Why obsess over homosexuality?

Actually I agree with you. Wow.....never thought that would happen.

 

Sweet mother of god, the clouds have parted... and hell has frozen over.

 

Well we ....as in people of my side...say that gay marriage will destroy marriage....but heterosexuals had destroyed it already by making it conform to the adults and dissing the kid. And then comes casual sex with no shame...which has created a true catastrophe....caused by heterosexuals.

 

I'll admit it.

I had Sec out of wedlock.

That's why he doesn't like gay people. I ruined him.

 

Testosterone does. And no you don't "need a penis" - but rather you need to be a man. A person who lost his penis in an accident could still fit said role with or without his member due to the biological differences that make him adapted to it.

She can if a father isn't there to fill the void, just as a dad can fill the role of a mother in the event the mother is absent - but netiher is ideal since they aren't what the sexes are biologically and evolutionary designed for.

Just as a lion "can forcibly adapt" to living in a tiny zoo cage rather than in the wild, but it will be less happy, healthy, and in touch with its nature in such a scenario, so such a mal-adaptation is not preferred.

He can, his name is Norman Bates. And that's the last person I'd want my son to take after and use as an aspiration of male behavior.

That's in correct, it's dependent on the neurological differences between the sexes rather than the genitals. If you've bought into the myth that there are no biological differences other then the genitals then you need to learn more.

 

A man who's high in testosterone, physically fit, disciplined, ambitious, strong in character - and not confused about his identity.

A man who's high in testosterone, physically fit, disciplined, ambitious, strong in character - and not confused about his identity.

In other words the things that have made men considered strong role models since the dawn of man. Versus this modern crop of beta providers, Marvin Milquetoasts, diaper changers, cuckloids, Oepal complexes, and other untermench who's only claim to being a "man" is having a shorter-than-average penis and who are in denial and insecure of the fact that being a Man as opposed to just a "male" means something more than that.

 

My office is quiet most of the time and usually am listening to YouTube videos. Lots of documentaries and a few intellectual personalities. Stephen Molyeux said something very interesting a while back. The subject was casual sex and the consequences that can come from casual sex. He said that we are our genes and we should place the utmost value on our genes. So if we are sharing our genes who is not "worthy" or of our same genetic/social/moral/virtuous equal we are disrespecting our genes. We are disrespecting ourselves.

So you have sex with someone who is not your genetic/social/moral/virtuous equal, and she becomes pregnant, then you have a mighty ball and chain and a drain on your resources that could have been used towards someone who is your genetic/social/moral/virtuous equal.

The idea of valuing your genes was a mind blown moment.

 

A career criminal can have the first four identifiers. What constitutes strong in character to you?

 

I'd much rather have a career criminal father a child than a man who's completely spineless. Even career criminals have the redeeming quality of ambition. Plus one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Kids without a strong masculine role model are more likely to be criminals themselves anyway.

Assertiveness, strong sense of identity, courage, self-reliance, etc - the traits which are proven to be evolutionary successful.

 

Cooperative behavior has, likewise, proven to be evolutionarily successful. The "alpha male" mentality has more to do with male fantasy than evolutionary reality.

 

The same can be said of kids raised by criminals thus making your point moot.

All the above terms are subjective other than perhaps self-reliance. What you seen to be describing is an alpha male which in and of itself is neither positive nor negative as some alphas are horrible parents while other alphas are amazing parents... just as non alpha parents.

IMO a key component of good character is one who can place others above self, one who can see beyond their own views in an effort to understand a dissenting view, one who leads by example, one who builds others up rather than tearing them down, one that is tolerant of harmless differences, one who measures their words rather than spouting an uninhibited stream of consciences... etc. Both alphas and non alphas can have the above traits. Being an alpha is not reverting to some caveman mentality where animal instinct overrules logic.

 

Four pages and so far there has been a complete failure to demonstrate how homosexuals are destroying society when heterosexuals are the ones breeding.

 

Its all about Bastards...

As your Gay friends make certain to help the loose feminists women teach everyone that sex is for fun, Welfare costs $ 1 trillion dollars a year now.
The illegitimacy is 50% of all births in the USA.
Single mothers in the Ghetto are 73% of the Welfare families, and their kids suffer enormous Child Abuse growing up.
Then, as adults, they do 70% of all violent crime.

Why?
Because Gays and half naked harlots are out there preaching it is just fine.
Is there any reason the Gays and naked Harlot girls couldn't be as bad as they are and no kid would ever notice them????

 

?

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals A Report on the State of High Schools).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*:
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
24.3 times more likely to run away
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
10.8 times more likely to commit rape
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes

Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce**
///

http://www.cato.org/publications/con...-state-crime-0

 

So 2% of the population is convincing 50% of single mothers that welfare is ok?

lol

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree with this. But these issues existed long before the major push for gay rights.

 

I wish you did have a problem with the bastards suffering and the becoming criminal.
And yes,... Sexual promiscuity is a CULTURE.

The culture changed when people adult, whether Gays or openly sexual acting adults show kids the sex is what they do and want to do.

My question to Gays is why do they insist on telling everyone in the whole society what they or want to do sexually??
I understand the feminist harlot girls advertising for male attention because we let them get away with it, foolishly.
Gays want to tell their father, get mom to help them do so, and let every kids see their outlook for no good reason.

 

There is another way of saying what you said....and that is if you have good morals, your priorities are such that you choose wisely, for a purpose. That purpose is to find out if a person is the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Is this a person you would choose to be your kid's mother or father. Does this person have any red flags that might be indicative of abuse.

Back in the day before I was of age---a woman dated not to have so much a good time---but to see if her date was fitting the criteria. Living independently while dating and not having sex before marriage---allowed women and men to depart from each other easily if red flags were shown. It takes about one to two years to truely know somebody....and if you dated a couple of times and had sex before knowing each other----its like glue that keeps even the incompatible together and the vulnerable with the abusive.

Constantly I hear of hetersexual women with kids...coming home to find her live in boyfriend has raped her baby, or beat the child to death. Its just almost commonplace. So not only are we not concerned about our genes....we aren't concerned about our kids. They are just baggage to be around as we screw someone new that might be interesting.

 

The State does not define marriage; it defines what it sanctions. A marriage is a marriage with or without a state's sanction.
What is at stake is not the state's sanction of traditional marriage. All that's at stake is the exclusivity of the state's sanction.

Homosexual marriage is a fiat marriage. Christians accept fiat currency all the time, and it can be easily argued that fiat currency is much more detrimental to liberty than fiat marriage could ever be. If the state wants to coin "gay-marriage", render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, we heterosexuals have some nerve demanding exclusive agency to the state's sanction of an institution that we have mostly abandoned. Most heterosexuals don't even bother to get married. Most of those who do also get divorced. Most of those who get divorced also get remarried. Most of the children are born out of wedlock. REALLY? With all of that going against the traditional marriage, we're going to draw the line and forbid the state from sanctioning gay-marriage. Classic, transparent displacement. Yeah, right, "they're" the problem. If you want to defend the traditional marriage, defend it from yourself. Shut off the porn. Go back home and raise your children. Teacher them the difference between wrong and intolerable. Example to them how we tolerate what we judge but don't condemn.

What's more, I'm all for defending the faith, but that defense should begin with defending it from oneself FIRST. We heterosexuals need to get the board out of our eye before we condemn another for having a speck in theirs. Homosexuals do not even have the biological capacity to do even a fraction of the harm that we have done. It's only because of the disgrace that we have wrought upon family and marriage and sexuality in general that "gay-marriage" seems less deviant than it once did for so many.

After all, homosexuality is only a sin in the extension that it is sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It is only a sin because it is a form of fornication. Where is the outcry against heterosexual fornication in any equal measure to its gravity?

I have seen the enemy; they are us.

 

I have an answer. They must believe it is the worst possible sin against God. They think it makes them appear better by comparison. It seems kind of childish. Because all Christians fall short of the grace of God they can only be saved by Christ's good graces. Because most people aren't homosexual they compare themselves to them on the level of adherence to biblical dogma, thinking they can cozy up to Christ by pushing others away. They can't pick people that do what they do, that would make them hypocrites. basically homosexuals are like a scapegoat for sanctimonious people.

 

Cooperation's achieved by inspiring others to get things done - so this is where strong leadership skills come in.

Not true - a real alpha male is a leader, he inspires others. He isn't an island unto himself.

 

What "crime" are you talking about anyway? Using weed is a "crime" despite it being less dangerous than alcohol. I'd much rather have a guy who occasionally uses pot raise a kid than a guy who's a teetotaler but has no manhood whatsoever.

That's the myth right there, that they're "subjective" when they're actually very objective - a lot of it boiling down to as basic evolutionary traits such as body language.

Even the wrong body language affects testosterone levels.

Having "alpha" traits means having strong character and behavior - you're falsely equating alpha with being "macho" in the stereotypical sense.

Most men aren't NFL quaterbacks, Green Berets, MMA fighters, military generals, CEOs, etc - but they can still use alpha behavior on a day-to-day basis no matter what their job or lot in life is.

 

As stated previously "career criminals" have the same qualities that you listed for a "strong male role model" that being "A man who's high in testosterone, physically fit, disciplined, ambitious, strong in character - and not confused about his identity." So in essence I am challenging your criteria as to what constitutes a "strong male role model" as four of your criteria are not synonymous with a "strong male role model". I only see one of your criteria as being synonymous with "strong male role model", that being "strong in character"... which is a subjective measurement at best.

Human biology is not one dimensional thus it is subjective.

Incorrect as I never mentioned the word macho in my argument nor did I imply the word. I do not see "macho" as being a positive or a negative in and of itself.

Indeed, but being alpha is not synonymous with "strong male role model". Some alphas are abusive while other alphas are not. To me content of character and moral fiber is what makes a "strong male role model" as concept like alpha, "high in testosterone, physically fit, disciplined, ambitious" are not synonymous with "strong male role model".

 

Even the limitation of what you see renders your comment no more effective than his comment. Yours is equally subjective due to your self imposed limitation. The result of your private interpretation of the subject.

 

A statement of the obvious. I do not exempt myself from the subjectivity as to do so would be silly. An objective ideological truth in my head becomes not but a subjective opinion once I express it to another.

 

Very good response. Now the question arises... why does that ideological truth in your head become a subjective opinion to others when you express it? My best guess (playing the part of one of those wannabe scientists at this point) is because you cannot offer any PROOF (evidence or argument) that will compel the mind of that other person to accept your assertion as true.