Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
What we see time and time again as the noose of gay-fascism tightens around the necks of conservatives and middle folks all the way just right of far left are defenses based on a false premise.
It seems that everyone, with no evidence whatsoever to support and tons of evidence to the contrary, has made the wrong assumption and assigned "legal fact' to it as a jumping off point for opposing the Lavender Reicht. That assumption-as-fact is "gays are a race of people".
They are factually NOT a race of people. They are an incomplete assortment of deviant sexual practitioners. They practice a certain type of sexuality that has to be by definition "non hetero" or as they call it "not a breeder". Those behaviors, compulsive or not, are still behaviors.
There is a disturbing conclusion that could be born inadvertently from this false-premise-as-fact. And that is, we regulate behaviors by a majority rule. We institute penal and civil codes to daily discriminate against behaviors. If one group of behaviors organizes as a de facto cult, without seeking actual legal recognition as a religion, what group of behaviors will come next and shove their dogma down the throats of those who are agreeing on the false premise in error?
Here is some evidence that sexual orientation is learned. You can vote on the poll after reading the links and the sources, which are quite prestigious.
Its conclusions are that even in lower animals that you'd clearly assume were vastly more slavish to their DNA than we "monkey-see, monkey-do" post-natal learners, these lower creatures actually take cues from their environment on which peculiar aspects in their mate they select. And after a first few times with this mate, that they chose by observing a social matrix or set of norms, they became habituated to selecting that type of mate in the future. They were sexually oriented from their environment. ie: they learned what was considered normal and what wasn't from looking around them.
This has HUGE implications as LGBTs try to infuse every aspect of our culture with their various sexual tweaks. Think about it.
Here's an article on how child predators learn their orientation BEHAVIORS. It jibes with the Canadian university review above and even concludes its likely "a form of social learning took place"...
Next we have the CDC declaring that gay men have suffered a "pervasive" "epidemic" of having been molested as boys. Then they grew up gay. I wonder if there's a relation?
So if gayness is learned, why are we treating it legally as if it wasn't? Why are we equating what is otherwise a mere compulsive or fixed or even chosen [think Anne Heche] temporary state of behaving 'as race'?
What other behaviors will debut to tell us we must accept them 'as race' once a legal precedent has been set on this false premise?
Next time you're in court with some gay people telling you "how it's going to be" and "what you're going to do for us" and "what parts of your religion we're allowing you to remain faithful to" and "we're going to teach your kids about fisting in schools or else!", and "you're going to celebrate our pedophile-messiah Harvey Milk...or else!", try putting the argument to the court that from the very onset, LGBT must be handled as behaviors and not race, unless they can prove they are a fixated group of non-changing people all having a similar genetic variant.
And to the LGBTs who have enjoyed this tidal wave of legal battles thusfar on the false premise, good luck once the real premise is introduced. Methinks once courts are convinced of your real affectations [behaviors] and no longer see you as a race of people, your legal outcomes might change just a tad...
It seems that everyone, with no evidence whatsoever to support and tons of evidence to the contrary, has made the wrong assumption and assigned "legal fact' to it as a jumping off point for opposing the Lavender Reicht. That assumption-as-fact is "gays are a race of people".
They are factually NOT a race of people. They are an incomplete assortment of deviant sexual practitioners. They practice a certain type of sexuality that has to be by definition "non hetero" or as they call it "not a breeder". Those behaviors, compulsive or not, are still behaviors.
There is a disturbing conclusion that could be born inadvertently from this false-premise-as-fact. And that is, we regulate behaviors by a majority rule. We institute penal and civil codes to daily discriminate against behaviors. If one group of behaviors organizes as a de facto cult, without seeking actual legal recognition as a religion, what group of behaviors will come next and shove their dogma down the throats of those who are agreeing on the false premise in error?
Here is some evidence that sexual orientation is learned. You can vote on the poll after reading the links and the sources, which are quite prestigious.
Its conclusions are that even in lower animals that you'd clearly assume were vastly more slavish to their DNA than we "monkey-see, monkey-do" post-natal learners, these lower creatures actually take cues from their environment on which peculiar aspects in their mate they select. And after a first few times with this mate, that they chose by observing a social matrix or set of norms, they became habituated to selecting that type of mate in the future. They were sexually oriented from their environment. ie: they learned what was considered normal and what wasn't from looking around them.
This has HUGE implications as LGBTs try to infuse every aspect of our culture with their various sexual tweaks. Think about it.
Here's an article on how child predators learn their orientation BEHAVIORS. It jibes with the Canadian university review above and even concludes its likely "a form of social learning took place"...
Next we have the CDC declaring that gay men have suffered a "pervasive" "epidemic" of having been molested as boys. Then they grew up gay. I wonder if there's a relation?
So if gayness is learned, why are we treating it legally as if it wasn't? Why are we equating what is otherwise a mere compulsive or fixed or even chosen [think Anne Heche] temporary state of behaving 'as race'?
What other behaviors will debut to tell us we must accept them 'as race' once a legal precedent has been set on this false premise?
Next time you're in court with some gay people telling you "how it's going to be" and "what you're going to do for us" and "what parts of your religion we're allowing you to remain faithful to" and "we're going to teach your kids about fisting in schools or else!", and "you're going to celebrate our pedophile-messiah Harvey Milk...or else!", try putting the argument to the court that from the very onset, LGBT must be handled as behaviors and not race, unless they can prove they are a fixated group of non-changing people all having a similar genetic variant.
And to the LGBTs who have enjoyed this tidal wave of legal battles thusfar on the false premise, good luck once the real premise is introduced. Methinks once courts are convinced of your real affectations [behaviors] and no longer see you as a race of people, your legal outcomes might change just a tad...
Last edited:
