Sihouette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,635
No, and yes. No in the immediate sense. Yes in the longterm weighed against the increase of homosexuals in a population we will expect as a result of the logical conclusion I presented on the previous page.
The real nutshell of this argument hides an even deeper kernel of interest. That kernel has to do with setting the norms within a society to aspire to. I've been at that all along but nobody seems to want to discuss it. Or some do and their only comment is [paraphrased] "so what if homosexuality is normalized, it doesn't matter!". I say it does. There's the debate.
I've hung out around San Francisco and I will tell you there is a gay culture there that assimilates its surroundings. It does so by normalizing deviant sexuality and then wrenching the arms of people opposed by using reverse profiling, calling those people "haters" "bigots" and so on.. Their social "territory" has been expanding and spreading outward into neighboring communities. I've seen pressure in schools there for young children to "get with the program" [of being gay].
I know of three young women who were predated as girls by an older lesbian and now are "bisexual" when before they used to chase boys. When they would be interested in a boy, the lesbian stalked them and would become psychologically abusive to them and sabotage the budding relationship in a serial fashion until her targets submitted totally. I wish I could say this is an isolated incident but then I read the gay vernacular that includes terms for this exact type of recruitment.
Can you imagine a society where this is the norm? The whole thing about deviant sexuality is that once you step outside the norm of sex for procreation and do so in such an obtuse way as to utterly shun the opposite gender as an acceptable partner in any circumstance, you really don't have any more stops to that behavior. Literally if a woman can sleep with a woman or a man with a man, it is the direct message that "anything goes". And I don't mean this sexually, but rather psychologically. This is an important thing to bear in mind when considering the impact of these sexual arrangements when presented to developing minds.
Homosexuals like to counter this point with "we are capable of a loving monogamous relationship too!" And what do we then see? We see one of them taking the "feminine" role and the other taking the "masculine" role; nearly in every case without exception. At first glance this seems benign, like "so what?". But if you look deeper at the message that children are absorbing from this it is this: "look kids, it's OK to be insane." No, really. What other way can you describe such a situation to children with? That's why I take Mare to task regularly. I'm trying to get people to see that a man amputating his own penis in order to play at another gender role is BIZARRE. That I would even need to point that out underscores the effectiveness of the reverse bigotry utilizing the very effective social vehicle of not wanting to make waves in the presence of a perceived more powerful entity [more abusive one]. This is the malady of so-called "political correctness". And the gay-lobby is milking it for every drop its worth. Insanity likes to protect its denialisms. It becomes enraged when anyone uses logic to dismantle them. The common thread that most responders in this thread use [as does most of gay-lobbyists] is their need to not look deeper into the origins of why they role-play genders and refuse to have anything to do with the opposite gender in real life. Denial is fierce, it is potent and it is strong and it is abusive when challenged..
I offer again the conversation, for example, of a child of two lesbians:
"Mommy, how come if you don't like men, why does other mommy wear men's clothes, cut her hair like a man and talk in a deep voice?"
Please humor me, how do you answer a question like that from a child to their satisfaction without resorting to "just because" as the answer? [which is crazy-making to a young mind trying to sort out its world]. Please, indulge me and explain your answers?
If every person considering voting on the gay marriage issue spent a week living in the proximity or within a gay community like San Francisco, I think then they would be better prepared to get a birdseye view of what the future holds for America in general. Look at the gay culture. Immerse yourself in their terminology. Investigate the origins of those words and ponder why it is that they use them. See their slant from every single angle both benevolent and seedy and remember that this entire package will be on the rise if their culture is normalized and presented to our future generations that way. Then vote.
Like I said, the debate is one of subjective preference. I've seen the gay culture and my subjective preference is that it should not be allowed to dismantle marriage to slip itself in as "normal sex" between two people. That is my right to say so and I can say so without being reverse-profiled as you see in nearly every post in this thread except my own.
