Tag Archives: homosexuality

Catering to the under 4% – Homosexuality in America

640px-Westerkerk_-_Gay_symbols_2

640px-Westerkerk_-_Gay_symbols_2
Lately it seems that one cannot start to read the news without one item or another talking about gay rights, marriage, adoption, or entertainment. On the latter, Slate offers a column that borders on mourning for the loss of some programs that featured gay characters. As it stands, based on actual population, television still will be offering viewers a stilted view of society, with more than 4% of the characters in a given show being gay. Yes, that may seem harsh, but reality often is.

And before latching onto that particular statistic too much, one needs to understand what the Williams Institute at UCLA did to reach that particular conclusion. Their numbers include individuals that self-identify as gay, transsexual, lesbian, or bi-sexual – the latter they admit holds a simple majority. But, even that is misleading, because their standards for having this “sexual identity” simply involves admitting to same-sex attraction at some point in adult life – apparently not necessarily acting physically on said attractions. Now, uncomfortable as it may be for some to admit, same-sex attraction is normal, as in every human being experiences it at least once in life, typically in early childhood. That attraction is how normal gender identity is developed, as in a child is attracted to an adult of the same sex, and seeks to emulate that individual’s behavior. It occasionally happens later in life (without ending in sexual behaviors) for essentially the same reasons. People occasionally end up with crises in their lives, and become attracted to other individuals they would like to emulate – people they perceive as more successful, for example. So, the Williams Institute might very well be inflating the number of non-heterosexual adults in America, by including individuals that simply have some degree of attraction for others of the same sex, but no intention of ever acting on it.

Before moving on from the “Psychology 101″ concepts here, there has been a video floating around, offering what many are calling anecdotal evidence that a lesbian couple should have the right to marry, because they were obviously such wonderful parents to their son.

Riley Roberts probably does believe every word he said. What struck me immediately was his emotional reactions. It might be tempting to rationalize that as nervousness and an extreme emotional reaction due to his personal attachment to the issue at hand. However, what if Roberts is living, breathing proof of the problem with a male child not having male role models early in life? Regardless, his situation remains anecdotal at best, and now that I’ve pointed out the oddity of his over-wrought testimony, I have no doubt that contention will spread, perhaps in the form of some comments on his being “over-feminized” as a result of having two mothers. That is not my intent here. It is my intent to point out that policy decisions should never be made purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Additionally, while government in theory should protect the rights of minorities, that should not mean normalizing a behavior that increasingly is showing that it will result in harm to others.

And that brings us to another headline involving gays – the Boy Scouts of America partially reversed a policy forbidding gay scouts or adult leaders. Gays are still banned from being leaders. As for the boys, it is essentially a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that permits gay members, but forbids discussion of sexuality, and as should go without saying, forbids sexual behaviors. While gays might consider this some great victory, it may very well cause severe problems for the organization – may very well spell the end of it. Or, it may force the issue of religion within the ranks. While not all units have religious affiliations, there is a religious aspect to the programming. Honestly, it is surprising that over the years, the BSA never did explicitly re-charter itself as a religious organization, since the leadership obviously had to know that this battle would have happened sooner or later. Exclusion based on religious tenets is protected by the First Amendment. Regardless, this is something that proves yet again that the liberal public and media are nothing if not schizophrenic. Turn back the clock 20 years, and they were screaming to the rafters about molestation by scout leaders. Now they’re screaming that the BSA needs to inject sexual content into their programming by allowing “out and proud” gays in the organization. Bonus points will be given to anyone that can manage a logical explanation for that shift!

And since we’re hovering near the concept of corrupting the morals of minors, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the case of Kaitlyn Hunt. Romanticizing an 18-year-old girl going after a much younger girl, against the wishes of that girl’s parents, is barely better than turning a blind eye on arranged child marriages in Islam. That may seem a harsh assessment, but it is truthful. And as for the cries that Hunt’s life will be ruined if she is marked as a sex offender, that’s probably what really is needed, if the facts do turn out as reported – that she continued to attempt to engage in sexual behaviors with the younger girl after being told by the girl’s parents twice to stop. Let’s not forget what we’re talking about here – sexual behavior that is considered “normal” by less than 4% of the population of this country, so therefore, by definition, it is aberrant sexual behavior to at least 96% of the population (maybe more, in the cases of those who practice these activities, but still recognize that it’s not necessarily normal.)

I am not promoting the homosexual answer to racism here – this isn’t homophobia. It is a statement of facts, uncomfortable as they may be for homosexuals. There is nothing normal about feeling a compulsion to push one’s sexual preferences on the masses, proudly flouting societal conventions. In case someone got confused here, the only people that think heterosexual people wander around showing off their sexuality are homosexuals. And again, heterosexuals are the majority. Life isn’t always fair. In this case, the minority is doing more harm than good. Maybe it could be a little more tolerable if instead of attempting to normalize their lifestyle choices, they would freely admit that their real difference. Stop making children speak on their behalf. Stop suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with attempting to influence impressionable teens toward their choices. Yes, it is a choice – to force one’s lifestyle on the masses, or to some degree of modesty, self-respect, and respect for others by not trying to play this game. Take the hint – “The New Normal” was cancelled.

Eagle Scout and his son bike 1,800 miles to protest Boy Scout gay ban

soldiers_bike_bsa_equality

The Boy Scout Oath:

“On my honor I will do my best …. to keep myself physically strong, mentally alert and morally straight.”

There is a definite battle within the Boy Scouts of America, challenging their Timeless Values! Now, even an Eagle Scout is doing all he can to challenge those values, which were founded 103 years ago!

What happened to morally straight? Oh yes, it is the complete opposite of the homosexual lifestyle! The gay community, though they only comprise approximately 3.5% of the Nation’s population, insists that the straight population (96.5% of the Nation’s population!) change to please their ways! It is a choice they make, yet they expect everyone to bow to their demands!

I am sure it won’t be long before the Boy Scouts of America bends to the whims and demands of the homosexual community! If not now, in the near future! They Left is militant in their pursuit.

This Eagle Scout and his son protested the current ban by riding their bikes 1,800 miles. They arrived at Boy Scout headquarters in Irving, Texas yesterday.

Facebook Post from their page, Old Scout’s Promise:

old_scouts_promise_about

 

Homophobic Contradictions: The Government, Darwin And Jesus

Creation_vs_evolution

 

 

A T-shirt slogan that caught my attention last week, “Jesus is not a homophobe” so intrigued me I googled the word homophobe and according to internet lore it was coined in the sixties by George Weinberg, a Gay activist and psychologist who defined it as an irrational fear of homosexuals, a contagion of sorts. Boy, how things have changed. I don’t fear catching the lifestyle, but wrath from the LGBT agenda, now that’s another story.

The word Homophobe has since evolved from it’s clinical definition to the role of a de-humanizing slang-shooting weapon when referring to people of faith; particularly Christians by those in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community, and now recently the Obama administration has joined in on the assault. Is it not always the case that the folks most involved in helping those who are hurting often seem to get the brunt end of the stick ?

So exactly what should governments role be in the matter ? Let me borrow a phrase from Jay Warner Wallace at Please Convince me. Should the government permit Gay marriage ? Should they even go further and promote it ? Or simply prohibit it ? Those are all questions for all of us to figure out, but each one of those questions have consequences. I think we can figure them out right out of the gate.

I see a contradiction in our government supporting the LGBT community and Gay marriage while holding fast philosophically to Darwinian Evolution. A belief in Darwinism is a belief against same sex marriage, and the Gay community–no way around it. Remember The United States government made a philosophical commitment to Darwinian Evolution starting in 1962-(63) when they essentially threw out school prayer and the Bible, thus Creationism as a popular view of our origins began its steep decent. So no surprise we are discussing this.

Let’s think about science for a moment. The very definition of Darwinian Evolution concerning humanity essentially says; mankind evolved from a combination of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection in such a way so that the survival of the fittest is afforded the right of reproduction. All those in the animal kingdom failing to reproduce the right genes will disappear into extinction. Not a pleasant thought.

So hear this clearly: according to Natural Selection, the major stanchion of Darwinian evolution; is also the damming component that makes support for same sex relationships as a continuing advancement to civil society,  biologically futile. Bottom-line is that same sex couples can not reproduce and thus have no future from a purely Darwinian evolutionary perspective. The Obama administrations support for same-sex relationships is purely political and nothing else.

If your in the LGBT community this is bad news— according to Darwin extinction is the Gay communities destiny; and in the interim they are being played like chess pieces by the Obama political machine. To say it another way–your’e being punk’d.  Yet, the very people you despise–Christians, have been telling you the truth–that Gay and Lesbian behavior is just that–behavior that can and should be changed not according to me, but according to the Creator of the Universe.

Jesus promoted a heterosexual lifestyle. The Bible is chock full of both warnings against this behavior and many others as well. However it is also filled with encouragement, and a way out of the same-sex bondage. Please hear me–there is a way out! Our current government, and Darwinism are not filled with anything but tyranny, strife, and extinction if you take them seriously—I don’t for most of it, but the inability to reproduce from same-sex couples is a fact as well as the Biblical immorality of it. Please think through your decision making and turn from the Gay life style.

Finally, as I think back to the slogan, “Jesus is not a homophobe” I do agree that he was not, and no one who follows Jesus should be either. I can’t say I have been perfect in this. I certainly have my list of sins I have wrestled with, but if I want to follow Jesus’ example then I need to tell the truth even if it is not popular. No, Jesus is not a homophobe  he is a straight talking savior.  Promoting marriage between a man and a women makes biological and ethical sense, don’t you agree ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R.I.P. Marine Corps – November 10, 1775 – September 20, 2011

For almost 236 years, the United States Marines has served our country with valor, honor, perseverance and clarity of goal – to preserve and protect the great nation known as the United States and all that live within her. Their heroism is legendary, first in, last to leave. Grunts, jarheads – terms we use affectionately, yet they describe the often unbelievable working conditions and sacrifices these men and women have made throughout the young history of our Republic.

Sadly, today marks a pivotal day in the history of the Corps as well as the other braches of our military. As of 12:01 this morning, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces

Is the Marine Corps now defunct? No. Will it collapse overnight? No. Will it (and the other forces) cease to be the most powerful in the world? Probably not. Will their efficiency, numbers and dependability fall off because of this? Perhaps – and that is what is of great concern.

There are scarce few, who have opposed homosexuals serving in the military, that would argue that they can’t do as good of job as heterosexuals or that they don’t have a right to defend their country. This isn’t the point.

We live in a society where being counter-culture or going against the norm has not only become popular, but militant. Contrary to rhetoric, atheists have always had the right to be atheists, but it has only been recently that they have begun to beat us over the head with it. The same can be said for certain sects of homosexuals who insist on forcing it onto the public (when most REALLY don’t care one way or another) and insist that we “accept” it as just another “normal” lifestyle.

Aside from the fact that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is contrary to the procreation of the species, it also is contrary to most of the belief systems of the world. Does our 1st amendment protect the minority? Yes, but one must ask if this protection extends to those who are minority by choice and at this point there is nothing to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic certainty. In essence, it is a choice. We could argue that for a long time – let’s get back to the military implications.

Military experts will tell you that the way to keep casualties down in a conflict is to not just defeat your opponent, but to basically kick the crap out of them in the fastest time possible. The widely lampooned term, “shock and awe” is quite accurate. This is how you get an enemy that swore that we would “swim in our own blood”, to surrender to the nearest camera crew, like what happened in the gulf wars. A fighting force that is just barely the best is going to have a long, protracted, bloody war with their adversary. The body count inevitably will skyrocket.

So it is not enough that we are better than the next guy, it is enough only when we are the best we can possibly be. In other words, if you can’t fully trust the guy in the foxhole with you, more people will die. This may or may not end up being significant in terms of this issue, but consider the cost of being wrong.

The other factor is that of the military being used as a social experiment. Imagine how shocked you may have been after seeing Top Gun in the late 80’s, running out and joining the service for all the wonderful work and educational experience (which is indeed wonderful), only to find out that when crackpots like Saddam Hussein pop up, you may actually have to go to war. Would you find great solace in knowing that your military had been sensitive and politically correct to all of the small, yet noisy minority (by choice) groups out there or the fact that you and the men and women around you had been trained with the best techniques, best instructors and best resources to insure the best possible condition for your safety and the success of the mission at hand?

For as much as the PC crowd has tried to “normalize” it, sexual preference continues to be a deeply dividing issue in the country – and the military. Granted, putting a death date on the Marine Corps at the top of this article was used as an attention getter. The U.S. military is FAR from deceased, but history may show this to be a turning point – good or bad. Only time with tell.

This post does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Conservative Daily News, Anomalous Media, the staff or contributors therein. All opinions expressed are attributed to the author only.