncertain terms (laying on the floor in a wet pool of blood from his nose) that he should stay from me.
He lived with his mommy and daddy (my aunt and uncle) in FL until they died, and then he also croaked. My uncle was a really good guy, and straight, but my aunt was a card-carrying idiot..... I'll not get into that.
-
I let him know in no uncertain terms (laying on the floor in a wet pool of blood from his nose) that he should stay from me.
You're such a persuasive bastage. ::hysterical::
-
I let him know in no uncertain terms (laying on the floor in a wet pool of blood from his nose) that he should stay from me.
You're such a persuasive bastage. ::hysterical::
Yes. I know. Thank you! ::thumbsup:: ::beertoast::
-
1. Tolerance
2. Acceptance
3. Celebration
It is never to stop at number 1. It's number 3 or the anti-American, Grievance Industrial Complex will have your head.
-
1. Tolerance
2. Acceptance
3. Celebration
It is never to stop at number 1. It's number 3 or the anti-American, Grievance Industrial Complex will have your head.
Why are we supposed to accept something that is abnormal and an aberration? I guess you can try to tolerate the aberration, as long as you are not expected to give up something in the process.
For me, this is the main problem I have with homosexuality. The GLAAD fascists will do anything to force normal folks to celebrate this deviancy. Even if you leave religion out of the argument, sexual behavior not designed for procreation deviates from the norm. Right?
-
So today Yahoo is running a headline : Robin Roberts talks about her sexuality
Of course, I knew what that meant. No one ever issues a statement about their heterosexuality!
WHO CARES about Robin Roberts and her girlfriend!!!! ::pullhair::
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/robin-roberts-reveals-gay-note-gma-fans-article-1.1560929 (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/robin-roberts-reveals-gay-note-gma-fans-article-1.1560929)
GMA crowd...you know, idiots...eat that crap up, LV!
::facepalm::
Now anybody exposed to any of this (that is a choice too!) will be exposed to the pandering "oh, how brave" blatherings to come...
::puke::
::lalanotlistening::
-
I really hate to mention it, but robins girlfriend looks like a dog.
-
I really hate to mention it, but robins girlfriend looks like a dog.
They're both 3-baggers ;')
-
Even if you leave religion out of the argument, sexual behavior not designed for procreation deviates from the norm. Right?
Yes, yes it does. Some thoughts on the matter...
Remember, the way the left tells it, conservatives are science ignoramuses. But the natural sciences are conveniently out the window anytime that the peculiarities of homosexuality are up for a discussion.
Because, for the sake of homosexual politics, homosexuality is not a behavior...not a lifestyle choice...but, rather, something that they are born with. There must be a homosexuality gene that somehow completely defies the science of biological inheritance and genetic selection.
Wikipedia puts it thusly:
In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes segregating within a population may be subject to selection. Under selection, individuals with advantages or "adaptive" traits tend to be more successful than their peers reproductively—meaning they contribute more offspring to the succeeding generation than others do. When these traits have a genetic basis, selection can increase the prevalence of those traits, because offspring will inherit those traits from their parents. When selection is intense and persistent, adaptive traits become universal to the population or species, which may then be said to have evolved.
Regardless of what you believe about the "origin of the species" (and I will not permit the discussion to take a turn in that direction...get your own thread if you must), genetic selection is pretty much an undeniable fact. The "fittest" do tend to survive (although more and more "unfit" survive today due to technological advances and that is yet another discussion) more than the "unfit" as a general rule. If the environment of our society tends to favor certain physical and biological traits then we tend to get more of them. In a war, for instance, those who can run faster and who can fight better tend to survive and then contribute to the gene pool whereas those who can not, do not. Although it can also work the other way...I remember reading somewhere that the average height of a French person went down an inch or two because so many of their young and healthy men were killed off in WWI and WWII. Anyway, we all know the point here and that is that genetic selection is not fantasy but is established scientific fact. You get what you breed for.
And yet, we are supposed to believe that 1) there is a mysterious and elusive homosexuality gene and that 2) it somehow...magically...reproduces itself from one generation to the next. Either that or we are supposed to believe that homosexuality is a mutation. That is even more ludicrous when you think about it. What is the mysterious cause of the mutation and why can't it be found and stopped? If there are any more "science" explanations for homosexuality I would be interested in hearing of them. Not that it matters, though, because these explanations have no more science to them than does a psychic reading. It's all pure BS.
I don't deny that some people are born effeminate. It does happen. Some girls are very masculine. That happens, too. Is there a scientific explanation for this and can there ever be, though? Not from a purely logical approach.
And that's where you totally lose the leftists. They are stuck on this one. If they try and look at this from a "science" point of view they can't prove their hypothesis...that people are born this way and that there must be a "gay" gene. They refuse to look at it any other way and that is because that "other way" is from a "spiritual" point of view. Those of us who do entertain that line of thinking...well, some of us...tend to believe that behaviors can be inherited, specifically...bad behaviors. For countless generations this phenomenon has been usually referred to as the "sins of the father." Or grandfather. Or great grandfather. Regardless of the generation, that is what it is, though...generational inherited sin. So there's that theory.
Another theory is that homosexuals aren't born but, rather, they are created instead. Something I heard several decades ago has always stayed with me, that "homosexuals don't reproduce so they have to recruit." The homosexual political lobby spends a tremendous amount of energy promoting the idea that pedophiles are predominantly heterosexual. Well, that may be...I don't know enough about the demographics to offer an informed opinion on that little factoid. BUT...what is common knowledge is that a staggering number of homosexuals get their start in sexuality at a young age and that it frequently involves an older partner. NAMBLA comes immediately to mind and that is an organization that the GLAAD people would probably like to make disappear as much as certain white southern politicians from years gone by would like to wish away the Klan.
The above two "explanations" are really not distinct but are more intertwined with each other. When you probe into the past of adult child abusers you frequently find that they, too, were abused as children and that closes the loop with the concept of generational sin.
But there it is. There you have it. Is homosexual behavior "natural?" I can't see how it is. Not objectively. And that leads me to another saying (a joke, actually) that I heard decades ago and even with today's new norms it still holds true...
Conversations That Never Happened...guy walks into a psychiatrist's office in a panic and says, "Doc, you gotta help me! I think I might be straight!"
-
Because, for the sake of homosexual politics, homosexuality is not a behavior...not a lifestyle choice...but, rather, something that they are born with. There must be a homosexuality gene that somehow completely defies the science of biological inheritance and genetic selection.
I've always wondered, if homosexuals are born that way, then why do so many of them have sex change operations? Seems, they were not born the way they wanted to be, so it must be a choice. ???
-
There have been studies done on identical twins, where one is a homosexual and one is not.
Identical twins are genetically exactly that: identical. These studies have shown absolutely zero genetic, chemical, or physiological reason that one twin's a fag and the other isn't.
-
But there it is. There you have it. Is homosexual behavior "natural?" I can't see how it is. Not objectively. .
It could be a genetic trait activated by environment. Like Alcoholism in American Indians - and that is simply a genetic characteristic that was induced by many generations of breeding without access to alcohol - and not for survival. Every man has the genetics to make a womb, but our bodies don't use those parts of the code. The point is, not everything in a person's genetic code is a survival trait. There are mistakes, dead ends, and inactive bits of code, and a proclivity to be gay could be one of them-simply not harmful enough to be weeded out, or is still in the process of being weeded out or it may also have a survival characteristic - if its a genetic behavior activated by over-crowding.
There are many reports of other species (mammal, reptiles etc) engaging in such behavior. Why? Because some critter figured out it felt good, and they aren't bound by any sort of moral or ethical laws. It would be a more effective control in females than in males of course, since a mammalian population is limited by the number of females, since one male can impregnate them all. However, a genetic trait to produce homosexual offspring could be preserved just because rape is pretty much how things are done in an uncivilized world. There is also evidence that the more male offspring a woman has the greater chance that each newborn will become gay because the hormonal mix its exposed to changes.. so it may be this hormonal mix that is being passed down, more than the behavior itself. Lesbians seem to become so because they have have a gene that regulates their exposure to such hormones. ( which isn't to say that Gay men don't also have a similar process at work, only that it appears to not be dominant) So female homosexuality and male homosexuality would seem to follow entirely different processes. There is very probably a genetic component at work- almost certainly in females, in the mother ( regulating fetal hormone exposure) and possibly within the males themselves. There are some who have suggested that the hormonal changes could also be attributed to a virus or some other outside factor.
There have been studies done on identical twins, where one is a homosexual and one is not.
Identical twins are genetically exactly that: identical. These studies have shown absolutely zero genetic, chemical, or physiological reason that one twin's a fag and the other isn't
As IDP points out, is it obviously not entirely genetic, as I personally knew identical female twins, one of whom was straight ( tested and confirmed) , the other gay. However, that does not mean there is no genetic component.. the fact that many studies show Homosexuality running in certain family lines suggest there must be some sort of genetic component. Others have observed similar things. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/) It is very likely a combination of genetic proclivity, exposure in the womb, environment and personality that leads to the behavior and "natural" is probably an accurate word to describe the behavior. "Normal" is not such a word, since at most 1 in 10 engage in it, and its more likely closer to 2-4 in 100. However, the environment required may involve being molested as a child, as its startling how many Homosexuals I have met have such a tale and there are studies that suggest homosexuals have a higher incidence. (http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/06/17/childhood-sexual-abuse-and-male-homosexuality/?skip_splash=1) Of course since Gay is a good voting block for Democrats, Democrats encourage and protect those who molest children and of course support school programs that promote early sexualization, ether because they want to use the shock of it to brainwash or merely want to achieve that 1 in 10 number for voting purposes.
So if such victimization of a child plays a role, is being gay still a choice? Can a woman choose to be unraped? If being Gay is a direct psychological cause of sexual abuse at a young age, with a certain personality, and a certain genome, did a person so afflicted choose it? Yes, you can seek help- but that help is in suppressing your natural desires ( something which all civilized people must do) and its not going to make you "straight" - merely to avoid the sin of homosexuality.
There is probably also a whole segment of copy-cats who simply want to be or feel unique or special - who want to have something that sets them apart and lets them engage in all sorts of depraved behavior in a social group that will at the very least not disapprove. I suspect most "bi-sexual" people are this way - and its more about being free from social convention than its about sexual orientation. And for this group, yes, its a choice.
update: I must wonder to Soup's point below, how many predators are in each group - the self-selected choosers, vs the "made by abuse" kind. I suspect the abused are more likely to abuse- as a form of getting control over their abuser- by becoming them. Any thoughts? ( I was approached only once, at age 22, in Italy. He was much older, but very polite, speaking in broken English, and not aggressive in any way, and he took my rejection without a problem, so I have no experience with this )
In conclusion, gayness is like being an asshole (jerk, sh*thead, pick your term) . In general its undesirable because it makes relationships with others in the society difficult, because your behavior places additional and abnormal ( 1 in 10 or less) burdens on others. . The people you meet who are assholes are that way for multiple reasons and across a spectrum - by choice, because they were abused, or because they were just born that way.
I've always wondered, if homosexuals are born that way, then why do so many of them have sex change operations? Seems, they were not born the way they wanted to be, so it must be a choice
They have sex change operations because they want to be "normal" or at least seen that way. If I am a Man attracted to men, and I want to be truly socially accepted ( not accepted because others are held at govt gunpoint and forced to say so) then I seek to horribly mutilate by body so my "natural" attraction to males is seen as "normal" attraction. No they weren't born the way they wanted to be.. To traps point, choosing to be gay is a pretty damn stupid choice - like choosing to be an asshole. Yes, some people chose it. Still others can't or don't know how to help it, so they choose mutilation in an attempt to fit in and be "normal" - And others simply choose to embrace the way that God made them- either because they are people with a peculiar extra helping of sin God thinks they need to overcome, or because God really don't care one way or the other. I don't know God's mind, only what men wrote in a book a long time ago. Those men wrote it was a sin. They wrote that Jesus instructed us to have love and have compassion for the sinner. I simply thank God he didn't throw such a burden on me, and I know its beyond my understanding or right to judge. . I simply do my best to overcome my gut revulsion at the very idea and treat them fairly as fellow sinners. What they do is between them and God, just as ultimately my actions are between me and God. I feel no need to make their time on this earth worse than it has to be, unless they start demanding that I, at gunpoint, laud their "lifestyle" as good and normal. I won't.
Conversations That Never Happened...guy walks into a psychiatrist's office in a panic and says, "Doc, you gotta help me! I think I might be straight!"
Wait for it..
-
Let me stipulate up front that I was the victim (I hate that word) of a seduction turned sexual assault when I was 13. I know I tend to be long-winded and won't bore you with the details other than to say that I jumped from a speeding car to get away.
Over the years I was witness to, or the subject of several recruitments. Anyone who denies that it happens is a liar. Unfortunately no one taught me about sexual predators - I had to find out on my own. I got good at spotting sexual predators early on. Remember, my formative years were the sixties and seventies. Making jokes about fairies and "light in the loafers" was still acceptable comedy fodder. The percentages haven't changed but they were nowhere near as "in your face" then.
Over the years I've led a "live and let live" attitude toward homos. Leave me alone and I won't beat the sh!t outta you.
Homosexuals feed on the perceived lack of love that individuals hold. They prey on insecurity and self-doubt. They find kids who look at their contemporaries having normal typical relationships and ask themselves, "Why can't I have that too?" and whisper "Yes you can". They take advantage of young raging hormones and the need for gratification.
The GayStapo shrink from the notion of a "gay gene"" because that would imply a possible cure - and the elimination of their kind. If you ask them, they simultaneously hold the views that 1. You can't prove we're not born this way, 2. "No one would ever ask to be born this way", 3. It's a miserable life.
And yet they not only do nothing to address the root cause of their condition, and they insist on perpetuating lifestyles that are the most destructive in society, but they demand that we endorse them and their destructive behavior. They wish to expand and recruit on an unprecedented scale.
In the Interweb Warz the GayKK are stepping up the rhetoric about "We're winning and you're losing" the PR battle of acceptance and compliance with their demands. They are quick to point to recent "victories" where states have abandoned reason and allowed fag marriage. They claim that "young people aren't homophobic like you old folks" and "the sooner you die off the sooner we will win". They may be right.
But an interesting thing is occurring with the DD dust up. You are seeing people standing up and saying "enough is enough!" The backlash that I predicted is happening. Folks like me are setting their jaw and drawing the line. Call me a bigot - IDC - but in my perception every homosexual is a potential sexual predator and I'll not have one in my midst.
I don't care about homos and their plight. Stay the hell away from me of you don't wanna get squashed.
-
It does not matter if homosexuals were "born that way". We were all born into sin.
Maybe my sin is lying, or a propensity for adultery, or sloth.
We all have sin and fall short of the Glory of God.
The Glory is within the overcoming of sin. Recognizing it. Seeing what our past has wrought.
Being homosexual is one thing.....giving into the sin of active, unrepentant homosexuality is another.
The problem with todays homosexual is, they glory in coming out of the closet. They require total acceptance of their lifestyle to validate their "courage". If they were truly courages, truly righteous, they would not require the acceptance of normal people.
They seek to condemn the normal by exposing the sins of "normal" people. (You are no better than me!). And, of course, normal folks do not want to be considered judgemental.
Such a viscous, unnecessary, circle.
-
The GayStapo shrink from the notion of a "gay gene"" because that would imply a possible cure - and the elimination of their kind. If you ask them, they simultaneously hold the views that 1. You can't prove we're not born this way, 2. "No one would ever ask to be born this way", 3. It's a miserable life.
And yet they not only do nothing to address the root cause of their condition, and they insist on perpetuating lifestyles that are the most destructive in society, but they demand that we endorse them and their destructive behavior. They wish to expand and recruit on an unprecedented scale.
Could we convince them that a bullet in the brain feels exceptionally good? If so I wouldn't try to stop them but in fact encourage them. If you have a drug addiction problem, do we not as a society attempt rehabilitation as a solution? Why is this frowned upon(modern times but in the past it was classified as a psycho disorder)?
Most of them don't want to be cured even if there was one and that's not true either because if we follow His teaching, we can live a fulfilling life without the sinful abomination that is homosexual behavior.
If homosexuals could breed naturally than they would be able to successfully put forth their genes into succeeding generations of offspring thoroughly proving that they are a subspecies of human being except we all know they cannot. No mammal can so genetically speaking homosexuality is a behavioral choice.
Last point. Liberals are quoted many times a desire to eliminate genetic abnormalities such as major genetic birth defects so what if we list homosexuals as such and eliminate them from the society as destructive to it? We know and accept that some behavior is destructive and make rules outlawing those behaviors so what's the difference here? Homosexuality particularly sodomy leads to all sorts of bad diseases such as HIV which is terminal and I say we have the right to do so because it's the over all health of the community which is at stake.
-
It occurred to me this morning that the wrong response was triggered in the recent case of the Indian diplomat subjected to an anal cavity search. The reaction should have been one of celebration as the diplomat got an, uhm...insider's view, up close & personal into the world of homosexual marriage. What an honor, that she was allowed to participate in a reenactment of the consummating celebratory act of male love.
Attention justices of the peace - add these words to the ceremonial vows:
"I now pronounce you husband & husband!
You may now perform the anal cavity search."
-
It occurred to me this morning that the wrong response was triggered in the recent case of the Indian diplomat subjected to an anal cavity search. The reaction should have been one of celebration as the diplomat got an, uhm...insider's view, up close & personal into the world of homosexual marriage. What an honor, that she was allowed to participate in a reenactment of the consummating celebratory act of male love.
Attention justices of the peace - add these words to the ceremonial vows:
"I now pronounce you husband & husband!
You may now perform the anal cavity search."
oh lordy, that is too much information. Now I have a visual of a TSA guy having someone drop their pants, and pull their buttocks apart, to prove or disprove...
-
"Gay Louisiana University Student Pens an Open Letter to Phil Robertson Alleging That His Comments on the Unnatural Nature of Homosexuality “Damaged” Him & Made Him Feel “Unsafe” in His “Own Home”
I live in West Monroe, and I’m a Mass Communications student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe (ULM).
West Monroe is also home to the most famous anti-gay person in the world: Phil Robertson. I’ve never met Phil. But I was raised by a Phil Robertson.
My Phil Robertson told me that I was an a**hole for being so selfish to come out of the closet to my mother.
My Phil Robertson told me that my boyfriend will never be welcomed to his house, as if he were diseased.
My Phil Robertson threatened my life because I had the audacity to be who I am.
Phil claims to love everyone, and I have to believe that he has the best of intentions for saying what he said. But he must realize the damage that those words do to people like me.
He encouraged – hopefully unintentionally – a two-week-long “fag bashing” in Monroe and around the world. He made me feel unsafe in my own home. I can’t count how many times I heard “faggot” over the Christmas visit home.
All of this is in a state that still has laws against, and still arrests people for, having homosexual relations.
I’ve never been under any impression that northeast Louisiana is safe for gays.
And people say Phil is being persecuted for his beliefs.
But my love isn’t different. It isn’t unholy. It isn’t wrong because a man with a beard said so in a GQ article.
The comments are predictable. This is nothing but the equivalent of a hissy fit.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/01/gay-louisiana-university-student-pens-an-open-letter-to-phil-robertson-alleging-that-his-comments-on-the-unnatural-nature-of-homosexuality-damaged-him-made-him-feel-unsafe/#sthash.1xvdGc9J.dpuf (http://www.libertynews.com/2014/01/gay-louisiana-university-student-pens-an-open-letter-to-phil-robertson-alleging-that-his-comments-on-the-unnatural-nature-of-homosexuality-damaged-him-made-him-feel-unsafe/#sthash.1xvdGc9J.dpuf)
-
But my love isn’t different. It isn’t unholy. It isn’t wrong because a man with a beard said so in a GQ article.
That's 100% correct.
It's different, unholy & wrong because a man with a beard (or usually so depicted) said so in the Bible. The creator of the atom, Almighty God, is whom Phil was quoting.
-
"Gay Louisiana University Student Pens an Open Letter to Phil Robertson Alleging That His Comments on the Unnatural Nature of Homosexuality “Damaged” Him & Made Him Feel “Unsafe” in His “Own Home”
I live in West Monroe, and I’m a Mass Communications student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe (ULM).
West Monroe is also home to the most famous anti-gay person in the world: Phil Robertson. I’ve never met Phil. But I was raised by a Phil Robertson.
My Phil Robertson told me that I was an a**hole for being so selfish to come out of the closet to my mother.
My Phil Robertson told me that my boyfriend will never be welcomed to his house, as if he were diseased.
My Phil Robertson threatened my life because I had the audacity to be who I am.
Phil claims to love everyone, and I have to believe that he has the best of intentions for saying what he said. But he must realize the damage that those words do to people like me.
He encouraged – hopefully unintentionally – a two-week-long “fag bashing” in Monroe and around the world. He made me feel unsafe in my own home. I can’t count how many times I heard “faggot” over the Christmas visit home.
All of this is in a state that still has laws against, and still arrests people for, having homosexual relations.
I’ve never been under any impression that northeast Louisiana is safe for gays.
And people say Phil is being persecuted for his beliefs.
But my love isn’t different. It isn’t unholy. It isn’t wrong because a man with a beard said so in a GQ article.
The comments are predictable. This is nothing but the equivalent of a hissy fit.
- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/01/gay-louisiana-university-student-pens-an-open-letter-to-phil-robertson-alleging-that-his-comments-on-the-unnatural-nature-of-homosexuality-damaged-him-made-him-feel-unsafe/#sthash.1xvdGc9J.dpuf (http://www.libertynews.com/2014/01/gay-louisiana-university-student-pens-an-open-letter-to-phil-robertson-alleging-that-his-comments-on-the-unnatural-nature-of-homosexuality-damaged-him-made-him-feel-unsafe/#sthash.1xvdGc9J.dpuf)
The little drama queen does not have a "Phil Robertson" of his "own", clearly, and the father he does have has every reason to suspect both his son and his "girlfriend" may be diseased.
Nobody made this kid feel unsafe in his own home but his twisted head unless he's masochistic enough (not out of the question) to still be living in Daddy's house.
Meh.
-
All of this is in a state that still has laws against, and still arrests people for, having homosexual relations.
I wouldn't put up with it for a moment! Perhaps he should move. I hear Riyadh is nice this time of year.
-
Most famous anti-gay? I assume that what he means is that he THINKS Phil is the most famous person to OPPOSE homosexual practices. He would be wrong. Consider the Prophets, the Priests, the Kings, scattered throughout scripture. Consider the history of our country. Consider most world religions, the Popes, the Islamacists, Baptists, etc....can you really claim that Phil is the most famous of them all? What about Christ and the Apostles? Are they better known than Phil? Obviously. I hope this guy develops cognitive ability some day, but it is clear that it was not today.
-
Most famous anti-gay? I assume that what he means is that he THINKS Phil is the most famous person to OPPOSE homosexual practices. He would be wrong. Consider the Prophets, the Priests, the Kings, scattered throughout scripture. Consider the history of our country. Consider most world religions, the Popes, the Islamacists, Baptists, etc....can you really claim that Phil is the most famous of them all? What about Christ and the Apostles? Are they better known than Phil? Obviously. I hope this guy develops cognitive ability some day, but it is clear that it was not today.
Never gonna happen. He's too wrapped up in his own little make believe world.
-
He encouraged – hopefully unintentionally – a two-week-long “fag bashing” in Monroe and around the world. He made me feel unsafe in my own home. I can’t count how many times I heard “faggot” over the Christmas visit home.
Yeah, well Leftists call me racist, evil, uncaring, greedy etc. . Get some balls. Oh sorry. I guess I should not mock the testosterone challenged. Or do the words hurt more because that are true? Because you are a FAG. Why would the word offend you? You think someone will do violence to you.. well we have laws for that. Don't think the law will protect you? Well its not protecting me from confiscatory taxation that violated my right of conscience either. Grow up. Buy a gun. Protect yourself. You know like all of us have to. And perhaps if you weren't trying to wave the government guns in other people's faces in a self-defeating attempt to make people like you, there would be less anger against Fags. You want to sin, sin. We all sin. But don't aim a government at my head and tell me I have to call a sin something other than what it is.
Why is the left never cognizant of the fact they THEY are the ones who initiated the conflict? That they began the of force against others? That they advocate force as the primary means of getting anything they want? Want to live and let live? Then try not using the government as a weapon to tell others how to live! Oh right. You didn't want to live and let live unless everyone lives your way.
No Mercy.
-
As a young child, I never had a fairy Godmother. But I did have an uncle we weren't sure about. ::unknowncomic::
-
As a young child, I never had a fairy Godmother. But I did have an uncle we weren't sure about. ::unknowncomic::
::rimshot::
-
As a young child, I never had a fairy Godmother. But I did have an uncle we weren't sure about. ::unknowncomic::
kudos, Alan. This joke is worth stealing!
-
Yeah, well Leftists call me racist, evil, uncaring, greedy etc. . Get some balls. . . . Don't think the law will protect you? Well its not protecting me from confiscatory taxation that violated my right of conscience either. Grow up. Buy a gun. Protect yourself. You know like all of us have to. And perhaps if you weren't trying to wave the government guns in other people's faces in a self-defeating attempt to make people like you, there would be less anger against Fags. You want to sin, sin. We all sin. But don't aim a government at my head and tell me I have to call a sin something other than what it is.
Most excellent point. Conservatives are the subject of constant and increasing instances of vile personal attacks. Yes, even more so than homosexuals. But you don't see them having a hissy fot over it.
-
18 Year old football player stabs his 27 year old lover with a steak knife cause the older man was gonna break it off with him. The relationship.
http://thegrio.com/2013/11/24/conn-football-captain-charged-with-killing-lover/ (http://thegrio.com/2013/11/24/conn-football-captain-charged-with-killing-lover/)
-
18 Year old football player stabs his 27 year old lover with a steak knife cause the older man was gonna break it off with him. The relationship.
http://thegrio.com/2013/11/24/conn-football-captain-charged-with-killing-lover/ (http://thegrio.com/2013/11/24/conn-football-captain-charged-with-killing-lover/)
Thanks for the clarification. I was almost worried there for a minute.
-
18 Year old football player stabs his 27 year old lover with a steak knife cause the older man was gonna break it off with him. The relationship.
http://thegrio.com/2013/11/24/conn-football-captain-charged-with-killing-lover/ (http://thegrio.com/2013/11/24/conn-football-captain-charged-with-killing-lover/)
Damn. Ya see what a loaded gay can do? Time for another look at Gay-Ban legislation.
-
Gay-Ban!
::hysterical::
::thumbsup::
-
Gotta love the mothers comments.....
-
Everytime I look at the subject line for this thread, I think "must we?"
/just sayin'
-
Everytime I look at the subject line for this thread, I think "must we?"
/just sayin'
Hey. You da Administrator. Administrate!
(It's ok with me to lock it. Otherwise . . . )
-
Everytime I look at the subject line for this thread, I think "must we?"
/just sayin'
Hey. You da Administrator. Administrate!
(It's ok with me to lock it. Otherwise . . . )
Nono, that' not what I meant at all.
What I meant is simply "don't ya get tired of having it in yer face alla time?"
-
Everytime I look at the subject line for this thread, I think "must we?"
/just sayin'
Hey. You da Administrator. Administrate!
(It's ok with me to lock it. Otherwise . . . )
Nono, that' not what I meant at all.
What I meant is simply "don't ya get tired of having it in yer face alla time?"
I was gonna' say something about gays...
...but I faggot what it was. ;D
-
Everytime I look at the subject line for this thread, I think "must we?"
/just sayin'
Hey. You da Administrator. Administrate!
(It's ok with me to lock it. Otherwise . . . )
Nono, that' not what I meant at all.
What I meant is simply "don't ya get tired of having it in yer face alla time?"
I was gonna' say something about gays...
...but I faggot what it was. ;D
Ahh.....faggot about it....
-
Everytime I look at the subject line for this thread, I think "must we?"
/just sayin'
Voila! As rationale for my comment, I present --
Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject and that a sizable bloc -- the most modern up-to-date citizens -- accept or even practice homosexuality.
.... The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (pages 177-178).
It worked; it is. This part, as applies to me, did not:
Application of the keep-talking principal can get people to the shoulder-shrug stage.
Good piece. RTWT. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/3_18_2014_15_41.html)
P.S. I wonder how much Bernays and his methods were applied here.
-
If by shrug they mean to ridicule and skewer their asinine debate tactics, weak position and utter failure at making moral equivalency, then yes, I shrug.
::)
-
yes, that tactic has worked even among my own family members. :(
-
This is a fascinating read. Homosexual historians and anthropologists sh*t all over the Left's claim that homosexuality is an innate, genetic predisposition. The evidence for their conclusions is surprisingly self-evident, and does not support the heteronormative point of view, nor does it support sexual morality. Nonetheless, it seems to be a frankly honest assessment of one of the Left's prime tenets of homosexuality.
In a nutshell, they say that human sexuality has always been all over the map, but homosexuality is an invention of Western civilization. That apparent dichotomy should pique your interest. It's long, and I read every word.
Gay Historians: Nobody is "born that way" (http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/)
-
This is a fascinating read. Homosexual historians and anthropologists sh*t all over the Left's claim that homosexuality is an innate, genetic predisposition. The evidence for their conclusions is surprisingly self-evident, and does not support the heteronormative point of view, nor does it support sexual morality. Nonetheless, it seems to be a frankly honest assessment of one of the Left's prime tenets of homosexuality.
In a nutshell, they say that human sexuality has always been all over the map, but homosexuality is an invention of Western civilization. That apparent dichotomy should pique your interest. It's long, and I read every word.
Gay Historians: Nobody is "born that way" (http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/)
While they claim no one is born gay they make the companion argument that no one is born straight. I think that's a false assumption made to bolster their conclusion no one is born gay. They could hardly claim no one is born gay and let the obvious conclusion be made that if you're not born gay you must be born straight. Rather they are attempting to foster the idea that we're whatever and our culture defines that that is. I think this is more dangerous thought than dividing people into gay or not gay.
-
Gay is not a word I use. Use Homosexual or Sodomite. There is NOTHING happy about this behavioral issue.
-
This is a fascinating read. Homosexual historians and anthropologists sh*t all over the Left's claim that homosexuality is an innate, genetic predisposition. The evidence for their conclusions is surprisingly self-evident, and does not support the heteronormative point of view, nor does it support sexual morality. Nonetheless, it seems to be a frankly honest assessment of one of the Left's prime tenets of homosexuality.
In a nutshell, they say that human sexuality has always been all over the map, but homosexuality is an invention of Western civilization. That apparent dichotomy should pique your interest. It's long, and I read every word.
Gay Historians: Nobody is "born that way" (http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/)
While they claim no one is born gay they make the companion argument that no one is born straight. I think that's a false assumption made to bolster their conclusion no one is born gay. They could hardly claim no one is born gay and let the obvious conclusion be made that if you're not born gay you must be born straight. Rather they are attempting to foster the idea that we're whatever and our culture defines that that is. I think this is more dangerous thought than dividing people into gay or not gay.
Just more of the same as "race/sex is a cultural construct" marxist claptrap. Now "sexual orientation" is a "cultural construct"? What would they say about pedophiles who have never been abused as children and rapists who have never been raped as children?
I'm so SICK of all of this crap, I'm finally thankful I never had children.
-
More crap to be sick of...the watering down of language...
As Equality Matters reported this week, use of the term “homosexual” to refer to gay and lesbian people long ago fell out of favor with most mainstream news outlets, as “homosexual” is commonly used by opponents of LGBT equality — and rarely by advocates.
Fox News, however, is slow to change. The network, which apologized after it came under fire in February for its open mockery of the term “intersex,” continues to use “homosexual” when reporting on gay and lesbian people. As pointed out by Equality Matters, conservative pundit Todd Starnes recently wrote on FoxNews.com that “Christians are trading places with homosexuals” in a story about an Air Force veteran who claimed he was “relieved of his duties because he disagreed with his openly gay commander over gay marriage.”
http://weaselzippers.us/180964-gay-lib-rag-the-advocate-outraged-fox-news-uses-term-homosexual/ (http://weaselzippers.us/180964-gay-lib-rag-the-advocate-outraged-fox-news-uses-term-homosexual/)
::thinking::
Maybe I agree... ::evilbat::
I prefer something more descriptive, like FAGGOT and DYKE!
(I could be even more descriptive...don't tempt me!)
Oh, and Mr. Peters, you are now known to me as Lord Faggotron!
-
Via Instapundit's 21st Century Relationships category: My ex didn't tell me she was transgender, (his/her/its) sister told me and I married her instead (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2014/03/dear_prudence_my_ex_didn_t_tell_me_she_was_transgender_until_i_confronted.html)
Oh barf.
Several years ago I dated a woman named “Rhonda” for three months. I broke up with her after her sister “Amy” revealed to me that Rhonda was born “Ron” and showed me ample evidence. When I confronted Rhonda about her being a transsexual woman, she broke down and confessed that she was going to tell me, but only after we had been intimate! (Luckily we hadn’t been yet.) It wasn’t her transsexuality that ended the relationship, but her deception; I am not a transphobic person.
Um that is so very sad that someone can't feel free to say , "hell yeah, I ended the relationship because this "woman i was dating" is really a surgically mutilated man, and that was a huge turnoff for me in so many ways." and not "Well if she had been honest with me I definitely would have hit that and married it"
But wait it gets worse
Today, she says, some trans people who have had reassignment surgery assert they simply had a birth defect that was corrected, and therefore their past is nobody’s business.
A birth defect? A complete and well formed Penis is a Birth defect? But mutilating that organ and jamming it inside the body is a "correction"?
But above all, Boylan noted the violation committed when Amy decided to out Rhonda, a revelation that was not hers to make. I hope you can understand how Amy’s act cleaved her family and shattered her relationship with her sister.
Her sister? You mean her horribly mutilated brother. A Sister would have had a womb? Does this sister have a womb? SAnd if she is a girl without a womb, isn't that a "Birth Defect" ?
It is you who has become the toxic influence. And as Boylan points out, now that you and Amy are about to become parents, think about how you would react if your own child turned out to be transgender, which might help you better understand all your in-laws.
How would I React? Horrified and desperate to get them psychological help and prevent them from mutilating their own bodies in a hopeless and stupid attempt to become something they are not?
Garrison: [correcting him] Mrs. Garrison.
Doctor: Mmrs. Garrison, you can't have an abortion.
Mrs. Garrison: Don't you tell me what I can and can't do with my body! [gets up, goes to the nurse, and hugs her] A woman has a right to choose!
Doctor: No, I mean you're physically unable to have an abortion, because you can't get pergnant.
Mrs. Garrison: But I missed my period.
Doctor: You can't have periods either. [Mrs. Garrison looks surprised] You had a sex change, Mr. Garrison, but you don't have ovaries or a womb. You don't produce eggs.
Mrs. Garrison: [sits down] You mean, I'll never know what it feels like to have a baby growing inside me and then scramble its brains and vacuum it out?
Doctor: N-that's right.
Mrs. Garrison: But I paid five thousand dollars to be a woman. This would mean I I'm not really a woman. Ih, I'm just a... a I'm just a guy with a mutilated penis!
Doctor: Basically, yes.
Ms. Garrison:
...Oh boy, do I feel like a jackass.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104426/scramble-its-brains-or-vacuum-it-out (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104426/scramble-its-brains-or-vacuum-it-out)
-
Transphobic?
::laughonfloor::
I travel just fine...oh...not transportation-phobic....
::effu::
They have one thing in common with Muzzies though...predisposition toward genital mutilation...so they got that going for them...