Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Luckily, with age, comes wisdom. I've noticed that I'm a lot more cautious now (at 40) than I was when I was in my 20s, and I'm a lot less eager to make big changes than I used to be.
I wish I was getting wiser, but sadly I'm just getting older.
Meet the world's usual mentally imbalanced person. Insanity, confusion, degeneracy are being mainstreamed. It has a gender, no matter how many operations it has.
Meet the world's usual mentally imbalanced person. Insanity, confusion, degeneracy are being mainstramed. It has a gender, no matter how many operations it has.
Meet the world's usual mentally imbalanced person. Insanity, confusion, degeneracy are being mainstramed. It has a gender, no matter how many operations it has.
We generally think of people as coming in two sexes - male and female. This is hardly the case. Many people are born as some sort of intermediate sex (both gametes, versions of both a penis and ovaries, the outside is a vagina but has internal testicles and the person has mostly male hormones, weird mismatch of chromosomes, etc, etc, etc, etc). They're called intersexed (hermaphrodite). It's not unusual that an intersexed person will be born with some form of both sex organs, but because the penis is underdeveloped it's cut off and the child is raised as a girl. Often this child develops more as a male (hormonally, physically) than as the girl their parents decided they should be.
There are more intersexed people (neither male nor female) in the US than redheads.
Last edited by denverkid; 03-19-2010 at 02:06 PM..
Sure, socially and culturally, you can call yourself whatever you want, but his chromosomes will always define him as a male - right?
I define the person as mentally ill.
An adult person can have all their wrinkles surgically removed, and have parts of their brain cut out so they had the mind of a child, it does make the person a child, it just makes them a person who was able to talk a doctor into carrying out an operation in accordance with the desires of their mental illness.
No, I didn't see that, but I can understand why she said that. We often dream of making changes in our lives, but we have no way to know what the reality of those changes will be like. Luckily, with age, comes wisdom. I've noticed that I'm a lot more cautious now (at 40) than I was when I was in my 20s, and I'm a lot less eager to make big changes than I used to be.
I've never felt like I was the "wrong" sex, but I've met many who have felt that way. I really feel for them. It may sound selfish, but talking with them makes me glad I'm not them. I imagine that's how some straight guys must feel about gay guys.
Speaking as a straight guy, I've never felt "fortunate" to be straight, but I have felt sympathy for those who experience societal persecution for being gay (this may surprise some people here that consider me the ultra conservative white male who oppresses everyone).
But I do rail against the radical homosexual agendas that want to "normalize" homosexuality (whatever normal is these days). And I say this from the standpoint that human beings are designed heterosexual, evidenced by the mechanisms of procreation.
I subscribe to the belief that there is some crossed code that makes someone homosexual ... a genetic anomaly rather than a "Life Style Choice" as some would contend. Of course, that's just my opinion based on the understanding I have as a straight person. I cannot even imagine being homosexual ... it's as foreign an idea to me as anything I can conceive. Consequently, I don't blame or pass judgement on homosexuals for being homosexuals. And I condemn any effort to inflict emotional or other hardships or obstacles upon homosexuals.
At the same time, I do not support an across the board "legal" effort to extend every established right to homosexuals, or tolerance based agendas i.e. indoctrinating young children with sex education that is advocated to begin in early grade school aged children to accept homosexuality as normal, as kids that age have no business being presented with such questions of orientation. Or, along the same lines, I'm against homosexuals adopting children, not to punish them or deny them rights, nor to suggest that they are not capable of caring for children ... lord knows there are plenty of lousy heterosexual parents out there to which many homosexual couples would surely be better. I am against this because ideally, children of both sexes benefit the most from having a father and a mother, raised in an environment that will likely be the environment that they too someday will recreate themselves. Virtually every study on the subject shows this to be true. Certainly there are exceptions to every situation, but by and large, 90% of children will be heterosexual, and should be raised in a heterosexual environment, IMHO.
As an adult of 52 years, I recall how difficult it was to lose my father at the formative age of 11. And as great as my mom was raising us, there are just some things that women cannot do ... to include being a father. And the reverse of that is true. And a gay male cannot offer a heterosexual child the same thing that a heterosexual male can. There are complex interpersonal issues and differences between one's relationship with their mothers and fathers. Both little girls and boys need both ... not one or the other, ideally. This is the basis of my beliefs ... they are not based on the idea that homosexuals would be BAD parents or attempt to raise children to be homosexuals. The bottom line is that kids tend to emulate their parents as they are simply trying to learn, and this could easily become a source of confusion for them as they develop and become young adults.
But I do rail against the radical homosexual agendas that want to "normalize" homosexuality (whatever normal is these days). And I say this from the standpoint that human beings are designed heterosexual, evidenced by the mechanisms of procreation.
I subscribe to the belief that there is some crossed code that makes someone homosexual ... a genetic anomaly rather than a "Life Style Choice" as some would contend. Of course, that's just my opinion based on the understanding I have as a straight person. I cannot even imagine being homosexual ... it's as foreign an idea to me as anything I can conceive.
May I just suggest you open your mind to other ideas - to more complex understandings and explanations of very complex things such as sexuality and homosexuality. Common sense, as well as the overwhelming scientific evidence, points to a biological basis for sexuality - including homosexuality. The evidence suggests a major genetic factor - not entirely though. You seem to accept this, although you refer to it as an "anomaly" - some form of abnormality, disease, condition, etc.
I know this goes against what you "believe", but ask yourself, why, biologically, would a trait that seemingly renders a segment of a population non-reproductive be maintained generation after generation. Why is it found in essentially every animal species on earth (which it is)?
Could there possibly be a benefit? Could it actually HELP in the propagation and survival of a species? Is it possible that while not necessarily beneficial in the propagation of the human animal, was it somehow beneficial in the lower forms of life from which we evolved? Humans have several vestigial organs (structures we still have, but have lost their function as we evolved into what we are today). Does having a coccyx make us "abnormal"? Most scientists agree humans also posses several vestigial behaviors and reflexes: goose bumps in response to cold for instance. Is it possible homosexuality is a completely normal, vestigial trait???
I'll start you down some roads is you want:
Population genetics: Overpopulation can be a great threat to the survival of a species. A species can go from overpopulated to extinct very quickly. Perhaps a biological trait that slows the rate of growth would actually (somewhat paradoxically) help in the propagation and survival of a species.
We have several concrete examples of non-reproductive segments of species that directly result in an increase in population survivorship and size. 25% of male Black Swans live in life-long, monogamous homosexual pairings. They steal eggs from heterosexual couples and raise the chicks in a gay swan family. Chicks raised in these male-male couples are more than twice as likely to survive than chicks raised in female-male couples.
Just because some trait renders an individual outside the "mechanisms of procreation" doesn't mean it's abnormal, a genetic anomaly, or some sort of disease. It doesn't even mean it goes against the nature of creating and extending life. Those are naive conclusions.
Reading this made me sad. I can't imagine what it must feel like to not really be able to identify with either gender, we are so strongly socialized according to gender and gender roles.
I truly feel for this person, i honestly really do. If we did not identify with either gender, would we be the person we are today. That's hard.
May I just suggest you open your mind to other ideas - to more complex understandings and explanations of very complex things such as sexuality and homosexuality. Common sense, as well as the overwhelming scientific evidence, points to a biological basis for sexuality - including homosexuality. The evidence suggests a major genetic factor - not entirely though. You seem to accept this, although you refer to it as an "anomaly" - some form of abnormality, disease, condition, etc.
Yes, I believe it is genetic. And I would contend that my mind is far from closed or not considering of complex issues, but quite to the contrary. At the same time, I strive to avoid overcomplicating or rationalizing an issue to the point of confusion, as some frequently do on a multitude of topics. Sometimes black and white really is black and white, though sexuality in it's many forms of expression is not one of those times. However, as complex as sexuality might be in expression, cause and effect does not necessarily have to follow. A genetic anomaly defined, simply means a deviation from the norm, and that would certainly apply to homosexuality given that heterosexuality is the norm. It's not closed minded, nor even an insult. It is simply a statement of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverkid
I know this goes against what you "believe", but ask yourself, why, biologically, would a trait that seemingly renders a segment of a population non-reproductive be maintained generation after generation. Why is it found in essentially every animal species on earth (which it is)?
That's a good question, and the same question could be asked regarding albinos, or why some eyes are blue and others brown, and others a combination. The same could be asked of why finger prints are different. Some "anomalies" may be a break in the genetic code, predisposed by the combination of the DNA of both parents, while it could be environmental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverkid
Could there possibly be a benefit? Could it actually HELP in the propagation and survival of a species? Is it possible that while not necessarily beneficial in the propagation of the human animal, was it somehow beneficial in the lower forms of life from which we evolved? Humans have several vestigial organs (structures we still have, but have lost their function as we evolved into what we are today). Does having a coccyx make us "abnormal"? Most scientists agree humans also posses several vestigial behaviors and reflexes: goose bumps in response to cold for instance. Is it possible homosexuality is a completely normal, vestigial trait???
In short, no. Most everyone I know has experienced goose bumps, which makes this not a deviation from the norm, and therefore not an anomaly. And this is the type of argument that I reject. It may be comforting to those who are homosexual to view themselves and want to be viewed by others as "normal". I can understand that, given the alternative which would potentially mean feeling "abnormal". But is it not rather foolish to ignore reality for comfort's sake? I don't think anyone is served by self deception, especially when it requires forcing others to participate in the deception. I liken this to the PC label given to illegal aliens as being "undocumented immigrants". No, they are frigging criminal invaders, and they are breaking the law. They may have a multitude of good reasons for wanting to hop the border, but that doesn't change the facts. Shall we also call a bank robbery an "unauthorized withdrawal"? I mean, bank robbers are people too. They have feelings.
Homosexuality is often referred to in the language of PC as an "Alternative lifestyle", which would tend to belay the contention that it is genetic and therefore by definition, a "choice". So, the language we use is important, with honesty, no matter how inconvenient, the best policy.
Now, don't get me wrong here ... I'm not comparing ... but do you realize that close to 10% of the population (similar to the percentage of homosexuals) display the traits of being sociopathic? That's right, 1 in 10 display the traits, which includes the inability to feel or empathize. Most of these people appear to the rest of the world quite normal, and in reality, pose no real threat. Yet, some sociopaths are quite dangerous to deal with, which would probably behoove us all not to consider these folks "normal". Should we have special rights given to sociopaths?
Now, are we to argue that there is a grand plan and benefit for the species overall to have 10% of the population, sociopaths? It's seems to be a reoccurring thing. Do these sociopaths serve a useful purpose, or are they just an anomalous group with a miss-wiring of the brain? You see, this argument is the stretch, whereas just an anomaly is far more likely.
That same argument can be used to describe homosexuality. Why do you think that the logical deduction would be to envision an unidentified, mysterious benefit to all mankind presented by homosexuality? We have plenty of other things that limit procreativity and overpopulation, such as disease, natural sterility, and natural disaster, among others.
I think this line of reasoning is a real reach ... and not indicative of your open mindedness. You're attempting to draw conclusions without a shred of evidence to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverkid
I'll start you down some roads is you want:
Population genetics: Overpopulation can be a great threat to the survival of a species. A species can go from overpopulated to extinct very quickly. Perhaps a biological trait that slows the rate of growth would actually (somewhat paradoxically) help in the propagation and survival of a species.
We have several concrete examples of non-reproductive segments of species that directly result in an increase in population survivorship and size. 25% of male Black Swans live in life-long, monogamous homosexual pairings. They steal eggs from heterosexual couples and raise the chicks in a gay swan family. Chicks raised in these male-male couples are more than twice as likely to survive than chicks raised in female-male couples.
Just because some trait renders an individual outside the "mechanisms of procreation" doesn't mean it's abnormal, a genetic anomaly, or some sort of disease. It doesn't even mean it goes against the nature of creating and extending life. Those are naive conclusions.
You're wrong in stretching for some alternative conclusion while rejecting the most likely, all the while suggesting that I am close minded and naive for not immediately wanting to search with you. Show me some tangible evidence that would even suggest you're on to something here, and I shall consider it. Otherwise, your path is one of pure speculation without foundation.
And you seem to have a very conditioned view of the english language, no doubt a product of an overdose of political correctness. Abnormal to you is apparently an insult. But it's simply a deviation from the norm, with countless examples.
Let me provide you with some food for thought ... though unlike your speculation, mine does have some supporting evidence.
The powers that be ... the globalists ... the new world order ... the elitists ... whatever label you feel comfortable with ... they do in fact exist. They are not figments of imagination or non existent ghosts in the minds of conspiracy theorists. They are real, and they make no effort to conceal themselves or their agendas any longer. One of those agendas is population reduction, and there are mountains of documentation ... a plethora of evidence ... wrapped up in this agenda are numerous, separate efforts including drugs and additives that sterilize ... the push for CO2 reduction is part of this, as are many other complementary elements.
The natural outcome of homosexuality dovetails nicely if you were of the camp that espouses the reduction of the population, no? Now, couple all of the recent support for the great homosexual revolution with other separate activities such as the high concentration of soy and other components in the American diet with it's known estrogenic properties ... the glorification of random no ties sex and abortion on demand, and the demonization of family values, all combined, contributes to the disruption of population growth, and the destruction of the middle class family, which has been the mainstay of American society for our entire term of existence.
We have a population unable to think today .. incapable of rational thought and critical analysis, dumbed down by fluoride in the water to mercury in vaccines. Every effort is made, and no stone left unturned, no subject to insignificant to be exploited to create division in our society .. be it racial, gender, religious, or sexual orientation. We are literally at war with each other .. divided by such ridiculous and petty arguments, while larger, more important issues go unchallenged.
In California, we have the homosexual community voting for whoever says they support Gay marriage, yet they could care less about the wholesale looting of our economy, or two illegal wars. The same holds true for every minority group who will follow any pandering pimp that promises them special privilege.
We've become a nation of small self interest groups who's individual pet causes trump all else. Self concerned numbskulls who want champion every cause that is counter to the health, well being, and procreation of the human species ... champions of homosexuality, abortion on demand, poisoning of our food and water with chemicals and genetically modified organisms, to the classification of the life producing gas, CO2 as a pollutant, under the blatant fraud of man made global warming.
Yes, we are collectively supporting ... no, DEMANDING the extermination, however slow, of our own species.
Now chew on that for a while.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
