Posted on 06/28/2007 8:09:34 PM PDT by Salman
Edited on 06/28/2007 8:14:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting post. Genotypes and phenotypes and slurs against Jamie Lee Curtis aside, I think the bottom line is fraud.
The A-gay view of the world is, we are led to infer, Nietzschean amusement at lesser mortals laced with a more general contempt for breeders and impatience with the hash they have made of society. And therefore "we" (the gay A-list) are determined to rule, of necessity by cabal at first, but later on with an iron fist in a breathlessly fetching velvet glove that the breeders won't even notice, although they will be somewhat disappointed that so many of their most promising young Adonises will, somehow, become gay before they reach high school.
</Michael Swift rant>
In the first place I doubt seriously whether, off the set of Will and Grace, "most" or even many gays knew more about shoes than their mothers did before they reached high school, or that they are inevitably trendier and more au courant with fashion, taste, and style (please explain leather men, mud men, and the S&M scene, then). The idea that they are somehow ascendent in all the arts owes more, I think, to cabal and viciousness than to native ability, accomplishment, and style. Gays have formed "gay villages" in society by exclusion and the black arts of the eunuch that were already old and corrupt in the time of Honorius. If there is any ascendency there, it is that of the practiced liar, singing with a chorus of liars the wider society to deceive.
The root of the problem is, I think, woven of three separate strands. First is the phenotype/genotype problem you refer to, second is a psychological component whose study has been suppressed (not discouraged -- suppressed) by the agenda-driven essentialists who rolled the American Psychiatric Association in 1972 and whose political guard dogs control all the committees on sexual identity and its psychology ever since (and yet a substantial plurality of psych workers are still sure that such a component is present), and third is the role of seduction and, frankly, tampering by homosexual adults, very many of whom report that their own sexualization was accomplished by adults who reached them before they had had sexual relations with the other sex. Gays themselves acknowledge this tampering role among themselves but lie about it like dogs in political discourse, in favor of an essentialist "party line" that is subordinated to the drive for a Supreme Court decree of moral equality.
To answer your question at last then, the destination is the door of the Supreme Court and a winner-take-all fight for the truth, as against what the gays want to do.
They will either prevail or fall short there, with the help of gay Supreme Court associate justice(s) and clerks, assisted as usual by the intermeddling of Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard, who back-channels to his former students clerking for the Justices and suggests to them useful precedents to bring forward to the Justices' attention, as he has done in any number of cases previously and as, I have no moral doubt, in the Lawrence decision as well, in which the Supreme Court amazingly reversed its own precedent of only 17 years' standing.
Because it defines the environment in which their children, society's children, grow up.
And that, as they say, is the ball game.
“Feminism Made Me A Lesbian.”
course, it’s not proof....
Nope there is nothing different. It anymore than changing ones favorite color or food.
The difference is that those who prefer this behaviour want a special and protected status.
The acting out on homosexual behaviour is physiologically, mentally and emotionally damaging to the person acting out and to societal strength as a whole.
Further there are these silly attempts to demonize people who are trying to help those who VOLUNTARILY choose to quit the behaviour.
You said they are just like us but decided not to be, at least sexually.
Could you decide to not be turned on by a hot chick giving you a lap dance? If so, you’re a better man -— and maybe a latent homosexual — than I am.
Well, to the extent that you can believe any studies...the studies that have been done suggest that this is not so, especially as relates to the variation of partners.
As a side-effect, there are numerous diseases that are so much more prevalent in homosexuals, that derive from sexual behavior, that they are regarded as markers of homosexuality. The famous LaVey study that purported to have identified a difference in brain structure of homosexuals didn't know the actual homosexuality of the subject, but rather derived it from the diseases the corpses had...and there was no significant argument on that account.
Before the federal government stopped doing the studies, the evidence suggested that the average homosexual had sex with roughly 7-8 times as many partners per year as the average heterosexual did in a lifetime.
Name the exact moment you made a conscious decision to be physically attracted to the opposite sex, and I'll take it back.
This statement takes mankind down to the level of animals that can't ignore instinct. If you repeatedly tell man that he is no better than an animal, he won't be. Most of us strive to be the best that we can be and acting on "animal urges" isn't part of that.
I said nothing ot the sort. And your veiled attempts to get me angry are failing.
So I must insist, you my friend are a much better latent homosexual than I.
I cannot believe that this represents all the leaders of Exodus or speaks for all the joiners of Exodus. Anyone know anything of ths?
> vaudine
Just trying to keep up with the twists and turns of the slippery assertion that we choose that which arouses us.
Much as I’d like to believe it, I am also unable to choose what I believe. I arrive at what I believe through reasoning, not the diktats of milennia-old middle easterners. My bad, I suppose. Have a good evening.
vaudine
you too. Of course is there really such a thing as good? Can I choose a good evening or not?
Would I know it if it was a good evening? If I am having a bad evening would it be possible to change my perspective so that the same evening which was perceived as bad is now perceived as good?
Is it right of you to try to force a “good evening” upon me? What if I am a “bad evening phile”?
Can anyone really even say what an evening is? Probably only a bunch of centuries old middle easterners...
So I guess have what ever sort of evening you are going to have... IF you want to which you could help want or not wa..............
Exactly right,
3!! Who from the sounds of this so called apology, probably did what activists have been doing for centuries. Divide and conquer. Destroy from within. There was a plan in place, make no mistake about it. Heck they pulled it off with the APA for heaven sake, why would Exodus be any different. They are trying it with Churches all over the world, and even conquering in some.
Concise, and to the point!! Great explanation for those who cannot see the simple reality!
Why do guys get a thrill out of lesbians? I have never understood that.
Ha! But seriously, this is really sad. They were gay; changed their mind because they thought it was wrong; and now they think it’s right. The Bible is clear on the subject. On the other hand, God loves them.
I guess it depends on what they do with their arousal. If the porn stimulates a guy sufficient to make love to a gal, he’d be hetero. Same goes for S&M.
It is part of the feminization of sads that makes room, so to speak, for the intrusion of the hijacked masculine.
To answer your question in another way, the type of porn that creates arousal would be the tipoff. Gay porn wouldn’t do much for a straight. And S&M ... well, I have a hard time thinking of that as sex at all, much less what kind.
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.