Brokeback Mountain

[nitro]

The brain of just about any two animals of the same species will be different in some way. There is no control group in that statement and the cause and effect is unknown. However, the result is worth further investigation.

This book is on my list to read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/02...ref=sr_1_1/103-6600238-2745432?_encoding=UTF8

nitro

Quote from Rearden Metal:

Agreed, and there is scientific evidence to back it up.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=158647

Quick summary of the above experiment: In 2003, scientists observed the behavior of a large flock of sheep. 92% of the rams preferred to mate with ewes, while 8% mated with other rams. The sheep were then slaughtered and their brains biopsied.

The brains of the homosexual rams were found to be significantly <b>physically different</b> than the brains of the straight rams. Think about the implications...

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Sparohok:

You can think what you want about gay people, but when you call homosexuality a medical condition that is a factual error. The mental health professions define disorders by their negative effect on the patient. By the '70s it was becoming quite clear that homosexuality alone was not debilitating, by the simple evidence of so many homosexuals living their lives without any sign of abnormal distress. As a result, homosexuality has not been classified as a disorder for more than 30 years.

I regard that a mere technicality.

Look, if all males were homosexuals, the human race would cease to exist. It can't get simpler than that. From that standpoint, homosexuality is a liability.

Of course, at 1-2% of the population, it is no imminent threat, but nevertheless, it does represent a (quite dire) theoretical threat - especially if it could spread.

Furthermore, being the innately curious type, I've spent some time observing homosexuals. It's not just a stereotype, they really are quite effeminate. Imo, I think that counts as "debilitating", in the sense that they are missing out on the full blown masculine experience. But since, in modern society, anyway, it doesn't seem to lessen their quality of life, I suppose we leave this out.

(Of course, such men are no good to women, even if they aren't homosexual. Despite all the feminist blather, at the end of the day, what women want is a powerful man.)

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the health of society. And, to me, there is no escaping that homosexuals are disastrous for society. Their existence alone is bad enough, but to put them up on a pedestal and celebrate them, that to me is... catastrophic.

Now, some people don't care about "society". We're all just individuals, they claim. There's nothing bigger that a man can be a part of. I certainly don't share that view, and would fiercely defend my own, but, though it's too involved to go through on this thread, I don't think the issue of homosexuality can be addressed without it.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Sparohok:




Talk to some elderly folks and ask them which decade in their lives had the greatest sense of fear and paranoia.

I brought up the 50s as an example of a discriminating society, not as an example of everpresent good cheer.

Was the fear and foreboding you're lead to believe characterized the decade a result of their discrimination [this is quite a loaded term, but I trust your smart enough to gather my real meaning]? I'll leave that to you to tell me, but it would seem to me the spread of Godless communism (God was important back then) and threat of a nuclear showdown with the USSR would have been the causes of the paranoia more than anything else. (Economic "uncertainty" is a rather vague concern, imo - how often do people ever feel "certain" about the economy?)

 

[nitro]

Quote from spect8or:

...
Of course, at 1-2% of the population, it is no imminent threat, but nevertheless, it does represent a (quite dire) theoretical threat - especially if it could spread.
....

Are you aware of the logical paradox that this sentence entails? It could never spread by defintion. Nature also provides a clever redundancy - one male can produce 100 million sperm per. So if all but one male were gay (I volunteer to be the last straight man on earth) and as long as women favored non-homosexual men, and homosexuality was a disease, the "spreading" could easily be reversed.

Not only that, procreation through sex with another person is not the only way to continue a species. Witness humans that are hermaphrodite, or animals that can take either role of male or female at will, or how about going to a sperm bank and getting inseminated?

nitro

 

[spect8or]

Quote from nitro:

Are you aware of the logical paradox that this sentence entails? It could never spread by defintion. Nature also provides a clever redundancy - one male can produce 100 million sperm per. So if all but one male was gay (I volunteer to be the last straight man on earth) and as long as women favored non-homosexual men, and homsexuality was a disease, the "spreading" could easily be reversed.

Not only that, procreation through sex with another person is not the only way to continue a species. Witness humans that are hermaphrodite, or animals that can take either role of male or female at will, or how about going to a sperm bank and getting inseminated?

Gee, what a wonderful world that would be! I can't wait!

Obviously I'm concerned about preserving ("conserving"--> "conservative") a roughly recognizable world. One in which one male imregnates all the women certainly isn't it - to say nothing of hermaphrodites etc.

Furthermore, I really don't think we know enough yet to declare that homosexuality can't spread. I mean that in the sense of formerly heterosexual people turning gay. What interest would I have in a culture in which gays predominate? Very little, and I would fight it every step of the way.

 

[Sparohok]

Quote from spect8or:
I regard that a mere technicality.

Sure it's a technicality. You made a factual observation that was factually incorrect.

(Of course, such men are no good to women, even if they aren't homosexual. Despite all the feminist blather, at the end of the day, what women want is a powerful man.)

What woman want sexually is a powerful man. Doesn't mean that gay men are no good to women; for the most part women love to hang around with gay men, because they understand that sex is not all that a woman wants.

Incidentally, I've noticed that when men look at mens' clothing and says it looks "kinda gay," women will say it looks "sexy." Almost without fail. And I've heard a lot of single women complain that "all the best looking guys are gay." Sounds to me like the gay guys have a better idea what women want than we do.

Martin

 

[Ricter]

Either/or thinking. There's enough bisexual men to keep the race going.

At any rate, homo runs deep. You're no more going to change them into heteros then we could possibly stop you from being aroused by women and start being aroused by men. The penis doesn't make these things up, no pun intended.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Ricter:


At any rate, homo runs deep. You're no more going to change them into heteros then we could possibly stop you from being aroused by women and start being aroused by men. The penis doesn't make these things up, no pun intended.

Ricter, these are serious questions. Surely you don't think your 2 second opinion is the last word on them?

We simply don't know enough yet to categorically state that homosexuality can't spread. But if it could and did spread, I would regard that as an unmitigated disaster. I mean, I simply couldn't stand living in such a world.

Even with the small number of gays now, I simply detest being propositioned by them. The first time it happened I was fifteen and had played truant that day. Hanging out at the train station, I fell into conversation with an older man. I quickly deduced he was a bit of a dunce - he'd never heard of the suburb I live in, which everyone knew, and confessed to having hated school - and I moved to walk away. We were standing near the public toilets and he grabbed my arm and suggested we go inside. I flipped it with such a fury that I surprised even myself (I had issues with rage as a teen). I'm not "scarred" by incident, and I don't have flashbacks about it or anything, but it's a good example of the extreme revulsion I feel about homosexual sex.

I'm in Thailand at the moment, as you may have read. The nights are warm here and I was just walking around in tight a fitting singlet, showing off my impressive musculature (Okay, I'm no Ronnie Coleman, but still...). Some gay looking Thai must have thought I was looking at him when I was just checking for traffic before crossing the road, and he came and tried to strike up a conversation with me, with that flirtatious look in his eye. Yuuuuuuck. I couldn't move away fast enough.

Now, a world populated with a higher percentage of gays, where they feel brazen enough to proposition me openly? What a nightmare!

And what of my children? Already they are being encouraged to "explore" their sexuality. You know, they shouldn't just assume they're hetero, even if they feel that way. In a liberal society, who could object to that reasoning? If homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality, why not offer children the option of finding out if they have any underlying, "supressed" homosexual tendencies?

Now think about it, you start putting those kinds of ideas in childrens heads, they start forming images of them in their minds (their mouth around another man's penis etc), and you do it often enough, and who knows? Maybe some of the 'weaker' ones will find just enough within themselves to try it. Can anyone deny that gay parents are going to be trying their damnedest to effect just such a result? Reason enough to prohibit homosexual child adoption, in my book.

 

[energytraderus]

Spect8tor:

The writer V.S. Naipaul wrote that a writer reveals himself completely whenever he writes. You just took off all your clothes and bent over and spread your cheeks wide.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Sparohok:

Sure it's a technicality. You made a factual observation that was factually incorrect.

Not within the context I offered it, it wasn't.

What woman want sexually is a powerful man. Doesn't mean that gay men are no good to women; for the most part women love to hang around with gay men, because they understand that sex is not all that a woman wants.

I disagree. What women want most of all is a powerful man, even one with few other graces. What else explains womens' willingness to stay with partners who treat them like crap, who display none of the sensitivities women claim they desire, yet who satisfy their deepest yearning to belong to a dominant male?

Incidentally, I've noticed that when men look at mens' clothing and says it looks "kinda gay," women will say it looks "sexy." Almost without fail. And I've heard a lot of single women complain that "all the best looking guys are gay." Sounds to me like the gay guys have a better idea what women want than we do.

Isn't that trifling observation?

Isn't the fact that women want manly men - despite what they'll publicly admit, they are betrayed by their behaviour - far more important?

Isn't the incidence of marital unhappiness and divorce to a very large degree explicable by late 20th century phenomenon of men forgetting how to be men? Clearly they have forgotten it so much that Tom Brokaw was able to hit the talkshow circuit promoting his "Greatest Generation" nostalgia about World War 2 heroes, who in their own time would have been considered completely unremarkable and simply doing their duty as "any man" would - selflessly sacrificing for God and Country.

Obviously, feminism and the decline of traditional morality have been at least as equally influential, but I don't think we can ignore the decline of manhood as a factor.

Obviously, too, in a society obsessed with paying homage to gays, making a virtue of manhood is a tough row to hoe, because then, whatever we might say about gays, we can't rightly consider them men in full.