Home > People > The Homosexuality Conundrum

The Homosexuality Conundrum


“While everyone is obligated to love their neighbor, no one is obligated to love their ways.”

Xenocrates

This picture is so gay. No, really.

Homosexuality has been with mankind from the dawn of civilization. Even so, there is a fundamental problem that lies at the very heart of the homosexual movement that most its supporters seem suspiciously oblivious to. This post is an attempt to present rational, objective, non-religious justification against the needless rationalization of homosexuality and the hot issue of gay marriage.

The inferiority machine

Some time ago, I wrote why life is not fair. That post addressed the fact that we may be incorrectly surmising DNA to be an inferiority machine, randomly spouting forms of life that serve no useful purpose, when in fact, DNA creates random assortments of life that may serve a useful purpose given appropriate environments. The machine isn’t exactly designed to create inferior life forms.

This is why homosexuality is a puzzle.

What is the purpose of a life form that isn’t actively involved in the continuation of its species? Homosexuality isn’t unique to humans. So whereby homosexual humans can inhibit their revulsion of heterosexual intercourse, lower animal homosexuals cannot. Therefore, genetic annihilation for them is most certain.

We can find an evolutionary explanation for people who have many genetic diseases. For example, some of the sufferers from sickle cell anemia, a genetic aberration like most others, are automatically immune to malaria. In the same vein, homosexuality doesn’t appear to have a comparable genetic purpose.

As homosexuality needs a logical explanation, let’s first eliminate the:

Illogical Explanations

There have been a few explanations that are worth mentioning, but they are all rife with errors in logic as they appear to fail the test of Darwinian evolution. This is not to say that homosexuality doesn’t serve any purpose. We’re just having trouble figuring out what that is. Here are some popular explanations:

1. Homosexuality is nature’s way of keeping populations in check

Considering that homosexuality is self annihilative, it is certainly a tempting thought. However, the problem with this idea is that homosexual populations are not expansive enough to stem population growth. Furthermore, scientists have found new evidence that would seem to suggest quite the very opposite.

2. Homosexuality provides nurturers for abandoned children.

This has been popular with advocates of gay marriage, particularly among male couples who adopt. The obvious flaw here is that lesbian couples regularly have in vitro fertilization and as such do not have to adopt. Also, there are enough childless heterosexual couples adopting to fill this deficit.

Again, the homosexual “necessity” here is fundamentally moot, especially since childless heterosexual couples far outnumber homosexual ones. Again, this explanation will not suffice as homosexuals (despite the fact that the true percentage of  homosexuals  is unknown) are still a minority in any population.

3. Homosexuality provides room for cultivating genius.

I have no doubts that there are homosexuals who have contributed richly to humanity. Socrates, Alexander the Great, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky, Oscar Wilde and many others were all homosexuals. But to suggest that their greatness is attributable to their inability to desire a childless state is preposterous. Being childless doesn’t facilitate genius.

The idea is that because they have no children to focus on, it gives them more time to focus on those other things such that they become excellent at whatever it is they do. If this logic were sound, then that would suggest that most geniuses were also homosexual – which is quite clearly not the case.

The obvious flaw (if you haven’t spotted it by now) is that many of the world’s greatest geniuses had children. Charles Darwin immediately comes to mind. Most geniuses are straight for all the same reasons most people are. Genius and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. One isn’t a function of the other.

Furthermore, there are far more heterosexuals who do not desire children who are also geniuses than there are homosexual geniuses simply by virtue of the fact that homosexuals are still largely a minority of any population. The logic is mathematically unsupported. This fatuous explanation won’t suffice either.

4. God created homosexuals to teach heterosexuals tolerance.

This is nonsense for one simple reason: There is no religion on earth that has any tolerance for homosexuality. All of the most popular religions on earth are very clear on their position on homosexuality. Therefore, to suggest that “god” of all beings would desire them to be tolerated is positively preposterous.

Even so, religions worldwide are modifying their teachings to accommodate homosexuals – particularly some Protestant Christian denominations. While that is great for gays, it speaks to the capricious hypocrisy inherent in religion. But alas, I digress, for such is well outside the context of this very discussion.

Homosexuality a Disease?

Really? You’d do that for us? Sweet!

Homosexuality was previously thought of as having distinctive qualities of psychopathology. However, research comparing the mental health of both homosexuals and heterosexuals has now completely debunked this idea. Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. It is actually genetic in nature.

Homosexuality doesn’t seem to serve an altruistic genetic imperative anymore than Huntington’s disease, Sickle Cell Anemia, Lupus or Progeria. We refer to all of these genetic conditions as diseases because they affect the otherwise normal functioning of the human body. So is homosexuality really a disease?

That depends on how you look at it.

Homosexual advocates will obviously say ‘no’. Their argument is simply that homosexuality doesn’t cause any suffering among homosexuals. That is an extremely naive and narrow minded way of looking at it. Do homosexuals enjoy the fact that they are gay? Most would probably say yes – until they want kids.

Homosexuals who desire children have to contend with the fact that they are not inclined to do what is necessary to produce children. This contention now extends into their otherwise heterosexual family who have to cope with the fact that they wont have any genetically produced grand kids. That is suffering.

Furthermore, what homosexual advocates fail to account for is the fact that homosexuals don’t exist in a bubble. There have been many heterosexual lives that have been destroyed by homosexuals in hiding, such as Catholic Priests and incestuous family members. That too constitutes a great deal of suffering.

Just ask Richard Dawkins whose aggressive flavor of atheism may have been spawned by an unfortunate childhood encounter with a vile homosexual priest.

So yes; homosexuality does produce suffering – just not the type consistent with most other genetic malfunctions. Homosexuals ignore this reality, because it is natural of the human condition to employ the use of cognitive dissonance to reduce suffering. This is why homosexuals have now mocked the idea of homosexuality being a disease by coining the fallacy of “calling in queer”.

I wonder if our gay friends realize that such might actually not be a bad idea? They’d be doing a lot of people a favor. Talk about incredibly lame comebacks.

…but I digress.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a clue to something really big. It is living proof that biology has a much greater layer of complexity than we realize. I say this because of the fact that homosexuality is not produced from homosexuals. Almost every homosexual has heterosexual parents and that is simply why homosexuality cannot be extinguished. So there’s very little point hating them.

That’s why it seems like such a travesty to just call it a disease. For sure, on a technical scale, it sure does flex like a disease. But when we consider some evidence, I can’t shake the feeling that calling it a disease (again) smacks of intellectual laziness. That’s up there with invoking God for the inexplicable.

Maybe we’re thinking about the problem on too narrow a scope. The more research I see, the more convinced I am that in the grand scheme of things, the existence of conditions such as homosexuality points to something far bigger than just individual suffering. What acts like a disease, but isn’t?

That’s when it hit me.

An Evolutionary Purpose for Homosexuality?

Homosexuality is the one of many genetic conditions that ultimately results in the total annihilation of a bloodline. If all mankind were to attain qualities of homosexuality, we would eventually cease to exist. If all mankind were to develop lupus erythematosus, the final outcome would be almost identical.

Thankfully, there is enough good DNA in the gene pool to prevent either occurrence. Nature’s complexity makes it incredibly more resilient than that.

So the real question we should ask ourselves is not why homosexuality exists, but rather why do genetic aberrations occur and do they serve an evolutionary purpose? The answer to that is very simple: Can you imagine a world where there was no disease? Pure bliss right? Not so fast. It’s not quite that simple.

If our planet did not have natural disasters, plagues, etc. the result would be exactly the same as if there was no disease or randomly occurring genetic aberrations. Populations would grow so large and so fast, that we would be competing for scarce natural resources, which we would consume voraciously.

The animal kingdom is designed to reproduce until some natural factor keeps its population in check. Otherwise, an expansion of any species would see to the destruction of all others. That’s why there’s a food chain with a clear hierarchy of predators and prey and why natural disasters and disease always happen.

Homosexuality is just a part of a larger system of population checkers – and it is perhaps the most humane of them all. You have to understand that humans have no natural predators. There are no animals in the kingdom that thrive almost exclusively on human flesh. We’re basically on top of the food chain.

…unless you consider micro organisms and other humans.

The flaw with our logic is that we have long considered Homosexuality to be something in and of itself, separate and apart from any other evolutionary function that contributes to the sustainability of life. This is simply not the case. The promotion of life is a whole different ball game from the sustenance of it.

This requires that nature make a few sacrifices along the way.

Just like Huntington’s disease, Progeria, Lupus, cystic fibrosis, and many of the well known child born cancers, homosexuality is just another in a long line of nature’s many ways of tagging a random sample out of the system to keep it at sustainable levels. It’s a cruel, but fundamentally necessary draw of straws.

So if you’re gay, tag – you’re it.

Nature’s system isn’t fool proof however, as many homosexuals go on to have children anyway. The worst part is that there is now evidence to suggest that homosexuality can be inherited – from the mother. The genetic marker seems to come from the female’s X chromosome …and that’s why I’m worried about gay marriage – particularly between lesbians who’ve decide to get pregnant.

The Issue of Gay Marriage

I like the flowers. Goes well with the background color.

I’m not going to tackle whether gay marriage is morally wrong, since morality is intrinsically moot. Doing so would fundamentally undermine the arguments set forth. Rather, I’m going to tackle why the idea of gay marriage is potentially dangerous. I don’t have an issue with gays being together. Rather, I have an issue with gays wanting something that doesn’t functionally apply to them.

My issue with gay marriage is the same as my issue with intentional single parenthood and the hordes of educated women who often desire equality but not children. It chips away, in tiny, seemingly insignificant amounts at a social construct that serves a very useful purpose. What society fails to realize is that in our quest for cognitive evolution, redefinition is not quantitatively necessary.

On Fundamentals

Sometimes we become so politically correct that we forget the fundamental basics of life. I’m all for mutual recognition and acceptance of homosexuals. However, the concept of marriage is all part of a construct that supports the natural biological function through which couples extend a family via children.

Fundamentals are atomic ideas upon which we build even more complex ones. The atomic idea behind marriage is the unison of opposites in creating new life. Gay marriage a dangerous idea, not because it is revolting, but rather because it introduces a form of liberalism that suggests that there are no fundamentals.

If homosexuals could convince us that a commonly understood idea could be easily redefined to mean something else entirely (only vaguely resembling the original), then that becomes a subtext for similar redefinitions by other fringe groups. This is how cognitive evolution is abused to sanction an agenda.

The concept of gay marriage is among a long line of dangerous ideas that invalidates the necessity of the male / female relationship in rearing children. It is merely another submission in a long line of bad ideas that seek to create a dangerous form of equality that blatantly ignores the purpose of inequality.

The inequality between male and female is what promotes life. The inequality between personalities is what creates chemistry. The inequality between species is what promotes sustenance for one and sustainability for the environment. The concept of gay marriage flouts this fundamental idea.

On Definition

People seem to be more obsessed with the processes involved in life instead of the objective of it, and that’s why the idea of gay marriage is intrinsically redundant. Marriage, by definition, in the context of human beings becomes intrinsically heterosexual – unless you opt to completely redefine the word.

When I looked up the word “marriage” in various dictionaries, I came across two definitions. One essentially highlighted the concept that I just outlined. Then there was another, added only recently it appears, that completely contradicts the original definition, only to accommodate a new social agenda.

Older versions of these dictionaries only maintain the original idea, which insinuates that marrying two of the same is intrinsically redundant. It is not enough to say that two men or women have differing personality archetypes, thus justifying a “marriage”. Their union has to have biological significance.

Otherwise the definition fails outright.

On Religion

What about marriage for religious purposes? Do homosexuals believe that being married allows them to “do right” by each other instead of living in fornication? The idea is vacuous at best, since marriage doesn’t correct the fact that homosexuality is considered a religious sin. It is the ultimate catch 22.

One could argue that intentionally childless marriages only fulfill a religious imperative to sanctify a sexual union. If that be the case, then the argument fails to validate homosexual marriage on the basis that such a sanctified union only sanctifies the homosexuality in it. The union has no biological significance.

Ergo, the functionality of gay marriage is moot.

On Asininity

Now to be abundantly clear – I have nothing against two people who want to live together, irrespective of orientation. In fact, a declared homosexual won’t be tempted to surreptitiously infest a heterosexual marriage and thus bolster divorce rates or join a religious movement as a purportedly celibate officiator.

So gays living together in loving harmony is actually a good thing – but that is most certainly not marriage. Does a homosexual call his lover his wife or his husband? Does no one see how silly it is for two wives to be married to each other? Am I the only person who sees the flagrant asininity inherent in this?

One might argue that this is all much ado about semantics. But that’s how we lost a perfectly good word in “gay” and why one of my favorite words, “queer” has now become an epithet. Stupid ideas have a nasty way of gaining enough momentum such that today’s folly evolves to become tomorrow’s legislation.

And that’s the agenda.

The Real Reason for Gay Marriage

I cannot shake the feeling that the reason why homosexuals feel compelled to fight for gay marriage rights, is not because they’re being oppressed (because they’re not) but rather because they want to legally gain all of the benefits of marriage, that were otherwise constitutionally afforded only to heterosexuals.

Despite the fact that there are all kinds of problems with giving homosexuals the legal right to adopt children among a number of other things through marriage, they have figured out a way to exploit a loophole in the American constitution to sanction anti-gay marriage legislation as being unconstitutional.

The fundamental flaw with the American constitution is that it assumes, quite fallaciously in fact, that all men were created equal. Despite the clear and obvious fact that we’re not all created equal (again, God is invoked to justify this claim), they have exploited this caveat to popularize a very bad thing.

Why is that a bad thing? Because bad ideas don’t stop being bad just because everyone suddenly starts to think otherwise. It’s as if nothing is bad unless everyone thinks so. If you are a heterosexual and you’re a supporter of gay marriage, then part of you is lying. Nature designed you to abhor gay sex.

So what gives?

We don’t find ourselves revolting homosexuality because it was ever a good thing. If it was, it wouldn’t have been the scourge of humanity for such a long time. The problem we’re facing is not that we shouldn’t be revolted about homosexuality – it’s that we mistreated the people who were born that way.

Now they’re using it against us to get everything they want. Now that we’ve given homosexuals an inch, they want a mile and every bus stop along the way. Just like black folks who use every miscalculated white expression as a declaration of racism, gays are being similarly exploitative of our conscience.

The Effect of Homosexuality on Children

One confused teenager coming right up…

Gay couples deciding to have children need to consider a few things:

  1. If you’re a homosexual male couple, you can’t have children naturally – so you have to adopt.
  2. Male couples can also hire a surrogate mother – and that has its own emotional challenges (from the mother).
  3. Lesbian couples who opt for natural birth are more likely to pass on the genetic markers that cause homosexuality.
  4. Children with gay parents are more open minded about gender roles and trying homosexuality themselves (even if they are heterosexual).
  5. While children with gay parents usually turn out OK, is the emotional abuse they have to endure from others growing up really worth it?

Now gay rights activists will see numbers 3 and 4 as a good thing – which is not surprising since it appears to supports their cause (at the deficit of humanity). However, our capacity to rationalize a bad thing doesn’t reduce its severity. That is identical to presuming that fibs are any more truthful than lies.

Take a few moments to read the article at #4 in entirety. It points out the fact that heterosexual kids raised by homosexual parents are so much more open minded about homosexuality, that many more of them are likely to experiment with homosexuality than if they were raised entirely by heterosexual parents.

…even though homosexuals claim otherwise.

Now the study speaks primarily about lesbian couples and their children. This is the primary reason why lesbian marriages bother me significantly more so than male marriages. Not only are they likely to pass on the genetic marker, but they also create a nurture context that actually encourages this behavior.

The problem with this is pretty obvious. If we raise a society that is more tolerant of homosexuality such that we no longer see the obvious danger in it, then we are effectively raising a new generation of heterosexuals who will eventually learn how to consider homosexuality as an optional social norm.

That doesn’t sound very different from homosexuality in ancient Greece.

This is yet another reason why the attempt to legalize gay marriage must undergo very thorough reconsideration. It encourages heterosexuals who haven’t yet the developed the capacity to know any better (namely young children with impressionable minds) to think that the basics of life are flexible.

Life only works one way. That’s how it has always been, and that’s how it should always be. Children are more well rounded when there is a father and a mother actively involved in their development. Apropos, homosexual parenting is as intrinsically flawed as intentional single parenting for the same reasons.

Women who grow up with just a father never learn to appreciate the finer points in being a lady. If they grow up with just a mother, they tend to become the types of feminists that seek to undermine the role of men in relationships. I wrote about the danger of educating women for this very same reason.

Fatherless boys are dangerous for all sorts of reasons. They are usually at worst the criminals you hear about on the news or the effeminate men who are gender confused. All children need a proper balancing act between both male and female parents to create psychologically well rounded children.

I’m not saying that psychologically well rounded children cannot emerge from single sex parenthood. Children can look to other adult role models to fill in the gaps. But let’s be honest with ourselves; isn’t the risk of imbalance in such young minds substantially higher where both genders aren’t represented?

Where does a boy turn to for a male role model when both of his parents are female? Where does he get the nurture that only a mother can provide when both parents are male? Where does a girl learn about boys if she has two lesbian mothers? What model of a boyfriend can she attain from gay fathers?

It comes as no surprise then that homosexuals only seem to embrace certain studies over others. I’m referring to those that only show where children with homosexual parents are emotionally healthy – even though they’re more likely to embrace homosexuality or be embarrassed of their homosexual parents.

Ahh – tis the putrid, pungent smell of hypocrisy.

The Hypocrisy of Homosexuality

Homosexuality, like civil rights, has now become a political issue, because we let it develop that way. Homosexuality only became a problem when we the heterosexual majority in power failed to manage the proper treatment of the differences between human beings. That’s why we’re in this mess together.

Today we have homosexuals portraying their lifestyle in public and the media for all the world to see in a bid to desensitize the more sensitive among us heterosexuals to the distasteful nature of their sexuality. What’s odd about this is not that they’re there. It’s that they actually expect us to be OK with it.

My mind is blown just thinking about it.

I don’t get why homosexuals believe that being accepted automatically implies that we should not be offended when they flamboyantly flaunt their sexuality in front of us. How is discrimination against homosexuals offensive when they fail to consider that their sexuality is likewise offensive? Do they not get that?

Do homosexuals not understand that they are committing the same offense against heterosexuals by wantonly and indiscriminately demonstrating their behavior to those of us who are not comfortable bearing witness to it? Do heterosexuals go to a gay bar and make out? Am I missing something here?

Do heterosexuals who have the kind of constitution that can completely tolerate homosexuality not understand that they cannot expect the rest of humanity to just collectively jump on this bandwagon? I’m not going to pull any nonsense excuse out of my posterior to justify being against the needless rationalization of homosexuality because honestly, I really shouldn’t have to.

And don’t give me any of this nonsense about homosexual struggles being anything like that of people of African descent – unless you’re talking about those African slaves who were also gay. Society is such that a homosexual who is white is still socially better off than a heterosexual who is black.

No homosexual white man would trade places with a straight black man. The only people in the world who are probably having a worse time than some black folks are those of Jewish descent. Whereas a simple name change can fix that for the Jews, a black man can’t hide his skin, no matter what he does.

Homosexuality and Religion

Gay religion fail.

Homosexuals in religion perplex me the most. Between those hiding as Catholic priests, to those who have been sanctified by the church, the very existence of homosexuality is proof positive to me that religion is a hoax of global proportions, which suggests that a God most probably doesn’t exist.

I can’t imagine how a loving, all powerful God could command that it is an abomination for two people of the same sex to have “sex”, and yet in all his great wisdom allow the very same thing to occur naturally, such that people who are born gay are inextricably hell bound, unless they live a celibate life.

I know the religious lot among you are going to tell me that homosexuality is God’s punishment for turning against him. But then I ask, what kind of God who supposedly loves us would intentionally curse humans by causing an aberration to infest their DNA such that they can’t repent of their sins anyway?

No religion in its original context supported homosexuality. Now we have chants from Christian pastors to “embrace the sinner and disgrace the sin”. That’s all well and good – but they all fail to understand one fundamental point: How does a homosexual repent of something that is their very nature?

Are non of you frustrated by this nonsense?

Now that homosexuals have become successful in drawing attention to themselves and making this a political issue when it clearly is not, churches feel compelled to get onto the bandwagon not because of any scientific discovery about homosexuality, but rather because it has become socially acceptable.

That’s why using religion against homosexuals is essentially hypocritical as most of us are only capriciously religious. We are religious when it suits us. The only reason most of us oppose gay marriage is because we find it reviling. So let us just say that, instead of duplicitously hiding behind a shroud of faith.

Religion is only a convenient excuse. The same Bible that condemns homosexuals also says that we should love our neighbors. While the Old Testament is very explicit about how homosexuals should be dealt with (by certain death), the New Testament is peculiarly less condemning about that.

The Koran however, is not quite so confusing.

However, one should not be surprised that we get this kind of reasoning from something as irrational as religion. After all, its believers maintain that something like heaven is biologically sustainable. Don’t get me wrong; I unquestionably enjoy magic just like the next guy – at least up to a point.

It’s just that I know it’s not real. And that brings me to my next point:

The Fallacies in Heterosexual Logic

It is not only homosexuals who have posited some flawed logic. Heterosexuals have posited similarly incoherent positions to justify the oppression of homosexuals. The large majority of these are born out of a natural disgust with the idea of homosexuality. While I can understand that, it is not helpful.

What many heterosexuals fail to understand is that we humans have the ability to cognitively appreciate an individual separately from the perceived morality of their actions. With that said, the morality of homosexuality is entirely a religious thing. I have no need of elaborating on that once again.

What I want to bring to the heterosexual audience is the fact that our behavior is what led to this hypocrisy in homosexuality. We heterosexuals are at fault. I myself had to fight off my own homophobic propensities when I first uncovered evidence that this thing was really a naturally occurring anomaly.

It was hard to accept at first, because I had long believed homosexuality to be a lifestyle choice. In that realization, I now understand how my behavior and that of others have contributed to homosexuals becoming the uncomfortably loud voice that they have in a world that doesn’t want to acknowledge them.

The following are heterosexuals’ worst fallacies about homosexuality:

1. That homosexuality is a choice

There are two types of homosexuals – those that are born gay and those who are bi-curious. The latter group has on more than one occasion given us the impression that homosexuality is a choice, because they are larger in numbers than the former group. With that said, while there is no homosexual gene, there is certainly enough science to suggest that homosexuality is genetic.

If you are of the rational sort, then bring to memory the powerful emotional feelings that erupt in your gut when you witness a fine specimen of the opposite sex. Can you imagine for an instant that someone could feel exactly the same way when looking at someone of the same gender? Think about it.

There’s no way anyone chooses that.

2. That homosexuality is curable

If homosexuality were curable, then so would be a plethora of other morbid genetic disorders. The truth is that curing homosexuality is still science fiction at this point, because it involves changing the fundamental building blocks of biology. Therefore all these Christian conversion camps are hoaxes at best.

3. That homosexuality is a determinant of competence

There are enough brilliant homosexuals in the world to prove this to be false. One’s sexuality has positively nothing to do with whatever professional career they opt for – which is concordantly why the US Army’s don’t ask/tell policy is rubbish. Sexuality has nothing to do with most standards of competence.

4. That homosexuals parents may make their children gay

Homosexuality is not the function of a communicable pathogen. So it isn’t passed on to children communicably. Furthermore, while homosexual parents can raise kids with a certain degree of competence, they can only influence their behavior to an extent, but not their sexuality – not permanently.

5. That homosexuality is unnatural

Homosexuality is as unnatural as any other genetic aberration that exists. To say that it is unnatural is to suggest that it doesn’t play a role in the grand scheme of natural things. Technically, nothing is unnatural in this context. What we mean to say is that homosexuality is revolting. But it is 100% natural – like flesh eating bacteria and a virus that can transform human flesh into wood.

Everything exists on a spectrum – even in nature. Just because it makes us puke, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t natural. Anyone who subscribes to the Discovery channel will tell you that nature is a strange and vicious animal.

6. That homosexuality will make mankind extinct

There aren’t enough homosexuals in the world to cause a cumulative extinction of mankind. Nature appears to be such that there is never more disease than there are genetic variations that will ensure that life continues in some form. Homosexuality is too rare an occurrence to ever become pandemic.

Ever.

With nonsense like this swirling around in our heterosexual heads, it’s no small wonder now that we’ve chased homosexuals up the tree, we are becoming nervous about them being more exposed. I was quite happy with merely just accepting that homosexuals exist. Now we have to hear about it everyday.

Mutual Provocation

WTF?

Day in and day out, many gays ensure to exercise the least amount of restraint in their behavior, some going as far as to act out on television (shame on you Mr. Lambert) in an elaborate campaign of shock and awe designed to assault our collective sensibilities, caring very little about how heterosexuals would feel. It’s an obnoxious sense of misplaced entitlement.

We have the capacity to accept homosexuals as humans without having to deal with the homosexuality as well. But some gays don’t understand that. That’s why the discrimination will never end. I suspect that heterosexuals probably drew first blood, but gays don’t have to exacerbate the situation.

I suspect however, that there are moderate homosexuals who understand this and are just being severely misrepresented by their more flamboyant kinsmen. It’s the drama queens and the attention whores in the gay and lesbian community who are making the situation worse for everyone else.

It doesn’t matter who one says they are. Their talent is not an excuse to misbehave on TV. Stunts like that will only get people even more angry than they already are. Such behavior is flagrant disrespect to heterosexuals – and that’s why homosexuals will always have quite an uphill battle on their hands.

The people who have the worst reaction to homosexuality are often the ones who are most easily offended by it. If homosexuals want to achieve tolerance, then they are going to have to learn how to be tolerable. Men shouldn’t kiss other men on prime time TV and then have the audacity to expect tolerance.

That’s just stupid.

I know what some of you are thinking: If it was two women who were kissing during the VMA awards, I wouldn’t have a problem with it – right? You must be wondering why is it that the shock of two men french kissing on live television is considerably more upsetting than that of two women doing the same thing.

Well allow me to enlighten the collective darkness of the gay community:

The Double Standard Fallacy in Homosexuality

Hot.

Can you name any really popular television programs starring gay men in gay relationships? Having trouble thinking of one right? How about TV programs incorporating lesbian themes? Plenty, right? Why is it that if a gay male couple walks into a bar and are affectionate, they are scolded, but yet lesbians are treated fondly? That’s one of the fundamental paradoxes of homosexuality:

It violates the rules of gender role matriculation.

Fewer people want to see a show about gay men simply because male homosexuality contravenes the acceptable social standard of masculinity. Lesbianism however is less bothersome (at least, to men) because it’s not very far from the standard of femininity that is socially acceptable of women.

Homosexuality in general doesn’t bother women as much as it does men, simply because the behavioral standards that apply to women are not as inflexible as that which applies to men. This is why heterosexual women are more likely to have gay friends of both genders, while men are notably less so.

Furthermore, lesbian sex tends to reinforce the ultimate male fantasy of having sex with two women simultaneously. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that more men would prefer a threesome with two women, as opposed to sharing a woman with another guy. That sort of thing only happens in porn.

…if not, I don’t want to hear about it.

Finally, let’s face it: the nature of male homosexual intercourse is essentially stomach turning stuff – especially considering the parts of the body involved and the obvious health risk implications. Lesbian sex is far safer by contrast. It does not involve any of these other potentially dangerous characteristics.

These fundamental differences between males and females accentuate the fact that the diametrically opposed standards that govern how each group is treated is not a double standard. The fallacy in this logic is exposed by the fact that it is based on the heterosexual propensity to see gay men and lesbians as being the same type of animal from a sexual point of view. They are not.

The disparate standards of treatment of gays versus that afforded to lesbians isn’t quite a double standard as much as it is based on the fact that men and women are essentially different animals – a characteristic that is essential to heterosexuality. Because homosexuality functionally separates the genders, any such perceptions applied to the genders are automatically invalidated.

Under homosexuality, the genders become mutually exclusive.

Conclusively

I like her. She’s funny.

My ability to appreciate Ellen Degeneres as a comedian, Adam Lambert as a performer, Bryan Singer as a brilliant film director and Sir Ian McKellen as a brilliant actor is not affected by my knowledge that they are all homosexuals. I, like many heterosexuals, have the capacity to separate talent from sexuality.

One has nothing to do with the other.

With that said, I can only respect homosexuals who respect my right to not be incessantly subjected to such forms of affection. Concordantly, I have no respect for homosexuals who feel compelled to do otherwise. Respect is something that goes both ways – irrespective of our sexual orientation.

However, it appears that many homosexuals feel that they are automatically entitled by virtue of being homosexual. It’s not very different from some black folks who think they should be treated specially just because they are black. It’s as if being a minority is an automatic entitlement to special consideration. I marvel at the human capacity for hypocrisy concentrated among minorities.

The only people who deserve special consideration are the mentally and physically challenged. Homosexuality doesn’t affect one’s capacity for reason and common sense – despite the fact that common sense is something of an oxymoron. But I digress. If all men really are equal, then being gay means that the same level of intelligence in heterosexuals, is expected of homosexuals.

That’s why I can’t take gay protests seriously. Walking the streets demanding respect from people who find your nature offensive is anything but intelligent.

Now I know that not all homosexuals are irrational folk. It’s the loud mouthed attention whores waving placards asking for stupid things that makes it bad for everyone else. Queue adage about empty barrels, noise and all that jazz. Misrepresentation is a bitch – and they’re not helping us like them any more.

The homosexuals making a stink in the street need to comprehend one very important thing: While everyone is obligated to love their neighbor, no one is obligated to love their ways. Concordantly, while I would never discriminate against them, I would also remind them that the earth is not theirs alone.

[Send corrections, suggestions etc. to: accordingtoxen [at] gmail [dot] com]
Advertisements
  1. June 13, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    Well. I’m gay and I agree with you. Ppl asked me why I’m not married to my partner, and to that I could only ask back, “why should I? To procreate? To ‘please God’?” It’s getting ridiculous the more I think about it really, at least for me.

    You know that gay couple in the ‘modern family’ tv show? I don’t want to live like them. Looks exhausting. Lol

    And yes, those ppl flaunting their gayness with public displays are annoying. It makes people think that I too, am no different. There are gays who live their everyday life struggling to make people see that they are respectful to others and can be capable in whatever they’re doing regardless of their sexuality. But I guess since they’re not regularly shocking people on tv, they’re not a very popular ‘type’ of gays. I don’t think the stigma against gays will be decrease anytime soon.

    All and all. Great post. Sorry if my english is terrible. It’s not my first language

  2. Winter Seraph
    July 22, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    “It chips away, in tiny, seemingly insignificant amounts at a social construct that serves a very useful purpose. What society fails to realize is that in our quest for cognitive evolution, redefinition is not quantitatively necessary.”

    I think that redefinition is an intrinsic part of cognitive growth. One cannot expect all ideas and theories to be correct the first time and just because something is done one way doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be looked at from a different angle and have its boundaries pushed.

    “The concept of gay marriage is among a long line of dangerous ideas that invalidates the necessity of the male / female relationship in rearing children. It is merely another submission in a long line of bad ideas that seek to create a dangerous form of equality that blatantly ignores the purpose of inequality.
    The inequality between male and female is what promotes life. The inequality between personalities is what creates chemistry. The inequality between species is what promotes sustenance for one and sustainability for the environment. The concept of gay marriage flouts this fundamental idea.”

    I don’t understand why you’re so peeved that gay marriage supposedly disregards the purpose of inequality? If it’s so dangerous then there will of course be some sort of consequence, in the mean time, you never know if you don’t try.

    “Despite the fact that there are all kinds of problems with giving homosexuals the legal right to adopt children among a number of other things through marriage, they have figured out a way to exploit a loophole in the American constitution to sanction anti-gay marriage legislation as being unconstitutional.”

    Setting aside the idea of adoption for later, I don’t believe you ever addressed whether homosexuals deserve the benefits resulting from marriage that heterosexual couples get?

    “The fundamental flaw with the American constitution is that it assumes, quite fallaciously in fact, that all men were created equal. Despite the clear and obvious fact that we’re not all created equal (again, God is invoked to justify this claim), they have exploited this caveat to popularize a very bad thing.”

    Just because one is pursuing something that isn’t true (all men are created equal) doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing. Also while I can agree that men weren’t created equal in terms of mental or physical capacity, don’t they not all deserve the same unalienable rights?

    “Why is that a bad thing? Because bad ideas don’t stop being bad just because everyone suddenly starts to think otherwise. It’s as if nothing is bad unless everyone thinks so.”

    On a purely philosophical note I disagree with you. What is good and bad, just as what is truth or lie, are all just personal interpretations and the views of society. If one lived in a society where, from birth, one is taught to kill twins, that person would never know if it is good or bad. As society sees the death of twins as a good thing the only time one may view it as bad is from certain personal experiences, thus you claiming something is intrinsically bad is not possible.

    “This is the primary reason why lesbian marriages bother me significantly more so than male marriages. Not only are they likely to pass on the genetic marker, but they also create a nurture context that actually encourages this behavior.

    The problem with this is pretty obvious. If we raise a society that is more tolerant of homosexuality such that we no longer see the obvious danger in it, then we are effectively raising a new generation of heterosexuals who will eventually learn how to consider homosexuality as an optional social norm.”

    I don’t understand what’s so bad. Is it that the new generation won’t see the danger of homosexuality? I also feel that the danger isn’t all that threatening, considering, as far as I know, the Romans, Greeks and Persian were not destroyed by their homosexual behavior.

    “This is yet another reason why the attempt to legalize gay marriage must undergo very thorough reconsideration. It encourages heterosexuals who haven’t yet the developed the capacity to know any better (namely young children with impressionable minds) to think that the basics of life are flexible.”

    I don’t understand what’s wrong with teaching children to challenge ideas and preconceptions presented to them.

    “But let’s be honest with ourselves; isn’t the risk of imbalance in such young minds substantially higher where both genders aren’t represented?”

    I’m sorry, but do you have evidence?

    “Furthermore, while homosexual parents can raise kids with a certain degree of competence, they can only influence their behavior to an extent, but not their sexuality – not permanently.”

    This seems like a contradiction with yourself since you said earlier. “…then we are effectively raising a new generation of heterosexuals who will eventually learn how to consider homosexuality as an optional social norm.” If homosexual parents can’t permanently affect the child’s sexuality than why are you afraid that they will consider homosexuality a social norm?

    • July 23, 2010 at 1:03 am

      Winter Seraph,

      Thanks for writing in. First of all, I must express my appreciation for your use of Blockquotes. It makes reading your enlightening response that much easier! And now, for my rebuttal:

      Winter Seraph:I think that redefinition is an intrinsic part of cognitive growth. One cannot expect all ideas and theories to be correct the first time and just because something is done one way doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be looked at from a different angle and have its boundaries pushed.

      I actually agree with you. However, the issue here is not the act of redefinition. It’s when redefinition functionally applies.

      Winter Seraph:I don’t understand why you’re so peeved that gay marriage supposedly disregards the purpose of inequality?

      If you implicitly concede that inequality serves a purpose, then you’ve already answered your own question.

      Winter Seraph:If it’s so dangerous then there will of course be some sort of consequence, in the mean time, you never know if you don’t try.

      History has a remarkable talent for repeating itself because humanity doesn’t actually get smarter. It just becomes more efficient at doing the exact same thing, over and over again.

      Winter Seraph:…I don’t believe you ever addressed whether homosexuals deserve the benefits resulting from marriage that heterosexual couples get?

      I don’t think the heterosexual marriage law applies to homosexuals in whole. If a federal gay marriage law were to be passed, it would have to be some stripped down version of the de facto law, like what was done in Canada in 2003.

      Winter Seraph:Just because one is pursuing something that isn’t true (all men are created equal) doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing.

      I agree purely in a philosophical sense – but here is the conundrum: Isn’t the pursuit of falsehood tantamount to folly? Since when does ability automatically predicate purpose? Why should capacity automatically insinuate function? Technically anything is possible. However, possibility is not a synonym for necessity. Those who are less equal tend to be guilty of this fallacy. It is human nature to desire what we don’t have – even when it doesn’t add value to our human nature.

      Winter Seraph:Also while I can agree that men weren’t created equal in terms of mental or physical capacity, don’t they not all deserve the same unalienable rights?

      That is functionally different from saying that all men are created equal. While the second part of that declaration certainly does apply, it is not functionally determined by the first, hence the logical fallacy inherent in the concept of gay marriage.

      Winter Seraph:On a purely philosophical note I disagree with you. What is good and bad, just as what is truth or lie, are all just personal interpretations and the views of society…thus you claiming something is intrinsically bad is not possible.

      You can’t accuse me of being wrong using an argument that equally applies to your argument. It makes you just as wrong by the same logic, thus invalidating the rebuttal. If I’m wrong because of my perception, then so are you.

      You actually do this twice in your response. Can you spot the second one? 😉

      Winter Seraph:I don’t understand what’s so bad.

      Would you marry someone with a genetic trait that is unfavourable to the very continuity of your blood line? It’s right there in what you quoted.

      Winter Seraph:Is it that the new generation won’t see the danger of homosexuality?

      It’s because the redefinition of marriage redefines how we think about humanity in a very fundamental way – as outlined in the post.

      Winter Seraph:I also feel that the danger isn’t all that threatening, considering, as far as I know, the Romans, Greeks and Persian were not destroyed by their homosexual behavior.

      No – it’s their thinking that did that.

      Winter Seraph:I don’t understand what’s wrong with teaching children to challenge ideas and preconceptions presented to them.

      There’s nothing wrong with that. Concordantly, I fail to see how that applies to that which was quoted. (WARNING: This is a trap.)

      Winter Seraph:I’m sorry, but do you have evidence?

      Ya. It’s in the post.

      Winter Seraph:This seems like a contradiction with yourself since you said earlier.

      No it’s not, hence: “…– not permanently.

      Winter Seraph:If homosexual parents can’t permanently affect the child’s sexuality than why are you afraid that they will consider homosexuality a social norm?

      See link quoted earlier.

      Cheers mate.

  3. May 14, 2010 at 12:32 am

    Nameless

    Sir!

    Nameless:First of all you posted “HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURE’S WAY OF KEEPING POPULATIONS IN CHECK” under illogical explanations, then wrote that “Homosexuality is just a part of a larger system of population checkers…” under your evolutionary purpose for homosexuality.

    If you read the entire paragraph (and I know this would be easy to miss – the post is pretty long) you’ll see where:

    1. The first instance criticized the notion of thinking about homosexuality as ITSELF being the only population checker. I went on to say that homosexuality isn’t common enough to do that and that we were looking at the problem on too microscopic a view, since that’s not the only way that human populations are kept in check. THEN;

    2. The second instance expanded on this idea by recognizing homosexuality as a PART of a BIGGER system and that it’s nature’s MOST HUMANE among other population checkers (all the others result in excruciating suffering and death).

    The idea is to avoid the common fallacy of thinking of homosexuality as something that is separate and apart from nature. The first instance made that mistake. The second instance corrected it by adjusting our scope. The first instance was coined by homophobes who just hated homosexuals – which explains their narrow minded view of the issue.

    It’s just like saying that AIDS is a homosexual’s disease. There are more heterosexuals suffering from AIDS than homosexuals. This type of thinking is flawed, because it surreptitiously narrows down a scope to suit an agenda.

    Get it?

    Nameless:Don’t you believe that one’s sexuality could have an effect on their job even though technically it shouldn’t?

    One’s gender? Yes. Sexuality? No – not unless they have a chronic problem like satyriasis.

    Nameless:In the army, having an openly gay man serving alongside heterosexual men would reduce the fighting capability of a unit.

    If that were true, then the many soldiers who’ve received purple hearts for bravery who are also quietly gay should not have performed as bravely as they did. The Don’t ask/tell policy is intrinsically hypocritical, because it presumes that a gay man who earned his silver cross or his purple heart just like any other soldier, should therefore be stripped of it because he likes it in the ass. That didn’t change his performance on the field.

    That’s why I say the policy is rubbish. Don’t ask / tell wants to have the extra man power at its disposal without making any concessions to homosexuality. Some of the most brilliant counter intelligence people in the army are gay. Did you know that? I can’t stand hypocrisy – even if it is done by my own people. Either let them fight, or tell them to get lost.

    Nameless:Having openly gay men serve alonside heterosexuals brings up the same concerns as having women serve alongside men.

    I would rather have a male fighting alongside me than a female, irrespective of his orientation. Why? Two reasons:

    1. Because men are physically stronger than women – even gay men.

    2. I’m attracted to women. If I’m attracted to the woman fighting beside me, I am more likely to make an irrational decision based on my feelings for her.

    If you’re going to say that gay men might become attracted to their heterosexual colleagues, then yes, that would be a problem. In that case, both gay men and women of any orientation should be banned from the army. Period.

    Nameless:It would also violate the rights of the heterosexual soldiers who may share quarters with gay men.

    This would be my only concern. If so, then gay men should be banned from the army outright. Don’t Ask / Tell allows them to be in the army so long as they stay in the closet. Can you see the hypocrisy?

    Then again, if a country is under siege (and let’s face it, the USA is practically siege proof – or is it?), then you’re going to need every fighting capable hand you’ve got – and that may mean recruiting gay men and women.

    Nameless:Instead of always trying to be open to homosexuals, perhaps the army should take into account the rights of heterosexuals as well.

    I agree – again, which is why I believe that Don’t Ask / Tell is rubbish.

  4. May 13, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Alamanach

    Alamanach:A homosexual man is free to marry any eligible woman who will have him– exactly the same rights possessed by the heterosexual men. As it happens, homosexual men aren’t interested in marrying women, but everybody has various rights that they’ve no interest in exercising.

    That’s actually a pretty good point. But you do realise that the obvious counter-argument is that the law doesn’t provide any room for homosexuality, right? That’s what’s at stake here. They want to change the law so that it makes room for them.

    However, I would back your point by saying that if they want marriage, then find someone of the opposite sex. The only problem with that though, is that the heterosexual to whom they will be marrying, will be made miserable by divorce sooner or later.

    That’s why personally, I would rather keep homosexuals out of the system of marriage. Not every heterosexual has decent gaydar. We really don’t want to encourage them to go hiding among us, do we?

    Alamanach:I blame this over-developed sense of equality not on the Constitution, but on feminism. Feminism persuaded us to ignore the differences between men and women, and now otherwise-intelligent people are actually talking seriously about gay marriage.

    I agree 100%. Feminism put us in quite a mess. And to think, homosexuality is not only more supported by women, but is also only passed on from them too!

    Alamanach:You linked to no evidence here and I think you might have dismissed this possibility too quickly.

    My apologies. I forgot to include the link there. Here it is:

    The Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health

    Homosexuality is a chromosomal disorder. Scientists are now trying to develop methods through which it can be predicted, just as how they can now predict Down’s syndrome. Links to this information are in the post.

    Alamanach:Could it be that the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders not so much because of scientific evidence, but more out of the same kind of human hypocrisy that has led some protestant churches to embrace homosexuals?

    I doubt it. APA advocates are largely atheists. They like hard cold facts like the next guy. Once the biological link was discovered, the psychological pursuit was discontinued.

    Alamanach:Personally, I think there is probably a strong link between homosexuality and mental illness.

    There isn’t.

    Lots of geniuses of every make and type are homosexuals. I’ve met theologists who are devout Christians who are also homosexuals who have chosen to live a celibate life because of their “condition”. So I’m pretty certain that homosexuality is not psychological in any way, shape or form. The ability to make such a conscious and difficult decision does not come from someone who is mentally challenged.

    One of my lecturers in the United Kingdom is also gay – but he’s not a practicing gay. He just knows that he is and because of it, he has chosen to devote himself to his career as an academic. He’s a brilliant guy. We were discussing the origins of Christianity in great detail recently. I only knew he was gay because I asked him why he wasn’t a Christian (considering his vast knowledge on the subject). Otherwise, there was no way I would have been able to tell.

    He is a brilliant guy who has just decided to consume himself in his work so that he doesn’t have time to think about sexual things. Again, that’s not the kind of thinking of someone who is mentally challenged. He is someone I have a great deal of respect for. I would never have known that he was gay if he didn’t tell me. I always thought it was curious that a man his age wasn’t married.

    When I think of people like him, it makes me realise that nature can be a most brutal, unforgiving animal.

    Alamanach:I think that because almost every openly homosexual man I have known has had identity issues of one sort or another

    If you grew up as a white man in a village of black people for the first 15 years of your life, you would go through a very similar identity crisis. That’s just human nature.

    I grew up in a city where things which are obvious to me are not obvious to most of my fellow men. I started to think that I was weird until I met other 3 digit IQ people like myself.

    Whether you are different in a good or bad way is irrelevant. Nobody likes you when you’re different. That can wreak havoc with anyone’s sense of identity. Again, that’s just human nature.

    Alamanach:people’s historic aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality has had a tone suggesting fear of a semi-contagious abnormality.

    Rumors are easier to spread than the truth, precisely because the truth is rarely as sensational. Oooh… I just had a Twitter moment.

    BRB… *tweets* …ok. Now where were we? 🙂

    Alamanach:‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that,’ the joke goes, and the joke is funny because deep down we all realize that there is something wrong with it, even if we can’t identify just what that something is.

    I agree 100%. It’s the hypocrisy that gets to me.

  5. May 13, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Comic:If the issue of adoption by two same sex couples is unhealthy because it either lacks a father/mother figure, then what would be the difference between a single heterosexual person adopting a child?

    None.

    Comic:If it’s “as bad or worse”, then should adoption by single parents be restricted or outlawed as well?

    Except where the parent is made single by such circumstances such as death, certainly. Children need both male and female parents to increase the likelihood of a well balanced development. This is part of the reason why divorces with children involved become particularly messy. Children with divorced parents are likely (but not always) to repeat the same destructive relationship behaviors. Children with just a single parent are more likely to become social miscreants and in some cases, a menace to society (particularly in the case of boys with no father).

    Comic:But couldn’t it be said that if the right resources and environment are provided that things will generally turn out all right?

    Certainly – but with what guarantee? Having both parents in a loving relationship guarantees a more psychologically well balanced child than one without. It’s simple mathematical probability. That’s not even worth debating.

    Comic:Of course, I probably should go look for studies of single parents versus two parents, but it seems the only ones I can find are those from adoption.com. Mind providing some?

    The only reason you’ll find such studies at adoption.com is because nobody does studies on what is obvious when nature gets it right. Nobody will feel compelled to study something in that way if its functionality serves an obvious evolutionary imperative.

    It would be the same thing as studying why men are attracted to women or why the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees all participate in a natural ecological symbiosis. We only study the things we do not immediately understand. Having a male and female parent is easy to understand. Growing up with gay parents however, well, that’s going to change the nurture side of the argument just a bit. So that’s why we study it.

    However, if you feel compelled to read about the obvious, have a gander at this article: The Benefits of Having a Mom and Dad. It touches on your concerns using information from the national and international census data. I can’t say that you will be particularly shocked at the findings.

    Cheers.

Comment pages
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s