Posted on 01/01/2005 3:36:30 AM PST by Lindykim
In a recent debate between myself and some radical homosexuals, one of them asked me, by way of refutation whose implicit intentions were to convince me that I am a 'hateful homophobe' and also to persuade me that homosexual behavior is a 'natural orientation," if and when I had 'chosen' to be heterosexual. "Was it at age 3, 6, 13, 19?" he asked, "Or did you (a female) just 'naturally' gravitate towards boys or men without any outside pressure or force?"
My response:
There was no 'choice'........there was never any question........it simply occured as naturally as breathing air. Now for yourself, 'something' occured that interfered with your natural progression towards manhood that, in effect, stunted this natural process in much the same way as a baby duck can have its natural progression towards becoming a mature duck interfered with. This usually occurs when a human causes the chick to imprint upon the human rather than upon an adult duck. So does the 'interference' with natural progression make the baby duck into something other than a duck? That the chick seems to believe itself to be, and even tries to be human make it human in fact? Of course not. It's still a duck in every sense of what it means to be a duck. Just as you are still a heterosexual despite that you believe you are 'something else'.
Should duck society and the laws of nature by which that society exists be overturned and forced to become upside-down in order to accomodate improperly imprinted ducks? Of course not. That would be insane. Just as it is dangerously insane for "improperly imprinted" human beings to demand that heterosexual society and the laws of nature by which it needs to exist should be turned upside-down in order to accomodate them.
What happened to the duck was wrong. What happened to you was not just wrong, but horribly tragic. However, for the greater good of our civilization, you and others like you should not be advocating that society and the innocence of childhood be swept aside and made to accept that "improper imprintation" is somehow a 'good' thing. Although you ardently wish to pretend otherwise, you do know deep down inside yourself that it isn't.
What you should be doing.......for the GOOD of all mankind and most especially for children........is learning {gaining wisdom} from your suffering in order that you can PREVENT what happened to you from happening to other children. That would be not just love, but agape, the highest form of love........love that calls for self-denial and self-sacrifice for the good of others
Interesting take on the issue - I like it.
It's simple logic and common sense.......something desperately needed in these times of madness.
Was it at age 3, 6, 13, 19?" he asked, "Or did you (a male) just 'naturally' gravitate towards girls or women without any outside pressure or force?"
======
Being an immensely intelligent preborn (fetus) belly traveler, I avoided all the ridiculous "after effects" by solidly soldering my male sexual choice firmly in place immediately upon discovering my itsy bitsy teeny weeny third leg... which became rock solid each and every time a young female voice came booming through the overhead covering that I later discovered was my mommy's belly.
Hence, I was exceedingly happy to born as a horny young baby boy... so... LEAVE THIS HORNY BABY BOY ALONE! Which is to say, go and try to ram your queer crap up someone else's arse... cuz it ain't gonna work with me !!!
A few years ago I had a hen that would raise one family after the other. She went so far as to steal some glass Christmas ornaments from the box in the loft of the barn and tried to hatch them. I knew she was desperate and since I didn't have a rooster at the time (flogged my husband one time too many) I decided to find her some fertile eggs to hatch. The only ones I could find were duck eggs. She sat on the duck eggs and successfully hatched them. After a week or so, when they were big enough to let out in the barn yard, she was strutting around proudly showing off her new family when she decided to show them where to get a drink. Behind the barn was a small pond that all the animals used for water. She approached the pond with her new babies and when her "chicks" saw the pond they immediately charged and hit the water at a full run. Mama hen ran up and down the bank screeching and flapping her wings, trying to save her babies from drowning. The baby ducks were imprinted by the chicken and were being raised as chickens but they still knew they were ducks.
snip...it's still my opinion that most know that what their doing isn't "natural" and that they aren't "born that way".
Agreed....absolutely! There's no way they can't know that what they're doing is wrong. Simple observation informs them that what they're drawn to is abnormal. They can see that everywhere around them, the vast majority of males and females are pair-bonding as naturally as breathing.
Nature also informs them that what they're drawn to is abnormal. Throughout the history of mankind, has there ever been even one recorded instance of a stallion deserting his mares in order to take up with other stallions? Or lions deserting lionesses? Of course not. And another thing that informs them that what they're drawn to is unnatural is their deep conscience. It's there that resides the shame and guilt they so desperately wish to ignore but can't. And in an effort to escape the knowledge of their guilt and shame, they've transferred it to heterosexuals.
They've made us the guilty party.
"but they still knew they were ducks."
Exactly!!!!
LOL, that is a true story and I thought it fit your post to a T. :-)
Hummmm.......interesting.
By that logic why wouldn't a homosexual man be attracted to a naked, voluptuous woman?
Or are they, and have squelched that desire by convincing themselves that they're not?
I've got to admit, it's as difficult for me to relate to a homosexual's desire for another man as it would be to imagine a sexual desire for my mother.
So, I guess if those are stiletto heels, you would call them "duck me shoes?"
Sorry, couldn't resist
"Was it at age 3, 6, 13, 19?" he asked, "Or did you (a female) just 'naturally' gravitate towards boys or men without any outside pressure or force?"
These questions seem like a choice is involved. It is my opinion that homosexuality is learned behavior.
Many are. They are bisexual. In fact, I think most homosexuals can and do go either way. I'm convinced that it's a learned behavior, addiction or some other mental problem. That's just my opinion though. It would be nearly impossible to ever convince me that they are born that way. I would have to see scientific proof and I don't think that will happen. As hard as they have tried, they haven't done it yet.
Why are heterosexual men sexually stimulated by two women making love?
Why is not the same revulsion present that they exhibit toward two men making love?
I agree that it's a learned behavior. I simply don't understand it.
If homosexuality is caused by a distinct gene, how do homo's perpetuate it since they cannot reproduce? The answer...activist bullshit.
Sometimes I just marvel at the wit provided free of charge on FR...!
If the gay movement was carried forward only by the homosexuals themselves, it would amount to nothing. But this isn't the case. What we have is the homo-movement getting unquestioned support & encouragement from the ruling elites in media, music/film, universities, government, mainstream churches, and so on.
To the elites, the homos are an extension of the sexual revolution, the purpose of which was to undermind the family and religion. And why? Because, strong families & religion are a threat to the expansion of the state, overwhich th elites have inordinate control. If people can be diaassociated from their families & God, then they become "individuals" or atoms. Then slowly but surely, these "individuals" look to the state as their family just like the improperly imprinted ducks follow the farmer as if he was their mother.
People who indulge their lust over reason are unable to really govern themselves as set out in the U.S. Constitution.
The equation is this: Sexual licence leads inevitably to a bigger, stronger, more intrusive state. This is why the the Left is so gung-ho for homo rights. In this context, it can be seen that the homosexual movement is a threat to our freedom.
And of course, homosexuals are supported by liberals for another, more selfish reason. If behavior as perverted & disgusting as homoxexuality can be legitimized, then the immorality practiced by the elites pale in comparasion. The Hollywood bubble-heads and Teddy Kennedy come out looking not so bad.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
One thing I have noticed is that people don't seem to get as upset with lesbians as they do homosexual men. That could be why some heterosexual men don't mind, or even enjoy, watching two women together. I don't see a difference and I'll never understand either one. :-(
Should someone call PETA?
I hate gay ducks.
How can you tell if a duck's gay? I got to know. I've got two in the freezer we're about to eat.
Happy New Year!
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.