Saturday, May 21, 2005
Sexual Orientation Equated to Sexuality and Lifestyle - Again
Gay men's chorus ad pulled from newspaper
A few things struck me about the above article, published in a pro-homo activist publication, the Advocate.
The major one is the attempt by pro-homos to frame every form of discernment and choice by society regarding what will be promoted as a healthy lifestyle as a form of discrimination. This attempt can only be achieved if pro-homos equate human sexuality and lifestyle with sexual orientation. The newspaper above did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, but on behavior, lifestyle, and sexuality. These are very different things. Pro-homos have made it one of the pillars of their political cult to disingenuously treat them all as equal.
As I have written before:
The aggregate of sexuality/behavior/lifestyle is very different than the minimal, murky, dumbed-down concept of sexual orientation. If the paper had rejected an ad for a BDSM Choir, it would have been similar. People do not choose to have a violent sexual orientation, neither are they born with it. It is a dysfunctional development, just like some aspects of homosexuality. Therefore, to say that society can no longer discriminate based on behavior, lifestyle, political activism, and sexuality is to deny a most fundamental human right of discernment to society. This has nothing to do with discrimination that "denies someone their humanity." And is that a sugary, melodramatic distortion of the paper's reason to reject the ad or what?
Mainly what homo activists have done is to apply the following manipulative logic:
This is absurd and a full violation of human agency, not to mention how it violates fundamental religious precepts.
Another issue that relates to the above article is regarding how society is panicky and uncomfortable with the reality of bisexuals. From personal observation, I have seen more bisexuals than homosexuals in society (and if researchers would ever get their act together regarding more precise stats on the issue, we would have the numbers confirmation), yet the media/political noise that homos are making far exceeds bisexuals. Not only that, bisexuals are currently made invisible while homos are propped up in the spotlight. One very clear explanation to this phenomenon is that society (meaning the bulk of heterosexuals) loves to think in terms of a "us versus them" category, with clean, very marked divisions. Which also explains why so many people are dying to believe in the homo gene theory. And why people usually brand all married folks as heterosexual and all single adults past a certain age who don't have a partner as closeted homos.
As a recent example, at the gym I go to, I went to ask a (married) woman who has been going to the gym a long time if she knew what the marital status of a certain guy was. Her reply was, "No, I have never heard him talk about a wife, never, and... if someone here isn't married then it's obvious they're homosexual. So that's what he must be."
After that second of shock in hearing exactly how most people stereotype others but usually don't say it outloud, I said, "Well, he can't be homosexual, at the most bisexual." This is what I was able to mutter, being so struck and sickened with the possibility that the man in question might not be straight as I had been thinking. It was the first time the thought had crossed my mind.
She was totally puzzled, "Why do you say that?"
"Because he was flirting with me, a lot." I replied.
And then she expressed total shock at my reply and I realized why. Guess what category she had dumped me in as well?
Good God, it's like living in the Middle Ages with these retards and the grossest, most primitive stereotypical thinking humans can muster.
.
The Buffalo [N.Y.] Jewish Review newspaper has refused to run an advertisement featuring the Buffalo Gay Men's Chorus because it "might influence young people to experiment with a sexual lifestyle that could be harmful to their health," says the newspaper's editor, Rita Weiss.
"On a very practical basis, there is the possibility of influencing some young people whose sexual development is not yet complete," she told the Buffalo News. "They could get AIDS. They could try out a lifestyle that is life-threatening."
Weiss told the newspaper that she is also concerned about "the perpetuation of the Jewish people" in the face of demographic trends, including young Jews who stay in the gay lifestyle. "They can't produce children," she said. "And you can't build a people with adoption."
[...]
Temple Beth Zion rabbi Harry Rosenfeld and Stuart G. Lerman said that "to exclude or oppress members of our community because of their sexual orientation would be denying their humanity."
"The reason given was that the paper did not want to condone homosexual behavior," they wrote. "The editor made it clear that, in her opinion, publishing the ad would offend subscribers."
A few things struck me about the above article, published in a pro-homo activist publication, the Advocate.
The major one is the attempt by pro-homos to frame every form of discernment and choice by society regarding what will be promoted as a healthy lifestyle as a form of discrimination. This attempt can only be achieved if pro-homos equate human sexuality and lifestyle with sexual orientation. The newspaper above did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, but on behavior, lifestyle, and sexuality. These are very different things. Pro-homos have made it one of the pillars of their political cult to disingenuously treat them all as equal.
As I have written before:
Human sexuality is the full aggregate of a person´s psychology (both conscious and unconscious), their intellectual thinking, their attitudes, their values, their desires, their dysfunctions, their emotions, and their behaviors about sex/body/intimacy. It is like equating a button on your computer to the entire computer. Human sexuality encompasses sexual orientation along with millions of other things and can never be equated.
The aggregate of sexuality/behavior/lifestyle is very different than the minimal, murky, dumbed-down concept of sexual orientation. If the paper had rejected an ad for a BDSM Choir, it would have been similar. People do not choose to have a violent sexual orientation, neither are they born with it. It is a dysfunctional development, just like some aspects of homosexuality. Therefore, to say that society can no longer discriminate based on behavior, lifestyle, political activism, and sexuality is to deny a most fundamental human right of discernment to society. This has nothing to do with discrimination that "denies someone their humanity." And is that a sugary, melodramatic distortion of the paper's reason to reject the ad or what?
Mainly what homo activists have done is to apply the following manipulative logic:
To discriminate based on sexual orientation is wrong, therefore society must accept homosexuals regarding their sexuality (not just sexual orientation), which includes all the behaviors and all the lifestyles and all the political activism of all homosexuals, otherwise you are discriminating against "the person and their humanity."
This is absurd and a full violation of human agency, not to mention how it violates fundamental religious precepts.
Another issue that relates to the above article is regarding how society is panicky and uncomfortable with the reality of bisexuals. From personal observation, I have seen more bisexuals than homosexuals in society (and if researchers would ever get their act together regarding more precise stats on the issue, we would have the numbers confirmation), yet the media/political noise that homos are making far exceeds bisexuals. Not only that, bisexuals are currently made invisible while homos are propped up in the spotlight. One very clear explanation to this phenomenon is that society (meaning the bulk of heterosexuals) loves to think in terms of a "us versus them" category, with clean, very marked divisions. Which also explains why so many people are dying to believe in the homo gene theory. And why people usually brand all married folks as heterosexual and all single adults past a certain age who don't have a partner as closeted homos.
As a recent example, at the gym I go to, I went to ask a (married) woman who has been going to the gym a long time if she knew what the marital status of a certain guy was. Her reply was, "No, I have never heard him talk about a wife, never, and... if someone here isn't married then it's obvious they're homosexual. So that's what he must be."
After that second of shock in hearing exactly how most people stereotype others but usually don't say it outloud, I said, "Well, he can't be homosexual, at the most bisexual." This is what I was able to mutter, being so struck and sickened with the possibility that the man in question might not be straight as I had been thinking. It was the first time the thought had crossed my mind.
She was totally puzzled, "Why do you say that?"
"Because he was flirting with me, a lot." I replied.
And then she expressed total shock at my reply and I realized why. Guess what category she had dumped me in as well?
Good God, it's like living in the Middle Ages with these retards and the grossest, most primitive stereotypical thinking humans can muster.
.
