I'm outspoken to my opposition against the cultural forced accession of homosexuality. And, yes, in general terms I am also outspoken against the practice, but, I don't think they need to be stripped of rights, ahem real rights. Culturally, this is not the sort of behavior we should be condoning.
I look at it like this. So, homosexuals have basically bitched, complained, screeched, screamed, squealed, cried and have made an altogether spectacle of themselves under this banner of rights and "equality". What do they really want?
homosexuals contend that they feel normal culture imposes its values on them.
And this imposition is their justification for their demands and all their antics. It is, therefore, a grave injustice to them that a culture/value system is imposed onto them that they would not willing choose. Therefore in absolute terms it must be true for all people that imposing a culture and values onto an unwilling person is not a good thing, yes?
Isn't that exactly what the homosexuals are doing?
And not only that, they're version of this imposition is a lot more authoritarian than what happened before.
I do not recall any corporate policy in the existence of American history that said if you do not believe in Jesus is grounds for being dismissed from employment. Shunned maybe. But, I do know that if someone were to speak out against affirming homosexuality in the workplace, that employee would be terminated swiftly.
I do know that if you don't bake certain cakes you will be sued.
We can sit here and talk about double standards all day, which we do. We can even gnash our teeth, which, at least in this forum, we should as a way to express our angst (just don't act on it). But, we have to take a step back and look at this and ponder it to see the truth of the matter.
This is no simple contradiction, if there is any such thing. This is no simple double standard. Such a condition invalidates every aspect of the homosexual "movement" aside from one, which is establishing equality under law. And that is something I have never had an issue with.
Ostensibly the homosexual will say that it's culture and values are better because they're "inclusive" of all people. Here again, this is categorically not true. Basically any person that does not enthusiastically agree with them in all ways is excluded. And regardless of what you hear, there are a shit load of those people!
Moreover, as we're seeing there are aspects of homosexual "culture" that I don't think any red blooded member of the human race can accept, such as cross dressing children, pedophilia, pederasty etc. But, time and time and time and time again we see that this is not just a recent aberration, but rather a demonstrably fundamental and re-occurring feature of their culture.
If we're to base major societal changes and policies off of the idea that imposing a specific culture and values is not good, than the very same fucking thing applies right back to homosexuals.
It goes deeper. I've long since maintained that the issue with the gays is that they're just not compatible with society. It speaks to the fundamental issue of trying to implement a democratic system among a widely diverse population that is increasingly not only unlike each other, but, hostile. A homogeneous society is therefore preferable, especially when it comes to optimizing personal freedom and sustain a functional democracy and representative government.
Including homosexual propaganda in schools, for instance, only serves the interests of homosexuals. Never mind the sycophants at present, for the regular knowing or unknowing, heterosexual such things run contrary to their interests. If there is suppose to be a representative system, than, why are the interest of only one group being honored while the others is not?
Such are the things we'll see more and more as the society becomes heterogeneous.
What I'm mulling over is that society cannot be all things to all people. homosexuals represent a small minority of people. They've insisted on certain changes fundamental to our society but hasn't that only made them into the very thing and people they say their against?
I don't have the answer here. But, I want to underscore this aspect of their movement. Something in me sees this as terminal flaw. Time will tell.
I look at it like this. So, homosexuals have basically bitched, complained, screeched, screamed, squealed, cried and have made an altogether spectacle of themselves under this banner of rights and "equality". What do they really want?
homosexuals contend that they feel normal culture imposes its values on them.
And this imposition is their justification for their demands and all their antics. It is, therefore, a grave injustice to them that a culture/value system is imposed onto them that they would not willing choose. Therefore in absolute terms it must be true for all people that imposing a culture and values onto an unwilling person is not a good thing, yes?
Isn't that exactly what the homosexuals are doing?
And not only that, they're version of this imposition is a lot more authoritarian than what happened before.
I do not recall any corporate policy in the existence of American history that said if you do not believe in Jesus is grounds for being dismissed from employment. Shunned maybe. But, I do know that if someone were to speak out against affirming homosexuality in the workplace, that employee would be terminated swiftly.
I do know that if you don't bake certain cakes you will be sued.
We can sit here and talk about double standards all day, which we do. We can even gnash our teeth, which, at least in this forum, we should as a way to express our angst (just don't act on it). But, we have to take a step back and look at this and ponder it to see the truth of the matter.
This is no simple contradiction, if there is any such thing. This is no simple double standard. Such a condition invalidates every aspect of the homosexual "movement" aside from one, which is establishing equality under law. And that is something I have never had an issue with.
Ostensibly the homosexual will say that it's culture and values are better because they're "inclusive" of all people. Here again, this is categorically not true. Basically any person that does not enthusiastically agree with them in all ways is excluded. And regardless of what you hear, there are a shit load of those people!
Moreover, as we're seeing there are aspects of homosexual "culture" that I don't think any red blooded member of the human race can accept, such as cross dressing children, pedophilia, pederasty etc. But, time and time and time and time again we see that this is not just a recent aberration, but rather a demonstrably fundamental and re-occurring feature of their culture.
If we're to base major societal changes and policies off of the idea that imposing a specific culture and values is not good, than the very same fucking thing applies right back to homosexuals.
It goes deeper. I've long since maintained that the issue with the gays is that they're just not compatible with society. It speaks to the fundamental issue of trying to implement a democratic system among a widely diverse population that is increasingly not only unlike each other, but, hostile. A homogeneous society is therefore preferable, especially when it comes to optimizing personal freedom and sustain a functional democracy and representative government.
Including homosexual propaganda in schools, for instance, only serves the interests of homosexuals. Never mind the sycophants at present, for the regular knowing or unknowing, heterosexual such things run contrary to their interests. If there is suppose to be a representative system, than, why are the interest of only one group being honored while the others is not?
Such are the things we'll see more and more as the society becomes heterogeneous.
What I'm mulling over is that society cannot be all things to all people. homosexuals represent a small minority of people. They've insisted on certain changes fundamental to our society but hasn't that only made them into the very thing and people they say their against?
I don't have the answer here. But, I want to underscore this aspect of their movement. Something in me sees this as terminal flaw. Time will tell.
