First let me remind you that my main point is not merely non-productivity. I stated that the homosexual's decision to participate in these relationships acting or mimicking the opposite sex's role was equivelent to self negation. I'm saying that it is a symptom of and a producer of pathology in the individual.
In response to your first point I've drawn on quotes from
The Psychology of Homosexuality By Paul Cameron, Ph. D. find it at this website for a full read:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html You said that homosexuality was comparable to masturbation or other non reproductive sex equivelent to bachelor living.
Then you suggested that homosexual school faculty and temp gaurdians promote family and community and aid in the rearing of the children of the community.
Here's a quote from the paper:
"homosexuals have been considered non-productive and hence inimical to the well-being and even the survival of the community. In addition, they have been regarded as dangerous, because they preyed on the young and perverted them from normal, healthy, productive lives. In their selfish preoccupation with genital pleasure, they sought to rebel against the natural order of human life itself –– the mutual responsibility of one for all that forms the basis of the social contract. Anyone who opts out of that contract for reasons other than illness or disability is "wrong headed," "worthless," "immoral."
Next you make the ""Egalitarian social-psychiatric theory" argument which holds that if society would compel its members to accept everyone "for what they choose to do or be," everybody (including homosexuals) would come to feel good about themselves. In this 'brotherhood of humankind,' the job of creating adequate material wealth and rearing a sufficiency of well-socialized children would flow 'naturally' out of the general spirit of cooperation, decency, and acceptance that would prevail.
Traditional social-psychiatric theory argues that productive people will enjoy life, feel good about themselves, earn the respect of friends and co-workers, and feel connected with their families and society. The non-productive will also have personalities shaped by their character and experience, namely, their worthless or counterproductive activities and life choices. They are expected to feel dissatisfied with life and themselves, be stung from social scorn, and seek excessive distraction (through amusements, risk-taking, drugs, sex).
But then you ended by charging me with making immense assumptions about the societies that coexist here in America. I am a member of such a fraternal order comprised of upstanding citizens screened and selected to participate in charitable events related to the Shriner's Hospitals. We have our secrets our rituals our academia or scholarship. There is rank dicipline and support. The Order I speak of is thousands of years old and world wide has membership in the millions. I have personally benefitted from their influence which reached me all the way into the Marine Corps when I ran into trouble with my chain of command. So counter cultures and entire societies do co-exist with the mainstream society.
As to your rebuttal to my statement that the nature of a dominant culture anywhere it encounters the weaker is to absorb, assimulate or destroy it.
It's not Malarchy, it's World History and Current Events. It's called Colonization. As to the confrontation between Cultures Sun Tzu The Art of War is a treatment on strategem and is standard reading in Officers Candidates School at Quantico, VA. It is also reportedly standard reading for most of the CEO's in this country. The Military Strategy is converted into Business Strategy. Hence the saying Business is War. It's good reading, don't skip it.
I assume they are not from Mars.
Now for the spade being what it is. I am stating that homosexuality is as much a sympton as it is a product of pathology, and experience. In support of my calling a spade a spade,
Here's some more quotes from the Dr.'s paper:
The rebellious are expected to have "adjustment problems" because they don''t follow society''s prescription. They will feel angry at and at odds with their family and society, even while blaming them for their problems. Rebels, such as thieves and gays, will tend to "feel comfortable" only in the company of their kind. Though they may get satisfactions within their subcultures, their lifestyles preclude full participation in things that "really count" psychologically (e.g., parenthood, social honor). In reaction, traditional theory holds that rebels will mock those who are productive, even as they envy and resent them.
Here's a doozy:
Besides gays'' preoccupation with sex, traditionalist psychiatrists have catalogued a higher incidence of personality characteristics suggesting psychological disturbance and an inability to interact successfully with others. Dr. Edmond Bergler, (1) who treated over a thousand homosexuals, concluded that gays tended to: provoke attacks against themselves and then count these "attacks" as injustices they had suffered
display defensive malice toward others,
exhibit a flippant attitude in order to cover underlying depression and guilt,
display extreme narcissism and superciliousness,
refuse to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their "suffering," and
"be generally unreliable, also of a more or less psychopathic nature.
It's really good reading and gets statisticle soon :
Several lines of evidence suggest that the personality problems of gays are not a consequence of societal rejection, but ''part and parcel'' of living the homosexual life. Furthermore, discrimination against those with homosexual inclinations, like discrimination against the able-bodied who refuse to work, is both necessary for the greater good of society and the individual himself. In fact, such discrimination is an attempt to prevent persons tempted by homosexuality from suffering the pathologies it induces.
Becoming a homosexual involves a tremendous amount of reverse socialization. Almost every child is taught to avoid feces. Potty training explicitly teaches one to regard feces as ''dirty,'' disgusting, and unhealthy. Yet most homosexuals eventually learn to immerse themselves in feces. Past surveys suggest the following typical sequential development of gay activity. The median age for gays when their genitals are first manipulated by another male is 13. In about two more years the anus is first used for sex rather than biological relief; and in another year or two the anus is licked for ''sexual fun.''
By age 21 most gays "have come a long way." They have learned to seek and enjoy activities that would have sickened them as children. Some go on to "bigger thrills" like sadomasochism, fisting (where the fist is placed up the rectum), or eating feces or drinking urine. (4,5,6,7) Medically speaking, it doesn''t matter whether you pursue such activity for "fun" or ingest waste because your salad wasn''t washed –– exposure to feces is unhealthy. Psychologically, to undo the hygienic training of childhood in pursuit of adult sexual pleasure literally "turns all the rules upside down."
Given the biologically and psychologically unhealthful nature of such activity, it is not surprising that the younger a person "locks into" a gay identity, the more disturbed he is apt to be. Remafedi performed two studies of "gay youth." A 1987 study (8) of 29 such youngsters led him to conclude that the "very experience of acquiring a homosexual or bisexual identity at an early age places the individual at risk for dysfunction. This conclusion is strongly supported by the data." His 1991 study (9) of 137 gay and bisexual youth aged 14 to 21 reinforced his previous finding: "For each year''s delay in bisexual or homosexual self-labeling, the odds of a suicide attempt diminished by 80%. These findings support a previously observed, inverse relationship between psychosocial problems and the age of acquiring a homosexual identity."
Over the past 50 years, 5 studies have compared substantial numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals –– all generated results suggesting greater social disruption by gays. In the Kinsey survey, general prison inmates (excluding those incarcerated for sexual offenses) were over 4 times more apt to have extensive homosexual experience than his control group.
(11) Saghir & Robins (12) compared 146 gays with 78 heterosexuals and reported less stability (more lovers, more job-changing) and more criminality among homosexuals. Bell & Weinberg (5) contrasted 979 gays with 477 heterosexuals and found more instability (psychiatric, marital) and more criminality among gays. Cameron & Ross (13) questionnaired 2,251 randomly-obtained respondents and reported that heterosexuals evidenced more social cohesion (numbers and kinds of intimate relationships), less self-destructive behavior (smoking, drug use, suicide attempts), and less endangerment of others (via driving habits, deliberate killing).
The largest comparison of gays and straights on a wide range of topics and based on a random sample involved 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. metropolitan areas. (6) Comparing those of both sexes who claimed to be bisexual or homosexual versus those of both sexes who claimed to be exclusively heterosexual:
Homosexuality was linked to lowered health
–– homosexuals were about twice as apt to report having had a sexually transmitted disease (STD); and over twice as apt to have had at least 2 STDs;
–– homosexuals were about 5 times more apt to have tried to deliberately infect another with an STD;
–– homosexuals were about a third more apt to report a traffic ticket or traffic accident in the past 5 years;
–– homosexuals were 3 times as likely to have attempted suicide, 4 times more apt to have attempted to kill someone, and about twice as likely to have been involved in a physical fight in the past year;
–– homosexuals were about 5 times more apt to have engaged in torture-related sex (sadomasochism, bondage); and
–– homosexuals were about 4 times more likely to report having been raped.
In response finally: No there must not have been a unified world government by now though the Automan Empire and Ghangis Khan and his decendants occupied most of the known world with the largest Empire in History. He even held Russia. The seperation of Continents by Oceans alone accounts for the abscence of World Government. Sun Tzu The Art of War says the state cannot sustain a war at great distance for a prolonged period because of the strain on the population taxes would go too high for them to bear and the states reserves would be exhausted. So Battles are to be carefully calculated and decided quickly. This treatment on Warfare is nearly 10,000 years old from China.
Sorry for the deluge of quotes but I thought if you heard it from some one else you might reconsider your position.
Why condone fruitless deviant behavior?
My Posts
52yrs • M • 
