Saturday, February 05, 2005
Judge Rules in Favor of Same Sex Marriage in New York
This is the crux of the 64 page decision by State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, reported by Fox and others:
Defendant has articulated no legitimate State purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling State interest in such a bar.
Regarding Ding-a-Ling´s statements:
- children do not have a right to a mother and a father.
- children have no benefit from having a mother and a father
- children do not benefit from having specifically one or two heterosexual parents only
- most of marriage legislation in the past did not specifically say men and women, thus it really meant it already included homosexuals in all marriage laws
- homos are forming illegal families as they please, so the state now has to make it legal
- homosexuality is equal to race
- if homos have a right to sodomy as per Lawrence, they have a right to everything else
- society does not have a compelling interest in knowing that homosexuality is a dysfunction, therefore everyone must be ignorant and equalize homosexuality to heterosexuality
- the right to marriage and choice of marriage partner is based on equal protection and due process; and marriage is a liberty right
It is interesting to note, that as per Ding-a-Ling´s reasoning, there is no way you could bar a 3-some marriage.
If we apply Ding-a-Ling´s reasoning to a 3-some marriage arrangement, we get:
- people have a right to marriage, and to choose who they marry. If they can choose one, they can choose two.
- children do not have any rights to the type of people who bring them up, as long as the people are not sexually or physically abusive - other kinds of psychological dysfunctions are OK
- most of marriage legislation in the past said couple, but that´s all prejudice, just as restricting it to heterosexuality - marriage legislation is evolving
- children have lived in households with multiple adults, so now we have to legalize it
- 3 adults can usually bring in more income than 2
- prejudice to multiple-person marriage is like race prejudice
- if homos have a right to sodomy as per Lawrence, they have a right to everything else, including marriage, which means everyone else has a right to everything else, such as a 3-some marriage
- there is no no legitimate State purpose that is rationally served by a bar to 3-some marriage, let alone a compelling State interest in such a bar.
[I´ve left a question about the above at JurisPundit.]
As I wrote before, the liberal-version-of-reality says that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same, and consequently, homosexuals deserve the same rights in every way.
The root of the problem starts there, not with discrimination of rights. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, neither should it be undestood or legitimized as such. That´s why the rights don´t apply in the same way. Homosexuality is a state of developmental dysfunction. Instead of society bending backwards to submit to every homosexual dysfunctional demand, it needs to rethink the basis for these claims in the first place.
It is the same with obesity. A lot of obese children and adults are bullied and demeaned because of their weight problem. This is not right. However, the minute you have fat activists, not only complaining about this bashing, but claiming that there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with being obese (even extreme obesity), but, on the contrary, that it should be upheld as an example of health, society has fallen prey to a lie. And the minute people who say being obese is patently unhealthy are sued for a hate speech/thought crime or are labeled "full of hate," then you know that things have really gone awry.
Every legislation that states homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality criminalizes questioning and thinking about human sexuality that does not obey this dogma. This is really dangerous.
Which relates to:
- how pro-homosexuals have built a fake hate stake and a false stereotype of bigot regarding anyone who disagrees with their dogmas. Read this on the intolerance of tolerance. And a satirical take on the subject. And another priceless comment. Also, a barbaric society´s idea of a hate crime.
- criminalizing thought - hate speech/crime legislation
- other arguments that counter same-sex marriage approval
And for a satirical addition to Scrappleface´s joke on the issue, "NY Judge Bans Heterosexual Marriage" by Scott Ott:
A voice of reason in the midst of these full-of-hate, bigoted conservatives. What courage! What moral stoutness!
As for you whinners that you can´t get deviantly married to the opposite sex, the problem is all in your head. It can be easily solved with a simple tax-deductible cross-sex operation (preferably paid by other people´s tax dollars). You have been brainwashed by some hetro activists that used your naivete to make you confused, but you know deep down that human nature is gay. And everyone who is anyone knows that humans reproduce children by artificial means. And if weren´t for the horrible repressive heterosexist culture, you´d have spent your lives in a sauna. God Almighty! The oppression of not being able to pass syphilis and AIDS to thousands of anonymous sex partners! How can we stand by it silently? We cannot tolerate it anymore. The time has come to outlaw hetro marrige, because the slippery slope is a dangerous thing. Homo marriage is about preserving mental health for the third millenium.
The truth of the matter is, as we topple and destroy heterosexism, truth unfolds. We now know everyone in history has always been a homo, Lincoln, Washington, Bush, Mother Theresa, even Teddy K. We are now an enlightened America.
As Noble Savage so nobly said, "I think this country needs to ban this outrage for the children." Every homo activist has always had the children in mind for everything they do. Finally, they have won.
Update feb 6-2005
This is from a book on interviews of kids of homo parents - I found this snippet telling:
You can read many such interviews here:
from:
You read several of the interviews and it´s clear why.
Look at this:
A 7 yr old girl saying, "I don´t know if I want to be a lesbian," shows you some things about this culture.
And another "homo activists say it´s all for the children" interviews:
[I´ve copied here previous entry, which relates to same-sex marriage, with an update, to organize the subjects into one entry]
And continuing our series on "Why Homosexists are Wrong - Let Us Count the Ways:"
From American Spectator
For that matter indeed. Heterosexuality is sacred. It is marvelous exactly because it is not a fanatical obsession with your own self/sex (coupled with a dysfunctional incapability of relating heterosexually to the opposite sex). We have two sexes and without the coming together of the two, we don´t have a human race.
Update jan-21-05:
From Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 16, 2004 - The end of the gay marriage debate?
"Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that the sexual and emotional desires of adults count for more than the needs of children."
Not of any adults, but of homosexuals. In this society, homosexuals are considered much more important than children.
I think the biggest problem with a lot of conservative thought on same-sex marriage is that it has already fallen for the liberal-version-of-reality. Namely, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same, and consequently, homosexuals deserve the same rights in every way. The root of the problem starts there, not with discrimination of rights. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, neither should it be undestood or legitimized as such. That´s why the rights don´t apply in the same way. Homosexuality is a state of developmental dysfunction. Instead of society bending backwards to submit to every homosexual dysfunctional demand, it needs to rethink the basis for these claims in the first place.
If you posit that "there is nothing wrong or dysfunctional with homosexuality and that it equals heterosexuality," you cannot coherently argue that homosexuals do not have a right to everything heterosexuals have. The problem is this is false. It is a legitimating and equalizing homosexist tenet, not reality.
It is the same with obesity. A lot of obese children and adults are bullied and demeaned because of their weight problem. This is not right. However, the minute you have fat activists, not only complaining about this bashing, but claiming that there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with being obese (even extreme obesity), but, on the contrary, that it should be upheld as an example of health, society has fallen prey to a lie. And the minute people who say being obese is patently unhealthy are sued for a hate speech/thought crime or are labeled "full of hate," then you know that things have really gone awry.
[end of update]
The problem with homosexism is that it attempts to erase from conscience even the most basic truths about life and human beings. If you have dysfunctional people who cannot have healthy heterosexual relationships and they start to justify their homosexuality as being healthy, the only way they can do this is to go into denial about 99% of reality. Not to mention reason and logic.
It is exactly the same with justifications of pedophilia. What is the first thing that a pedophile activist will say about pedophilia? "It is just a misunderstood form of love. And the pedophile attraction itself is healthy."
Instead of going to deal with all their problems, they just want to legalize and legitimize them. Anyone who questions the gay agenda is demonized with utmost hatred and violence.
We are seeing more and more examples of gay activists having turned into dogmatic control freaks – they will listen to no one. Most people who do not endorse homosexuality have no hate in their hearts. But society must bow down to every gay dogma or they will burn you at the “fake-hate” stake. Homos are manipulative peaceful. If you don´t submit to what they want, they turn ugly and vicious and bash people with other viewpoints to the point of destroying careers, lives, and reputations. This is something they “forget” to mention when playing the victim card.
Another related problem with legitimizing homo and bisexuality that is hardly ever mentioned, finally gets a bit of attention at the American Scene. Incidentally, I can remember having a conversation about this problem no less than 7-8 yrs ago:
Thanks to homo activists wanting to shove homosexuality down society´s throat, this has become an obsession not only for slandering men as homos, but women as dykes in similar fashion. And it causes serious distress and damage to the targeted people. Obviously, no one cares about this, and the notion of people having a right to be "safe" from this is inexistent.
But if someone like Douthat is addressing it, it´s because it has gotten really bad. People would rather run away from the problem and what it entails, in order to continue fanatically legitimizing homosexuality.
The problem is what Douthat calls "educated, well-meaning, self-consciously tolerant people" are really just very ignorant, irresponsible, malicious, and arrogant people with a bloated idea of themselves. Pro-homosexuals have in many, many ways an extremely locker-room mind towards sexuality. And they think themselves so "progressive" and "hip" for it. Not to mention the self-righteousness.
This is one of the most striking social engineering features that homo activism has achieved in society. Additionally, thanks to a mix of the women´s movement with a new very sexist liberal culture, this male homosexist locker-room mindset has shaped more and more women´s and girls attitudes. We see a lot of young women specially who are a photocopy of this guys locker room type, even if they are not jocks themselves.
One thing at a time:
"What's being erased is any masculine middle ground -- the ground of sturdy, affectionate male friendships,"
"sturdy, affectionate male friendships" is what you have in heterosexuality. And it was not only that this was being erased, it´s being destroyed by forcing homosexuality into society as norm. Same for heterosexual friendships and women.
"of gentlemanly conduct toward women," - I think this depends on what circles you move in. It´s too hard to generalize one way or another, but I don´t see how it relates to homosexual social engineering.
"unapologetic intellectualism" - I don´t know what he was referring to here, criminalization of thought because of hate crime legislation?
"as I'm sure Andrew would point out, telling gays to stay in the closet so that heterosexual men can feel comfortable with themselves isn't really an appealing option." - It´s not a question of lying about your problems (i.e., closeting them). You go deal with your dysfunctions and then you are no longer homosexual and you don´t blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with problems that you have.
Very, very similar to the SM defenders in this discussion.
Update Feb 6-2005
From comment on thread regarding same-sex marriage in Scrappleface:
And the same man who was instrumental in doing that, Dr. Spitzer, later did a bunch of studies that show sexual orientation is not unchangeable, presented in 2001:
However the media and homo activists drum, shout, yell the first APA statement, and persecute, hush, censor the second.
Do the words intolerant and bigoted come to mind?
Also, the above parallels a lot of psychological reports of pedophiles, i.e. how much they can change.
I think psychology is what needs to evolve, if it is ever going to aid these people. And notice that motivation is key. And how many studies that add to the above have yet to be done?
from Narth (a really good organization, btw)
Defendant has articulated no legitimate State purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling State interest in such a bar.
Regarding Ding-a-Ling´s statements:
- children do not have a right to a mother and a father.
- children have no benefit from having a mother and a father
- children do not benefit from having specifically one or two heterosexual parents only
- most of marriage legislation in the past did not specifically say men and women, thus it really meant it already included homosexuals in all marriage laws
- homos are forming illegal families as they please, so the state now has to make it legal
- homosexuality is equal to race
- if homos have a right to sodomy as per Lawrence, they have a right to everything else
- society does not have a compelling interest in knowing that homosexuality is a dysfunction, therefore everyone must be ignorant and equalize homosexuality to heterosexuality
- the right to marriage and choice of marriage partner is based on equal protection and due process; and marriage is a liberty right
It is interesting to note, that as per Ding-a-Ling´s reasoning, there is no way you could bar a 3-some marriage.
If we apply Ding-a-Ling´s reasoning to a 3-some marriage arrangement, we get:
- people have a right to marriage, and to choose who they marry. If they can choose one, they can choose two.
- children do not have any rights to the type of people who bring them up, as long as the people are not sexually or physically abusive - other kinds of psychological dysfunctions are OK
- most of marriage legislation in the past said couple, but that´s all prejudice, just as restricting it to heterosexuality - marriage legislation is evolving
- children have lived in households with multiple adults, so now we have to legalize it
- 3 adults can usually bring in more income than 2
- prejudice to multiple-person marriage is like race prejudice
- if homos have a right to sodomy as per Lawrence, they have a right to everything else, including marriage, which means everyone else has a right to everything else, such as a 3-some marriage
- there is no no legitimate State purpose that is rationally served by a bar to 3-some marriage, let alone a compelling State interest in such a bar.
[I´ve left a question about the above at JurisPundit.]
As I wrote before, the liberal-version-of-reality says that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same, and consequently, homosexuals deserve the same rights in every way.
The root of the problem starts there, not with discrimination of rights. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, neither should it be undestood or legitimized as such. That´s why the rights don´t apply in the same way. Homosexuality is a state of developmental dysfunction. Instead of society bending backwards to submit to every homosexual dysfunctional demand, it needs to rethink the basis for these claims in the first place.
It is the same with obesity. A lot of obese children and adults are bullied and demeaned because of their weight problem. This is not right. However, the minute you have fat activists, not only complaining about this bashing, but claiming that there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with being obese (even extreme obesity), but, on the contrary, that it should be upheld as an example of health, society has fallen prey to a lie. And the minute people who say being obese is patently unhealthy are sued for a hate speech/thought crime or are labeled "full of hate," then you know that things have really gone awry.
Every legislation that states homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality criminalizes questioning and thinking about human sexuality that does not obey this dogma. This is really dangerous.
Which relates to:
- how pro-homosexuals have built a fake hate stake and a false stereotype of bigot regarding anyone who disagrees with their dogmas. Read this on the intolerance of tolerance. And a satirical take on the subject. And another priceless comment. Also, a barbaric society´s idea of a hate crime.
- criminalizing thought - hate speech/crime legislation
- other arguments that counter same-sex marriage approval
And for a satirical addition to Scrappleface´s joke on the issue, "NY Judge Bans Heterosexual Marriage" by Scott Ott:
"Homosexual marriage rests on the bedrock of judicial opinion," wrote Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, "But heterosexual marriage finds justification in little more than religious myth, antiquated tradition and a few unconstitutional state and local laws. These are all hollow arguments when compared with the firm foundation provided by a growing number of judges."
A voice of reason in the midst of these full-of-hate, bigoted conservatives. What courage! What moral stoutness!
As for you whinners that you can´t get deviantly married to the opposite sex, the problem is all in your head. It can be easily solved with a simple tax-deductible cross-sex operation (preferably paid by other people´s tax dollars). You have been brainwashed by some hetro activists that used your naivete to make you confused, but you know deep down that human nature is gay. And everyone who is anyone knows that humans reproduce children by artificial means. And if weren´t for the horrible repressive heterosexist culture, you´d have spent your lives in a sauna. God Almighty! The oppression of not being able to pass syphilis and AIDS to thousands of anonymous sex partners! How can we stand by it silently? We cannot tolerate it anymore. The time has come to outlaw hetro marrige, because the slippery slope is a dangerous thing. Homo marriage is about preserving mental health for the third millenium.
The truth of the matter is, as we topple and destroy heterosexism, truth unfolds. We now know everyone in history has always been a homo, Lincoln, Washington, Bush, Mother Theresa, even Teddy K. We are now an enlightened America.
As Noble Savage so nobly said, "I think this country needs to ban this outrage for the children." Every homo activist has always had the children in mind for everything they do. Finally, they have won.
Update feb 6-2005
This is from a book on interviews of kids of homo parents - I found this snippet telling:
Woman (25) Massachusetts, had a homosexual experience: "The year following my parents’ separation was a full one for my mother. I remember her going through periods of depression, during this time my mother came out as a lesbian.... I was having trouble spending the weekdays with lesbians, who discussed the evils of the patriarchy and the value of women-only space, and then spending an orthodox Shabbos with the other side of my family... [there was a custody fight ]
by junior high things were very bad at home... I was discouraged from having male friends, and any female friends were to be made aware that I lived in a lesbian household before I could have them over.... I experienced separatism as a constant level of anger and negativity.... men were called mutants, straight women were considered disowned sisters who wasted woman-energy on men, and other lesbians were sometimes accused of being government spies sent to infiltrate and undermine the community.
Anyone who was not like us was evil... [at age 14] I moved out and went to live in a lesbian boarding house.... I also learned to fear the world’s judgment, to see relationships as temporary, to be distrustful, and to withhold communication as a means of self- protection and punishment…. I see evidence of how emotionally detached I’ve become.… L and my mother… explained their parenting style by saying that the patriarchy was pushing me hard in one direction, and they wanted to counteract that pressure by pushing just as hard in the other.
I’m lucky I didn’t get squashed. I… was left with no appealing role models. I haven’t known who or what to strive to become.... When I have kids, I hope to do some things differently than she did…"
You can read many such interviews here:
from:
Children Of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties by
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron
Summary: 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
You read several of the interviews and it´s clear why.
Look at this:
Girl (7 yrs old) adopted: "When I was a little girl my two moms were lovers; then they broke up. Then L fell in love with someone else. Now L is lovers with A. Z is lovers with a man.... all my friends know I have two moms, but some of them think that one of them is my mom and one of them is my sister’s mom. But that’s not true. Both of them are my moms..... I don’t want to have a father.... When we were little we used to go back and forth and back and forth all the time, but now we stay at each house longer and it’s much better. It used to be exhausting….I don’t know if I want to be a lesbian."
A 7 yr old girl saying, "I don´t know if I want to be a lesbian," shows you some things about this culture.
And another "homo activists say it´s all for the children" interviews:
Girl (15), Michigan, heterosexual, with gay father and lesbian mother: parents were married and then got divorced. Mom "and C were together about four months... my mom dated for a long time. Then she started seeing N. She was with her for about three years… there was one woman that I was really close to, and when my mom broke up with her, it was really hard. That was when I decided not to get so close to mom and dad’s lovers.... it’s hard having two gay parents, because I can’t really talk to anybody about it.... Sometimes I think about being gay. At first, I thought my mom would love me more if I was gay.... I guess I’m straight right now. I don’t really know how old you have to be to know you’re gay. I guess it’s just when you know that’s what you are.... I would say I’m a feminist…. My mom is telling me about the political part of things…. I’m learning about women’s rights… I’ve gone to… the Gay Pride marches.Most of the adults I know are gay,.... I feel... probably more comfortable [with them] than if I was walking around with friends from school."
[I´ve copied here previous entry, which relates to same-sex marriage, with an update, to organize the subjects into one entry]
And continuing our series on "Why Homosexists are Wrong - Let Us Count the Ways:"
From American Spectator
Homo Sullivan quote:
As I've said many times, homosexuality is very easy to understand. It is exactly the same as heterosexuality, with the gender reversed. Gays, however, cannot expect straights to understand this all by themselves. It's up to us to explain, and keep explaining.
Ross Douthat:
This feels somewhat reductionist to me. It's one thing to say that homosexual attraction is more than mere sexual desire, and that it has an emotional component comparable to heterosexual ardor. But calling something "the same as heterosexuality, with the gender reversed" begs a very important question -- namely, what happens when you reverse the gender? Unless you think that men are the same as women, doesn't it stand to reason that male-female and male-male relationships are going to be very, very different? (And that the same will go for gay relationships versus lesbian relationships, for that matter?)
For that matter indeed. Heterosexuality is sacred. It is marvelous exactly because it is not a fanatical obsession with your own self/sex (coupled with a dysfunctional incapability of relating heterosexually to the opposite sex). We have two sexes and without the coming together of the two, we don´t have a human race.
Update jan-21-05:
From Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 16, 2004 - The end of the gay marriage debate?
Those of us who think this week's revolution is a terrible mistake need to do a much better job of explaining that the core question is not "Why shouldn't any couple in love be able to marry?" but something more essential: "What is marriage for?" We need to convey that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to unite men and women so that any children they may create or adopt will have a mom and a dad.
Marriage expresses a public judgment that every child deserves a mom and a dad. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that the sexual and emotional desires of adults count for more than the needs of children. Which message do we want the next generation to receive?
"Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that the sexual and emotional desires of adults count for more than the needs of children."
Not of any adults, but of homosexuals. In this society, homosexuals are considered much more important than children.
I think the biggest problem with a lot of conservative thought on same-sex marriage is that it has already fallen for the liberal-version-of-reality. Namely, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same, and consequently, homosexuals deserve the same rights in every way. The root of the problem starts there, not with discrimination of rights. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, neither should it be undestood or legitimized as such. That´s why the rights don´t apply in the same way. Homosexuality is a state of developmental dysfunction. Instead of society bending backwards to submit to every homosexual dysfunctional demand, it needs to rethink the basis for these claims in the first place.
If you posit that "there is nothing wrong or dysfunctional with homosexuality and that it equals heterosexuality," you cannot coherently argue that homosexuals do not have a right to everything heterosexuals have. The problem is this is false. It is a legitimating and equalizing homosexist tenet, not reality.
It is the same with obesity. A lot of obese children and adults are bullied and demeaned because of their weight problem. This is not right. However, the minute you have fat activists, not only complaining about this bashing, but claiming that there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with being obese (even extreme obesity), but, on the contrary, that it should be upheld as an example of health, society has fallen prey to a lie. And the minute people who say being obese is patently unhealthy are sued for a hate speech/thought crime or are labeled "full of hate," then you know that things have really gone awry.
[end of update]
The problem with homosexism is that it attempts to erase from conscience even the most basic truths about life and human beings. If you have dysfunctional people who cannot have healthy heterosexual relationships and they start to justify their homosexuality as being healthy, the only way they can do this is to go into denial about 99% of reality. Not to mention reason and logic.
It is exactly the same with justifications of pedophilia. What is the first thing that a pedophile activist will say about pedophilia? "It is just a misunderstood form of love. And the pedophile attraction itself is healthy."
Instead of going to deal with all their problems, they just want to legalize and legitimize them. Anyone who questions the gay agenda is demonized with utmost hatred and violence.
We are seeing more and more examples of gay activists having turned into dogmatic control freaks – they will listen to no one. Most people who do not endorse homosexuality have no hate in their hearts. But society must bow down to every gay dogma or they will burn you at the “fake-hate” stake. Homos are manipulative peaceful. If you don´t submit to what they want, they turn ugly and vicious and bash people with other viewpoints to the point of destroying careers, lives, and reputations. This is something they “forget” to mention when playing the victim card.
Another related problem with legitimizing homo and bisexuality that is hardly ever mentioned, finally gets a bit of attention at the American Scene. Incidentally, I can remember having a conversation about this problem no less than 7-8 yrs ago:
Ross Douthat:
There's an increasingly commonplace belief, at least in the circles where I move, that anything the least bit odd (or "queer," if you will) in a male personality is best explained as a function of repressed homosexuality. If someone's the least bit effeminate, they're definitely gay; if they're bookish and sensitive, they're probably a closet case; and if they have any moral hangups about sex, especially if they're religious (I'll admit this last hits close to home), they're probably just repressing their shameful urges toward man-on-man action.
Thanks to homo activists wanting to shove homosexuality down society´s throat, this has become an obsession not only for slandering men as homos, but women as dykes in similar fashion. And it causes serious distress and damage to the targeted people. Obviously, no one cares about this, and the notion of people having a right to be "safe" from this is inexistent.
But if someone like Douthat is addressing it, it´s because it has gotten really bad. People would rather run away from the problem and what it entails, in order to continue fanatically legitimizing homosexuality.
None of this kind of stereotyping is new, of course -- it's the stock-in-trade of the high school locker room, and a reason why growing up can be so miserable for non-jockish, sensitive boys (gay and straight alike). But it's disconcerting to see it crop up among educated, well-meaning, self-consciously tolerant people...
The problem is what Douthat calls "educated, well-meaning, self-consciously tolerant people" are really just very ignorant, irresponsible, malicious, and arrogant people with a bloated idea of themselves. Pro-homosexuals have in many, many ways an extremely locker-room mind towards sexuality. And they think themselves so "progressive" and "hip" for it. Not to mention the self-righteousness.
This is one of the most striking social engineering features that homo activism has achieved in society. Additionally, thanks to a mix of the women´s movement with a new very sexist liberal culture, this male homosexist locker-room mindset has shaped more and more women´s and girls attitudes. We see a lot of young women specially who are a photocopy of this guys locker room type, even if they are not jocks themselves.
What's being erased is any masculine middle ground -- the ground of sturdy, affectionate male friendships, of gentlemanly conduct toward women, of unapologetic intellectualism. Or maybe it already has been erased. None of this is the fault of homosexuality, exactly . . . and as I'm sure Andrew would point out, telling gays to stay in the closet so that heterosexual men can feel comfortable with themselves isn't really an appealing option. But it's a depressing trend nonetheless -- particularly, I suspect, for the hetero women stuck choosing between frat boys and emo boys.
One thing at a time:
"What's being erased is any masculine middle ground -- the ground of sturdy, affectionate male friendships,"
"sturdy, affectionate male friendships" is what you have in heterosexuality. And it was not only that this was being erased, it´s being destroyed by forcing homosexuality into society as norm. Same for heterosexual friendships and women.
"of gentlemanly conduct toward women," - I think this depends on what circles you move in. It´s too hard to generalize one way or another, but I don´t see how it relates to homosexual social engineering.
"unapologetic intellectualism" - I don´t know what he was referring to here, criminalization of thought because of hate crime legislation?
"as I'm sure Andrew would point out, telling gays to stay in the closet so that heterosexual men can feel comfortable with themselves isn't really an appealing option." - It´s not a question of lying about your problems (i.e., closeting them). You go deal with your dysfunctions and then you are no longer homosexual and you don´t blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with problems that you have.
Very, very similar to the SM defenders in this discussion.
Update Feb 6-2005
From comment on thread regarding same-sex marriage in Scrappleface:
Since 1973 the issue of declaring homosexuality OK by the APA has never been fully discussed.
And the same man who was instrumental in doing that, Dr. Spitzer, later did a bunch of studies that show sexual orientation is not unchangeable, presented in 2001:
"Contrary to conventional wisdom," he says, "some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning."
He added that change from homosexual to heterosexual is not usually a matter of "either/or," but exists on a continuum--that is, a diminishing of homosexuality and an expansion of heterosexual potential that is exhibited in widely varying degrees.
But, Dr. Spitzer said, his findings suggest that complete change--cessation of all homosexual fantasies and attractions (which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in most therapies) is probably uncommon. Still, when subjects did not actually change sexual orientation--for example, their change had been one of behavioral control and self-identity, but no significant shift in attractions--they still reported an improvement in overall emotional health and functioning.
This study is believed to be the most detailed investigation of sexual orientation change to date, in that it assessed a variety of homosexual indicators. Previous studies have usually assessed only one or two dimensions of sexual orientation, such as behavior and attraction.
However the media and homo activists drum, shout, yell the first APA statement, and persecute, hush, censor the second.
Do the words intolerant and bigoted come to mind?
Also, the above parallels a lot of psychological reports of pedophiles, i.e. how much they can change.
I think psychology is what needs to evolve, if it is ever going to aid these people. And notice that motivation is key. And how many studies that add to the above have yet to be done?
from Narth (a really good organization, btw)
Comments:
Post a Comment
