Blog Archive

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Science shows: Gays have a choice, and staying gay is an immoral one:

This link has a lot of interesting new factoids about gays.  Despite the scientists' attempts to somehow interpret the data in a way that's favorable towards gays, it's actually wholly damning.  Watch as I parse the truth out of this article:

If “to choose” means “to make a decision,” then we do not choose our sexual orientations because sexual orientations are patterns of sexual desire, and we do not choose our sexual desires.
 Who says?  I think people can choose their sexual desires.  There are plenty of people who have happy marriages, even plenty of offspring, before suddenly deciding they're 'gay' and they 'can't choose' who they desire.  Ridiculous.  Bruce Jenner had six children and three marriages until suddenly realizing he was a woman and unattracted to women.  In jail, plenty of blacks suddenly discover their desire for men which they hitherto hadn't been inclined towards.  In Afghanistan, practically every single man in the country desires young boys alongside women.  If homosexuality is innate how on Earth did that country get so genetically deviant from the rest of humanity?  It's obvious that sexual desire is as much under our control as other addictive traits.  Even if you really want to eat cake, you can still eat a salad instead.  Even if you really want to be an alcoholic, you can instead teetotal.  Even if you really want to smoke, you can quit.  You can even stop taking heroin.  So don't tell me you can't choose your sexual desires.  Humans have control and responsibility over all of their desires.  Sexual desire is no different from any other.

If people consistently and determinedly wean themselves away from sexual thoughts towards their preferred sex and insist on channeling that energy towards appropriate targets, they'll gradually learn to love the appropriate sex.  If people who are normally straight can suddenly switch to gay, like in the above cases, it's obvious that the opposite can also occur.  It's just a matter of whether you choose to let your 'initial sexual settings' rule over you or if you choose to master and rule over them.  I'm sure a lot of people are inherently sadists, masochists, or pedophiles but you don't see them saying they 'have no choice.'  They learn to channel their sexuality in a constructive manner and don't harm others regardless of their initial likes and dislikes.  The same for all the straight men on Earth who would like to rape attractive girls but teach themselves that this isn't acceptable and focus only on consensual sexual gratification.  And don't tell me most straight men aren't initially fond of rape, the Vikings and all other raiders and conquerors in history show otherwise.

Amerindians start off with a weakness to alcohol, but that doesn't mean they have to drink.  They can find a fulfilling and satisfying life drinking nonalcoholic drinks, and never crave alcohol at all.  It's all about mental discipline.  No one has to want anything.  If you go far enough, Hindu ascetics have learned to be able to suspend even their desire to breathe, avoid pain, fear, they can even stop their heart from beating.  Mind over matter has been displayed in every imaginable field, and yet the desire to be gay is irresistible?  It's the strongest desire to ever exist on Earth?  It trumps every other instinct and desire anyone else has ever felt about anything?  What are the odds?

It's true that men raised as women and encouraged to be gay did not manage to do so and instead became horribly messed up people, but there's a huge difference between these two states.  It's impossible to get someone who is natural to be unnatural, because that goes against nature, but it should still be possible to get someone who's unnatural to act naturally, because that goes with the flow of nature.  Teaching gays to be straight is much easier because somewhere in their soul there's still a template for what's natural and normal and right, which they could easily follow if they just chose to do so.  It's not like straights who are already doing the right thing, who simply can't swallow what demented trainers are trying to feed them, because there's no platonic template in their soul to do the exact opposite of what they know is right.  Every gay person is at least a little straight, to the extent that their mental health isn't wholly blasted, unlike straight people who, not being diseased/crippled, are not in the least gay.  Even if a few gays really are as determined to be gay as those straight people were determined to be straight, that would only apply to a tiny minority fringe.  The rest could still be saved and therefore should be, because being gay has horrible consequences when left to fester, as will be shown later.

Exclusive same-sex sexual orientation across the life course is, however, extremely rare among animals. The only conclusively documented example is among males (rams) of certain breeds of domestic sheep (Ovis aries, Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). Approximately 6% to 10% of rams in these domestic breeds choose to court and mount other rams, but never ewes, when given a choice (Roselli, Larkin, Resko, Stellflug, & Stormshak, 2004). During some mounts between rams, penile-anal intromission and ejaculation occurs (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individuals that engage in same-sex genital interactions engage in heterosexual ones as well.

Plenty of animals have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only a tiny minority of one breed of one species of domesticated sheep (ie, changed into an unnatural form to suit humans) are exclusively gay.  Unless we're to believe that humans just happen to be the second species on Earth, out of ten trillion species, to share this trait with one type of sheep, nature is telling us that homosexuality simply doesn't exist, it's unnatural, and it cannot actually occur in nature, which means the people claiming they're gay are full of it.  They're actually bisexual, and they could restrict themselves to straight relationships if they so chose.

Some humans are exposed to atypical levels of prenatal hormones, most often because they have unusual genetic syndromes. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), both male and female fetuses are exposed to high levels of testosterone in utero. Usually, after birth, they receive medication to reduce testosterone; thus, later differences are likely attributable to organizational effects of testosterone. As adults, women with CAH report homosexual orientation at elevated rates, compared with unaffected women. Despite this elevation, most women with CAH report exclusively heterosexual attractions (Meyer-Bahlburg, Dolezal, Baker, & New, 2008)—thus, the high levels of prenatal androgens do not ensure homosexuality in these women.

Hormones can influence women but there is always an element of choice, plenty of people with the same circumstances remained straight, which means the others could have as well if only they had chosen to do so.

Frankly, unless something causes a 100% homosexuality rate when applied, there's always an element of choice involved which means anything short of 100% necessary to be gay should instead be 0% gay.

meaning that about a third of variation in sexual orientation is attributable to genetic differences

According to twin studies, only 1/3 of identical twins who had a gay twin were also gay.  This means genes are not determinative of   sexual orientation.  People can and have chosen the exact opposite of what their genetically identical twin is doing.  Therefore homosexuality is just a lifestyle choice, just like any other choice, like what car to buy.  Sure, genes might influence people to want sports cars or minivans more often, but in the end it's still your choice, you don't have to do what your genes are nudging you towards, which is extremely important when it's nudging you into doing something irrational or immoral.  Free will still reigns in these twin pairs, so why not for all the other gays?

Based on the evidence from twin studies, we believe that we can already provide a qualified answer to the question “Is sexual orientation genetic?” That answer is: “Probably somewhat genetic, but not mostly so.”

The scientists agree with me.  Genetics, and therefore 'no choice but to do it, it was our innate desire!', is not actually true.  It's a small nudge in one direction, not an overwhelming tsunami.  A nudge anyone with the will to do so could easily resist.

The fraternal-birth-order effect applies only to male sexual orientation. Notably, it has also been detected among the Samoan fa’afafine (VanderLaan & Vasey, 2011; Vasey & VanderLaan, 2007) and among androphilic transgender males (who self-identify as transwomen) in Western nations (Blanchard & Sheridan, 1992).

The effect is almost certainly causal, with each additional older brother causing an increase in the chances of a man’s being homosexual. The effect is also large, in the sense that it increases the odds of a man’s homosexuality appreciably, by an estimated 33% to 34% (Cantor, Blanchard, Paterson, & Bogaert, 2002; VanderLaan & Vasey, 2011). Assuming that a man without any older brothers has a 2% chance of being homosexual, a man with one older brother has a 2.6% chance; with two, three, and four older brothers, the chances are 3.5%, 4.6%, and 6.0%, respectively. Estimates of the proportion of homosexual males who owe their sexual orientation to the fraternal-birth-order effect have ranged from 15.1% (Cantor et al., 2002) to 28.6% (Blanchard & Bogaert, 2004).
A non-genetic cause that's still unavoidable is 'fraternal birth order' caused gays.  But again, these people obviously had a choice to not be gay, given that 94% of people with four older brothers are still straight.  That's far from a 100% innate drive that simply overwhelms people with the need to be gay.  Furthermore, how many people in the modern age have a plethora of older brothers anyway?  Even if this gave some tiny excuse for a tiny segment of gays in the past, it's virtually meaningless in an era of 1.4 births per woman fertility.

Two phenomena the fraternal-birth-order effect seems incapable of explaining are homosexuality in firstborn sons and sexual-orientation discordance in MZ twins. With respect to the former, the limitation of the theory is obvious. As for the latter, both MZ twin brothers have the same number of older brothers that might have induced a fraternal-birth-order effect.

The scientists agree with me.

The idea that homosexual people recruit heterosexual people into being homosexual has also been promulgated in the West by a variety of anti-homosexual forces
But this is definitively the case, given that adoptive siblings of gays have much higher rates of being gay themselves, despite sharing 0 womb or genetic similarities to their adoptive gay sibling.  It's around 11% instead of what you'd expect statistically, 2%.  The same for adoptive children of gay parents, the rate is extremely higher than would be found by random chance, despite no possible hormonal or genetic determinants.  Instead, they're raised to consider being gay as a possibility or even encouraged to do it, and are thus recruited into the fold when they otherwise would have stayed normal and natural five times as often if only they hadn't been influenced by the gays around them.  The theory of gay recruitment has already been proven definitively.

J. Michael Bailey, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University, in the Dec. 17, 1991 New York Times article "Gay Men in Twin Study," discussed the 1991 Archives of General Psychiatry article "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation":
"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers [brothers by adoption], which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on. The genetically most similar brothers were also the ones most likely to be gay, by a large margin."

Dec. 17, 1991 - J. Michael Bailey, PhD 
This study is the nail in the coffin.  Normally you would expect a child to be gay 2% of the time by chance, but adoptive brothers of gays are 11% of the time gay themselves.  If there were no genetic or hormonal reasons for these adoptive children to be so gay, why on Earth are they five times as gay as normal?  What possible explanation other than 'recruitment,' other than 'contagion' theory, could there be?  Aliens with gay rays?
This is not to suggest that all early sexual experiences of nonheterosexual people are positive and consensual. In a recent, carefully sampled, and very large (N = 33,902) study, T. Sweet and Welles (2012) found that nonheterosexual adults of both sexes were much more likely than heterosexual adults to have experienced childhood sexual abuse, defined as “sexual experiences with an adult or any other person younger than 18 years when the individual did not want the sexual experience or was too young to know what was happening” (p. 401). As is common in research on childhood sexual abuse, this definition combines a number of different experiences likely to have different causes and effects—for example, sexual experiences of children too young to have understood what was happening and sexual experiences of late adolescents who understood those experiences but did not want them, as well as abusive experiences with the same sex and with the other sex. Thus, it is difficult to know what to make of the findings. Still, the risk was much higher for nonheterosexual respondents: 38.1% for lesbians, 43.5% for bisexual women, and 14.2% for heterosexual women; 18.6% for gay men, 19% for bisexual men, and 4.6% for heterosexual men.

So now we find out the true cause of homosexuality -- being sexually abused as a child, becoming traumatized by this event, and getting your sexual wires crossed as a result.  It's obvious why young women abused by men in childhood would prefer women in adulthood.  For men the reasoning would have to be different, but it still makes sense -- Once you've been broken into the mold of being gay, it's hard to feel like you're anything else, and thus rape successfully 'breaks' people, sullies them beyond redemption, and they feel themselves that this is the only course left to them.  Obviously this isn't truly the case, as not all sexually abused women or men end up being gay, so they still had a choice in this case as well, but it's a hell of a lot larger influence than genetics.  Remember, identical twins only had a 1/3 chance of both being gay when one was gay, but a staggering 40% of non-straight women were abused by men in childhood.  Which correlation is bigger?  This isn't rocket science.

Even the male rate of sexual abuse is nearly as high as the genetic influence.  20% of gay men were sexually abused as children vs. 32% chance of identical twins both being gay.  Again, the obvious inference is that this single episode of abuse has more control over someone's life course than the entirety of all the genes and hormones they were born with nudging them in either direction.

The authors rejected the interpretation of their data according to which abuse caused nonheterosexual orientation. Instead, they speculated that childhood gender nonconformity makes pre-homosexual children especially vulnerable to predation.

That's right, folks.  When boys act like sissies, their parents and the law look the other way and child predators are allowed to prey on them 5 times as often as when boys act like boys.  Because we simply don't care about protecting sissies.  Screw them, as it were.  And everyone knows that when girls act like tomboys and go play in the creek outside or join in on a game of soccer, their parents lose all affection for them, the teachers and cops and neighbors and everyone else ceases to give a whit about what happens to them, and the predators move in on this now outlawed girl that dared to be a tomboy.   Parents care about tomboy daughters exactly 1/3 as much as their little princesses and protect them 1/3 as much accordingly.

Alternatively, they may be victimized by others who dislike gender nonconformity

That's right, homophobes are prowling the streets, and even your bedrooms, every night, looking for sissy boys and tomboy girls to punish for not acting in conformity to their gender.  They don't actually have any desire to rape normal boys and girls, but break into homes only after confirming their target is a sissy, and then rape them as a corrective punishment, because they just hate gays that much, that they do it to these young boys and girls even though they hadn't intended to do so if only those boys had acted like rapscallions and the girls like doves from the beginning.

These 'alternate theories,' these 'speculations,' are the best these scientists could come up with, and led them to reject the blindingly obvious conclusion that sexual abuse among young and impressionable and easily traumatized children led to sexual dysphoria.  Give me a break.  They simply didn't want to accept the politically incorrect position that being gay is a result of bad life experiences, since being gay is supposed to be so wonderful and great, so how could it possibly be the result of an evil cause?, and snatched on to some of the most ludicrous theories ever made in order to not believe what was right in front of them.

An idea sometimes related to homosexual recruitment is that homosexual men are especially likely to molest children. The main data leading some (e.g., Dailey, 2002) to this conclusion show that about one-third of child molestation victims are male (Freund, Watson, & Rienzo, 1989). Homosexual men comprise a much smaller percentage of the population, perhaps 3%.

So gay men are 11 times as likely to be pedophile predators than straight men.  Isn't this a cause for concern?  Even if everything else about being gay were an advantage, minimizing the number of gay men in society would be a must simply to protect our children from pedophile rapists.  This is a worse ratio than the black/white murder ratio.  Anyone who's sick of black crime should be even more sick of homo rape.  Neither are tolerable levels of aberrance, and there's no offsetting benefit that could possibly exonerate them and allow them to stay in our midst.

In a recent survey of men sexually attracted to children, those men rated their attraction to children as 9.5 on a 10-point scale. In contrast, they rated their attraction to adults as 4.2 (Bailey, Hsu, & Bernhard, 2013). Androphilic and gynephilic men have little motivation to have sex with children. Thus, androphilic men are not disproportionately responsible for the sexual molestation of boys; homosexual pedophiles are.

This has to be the funniest line in the article.  It's not gays who are the problem, it's the subset of gays who also like children!  But if you eliminate the over-set, the sub-set is also eliminated, so in fact gays are the issue, now aren't they?  Unless there's a way to parse the adult-only-attracted gays away from the pedophile gays just from visual identification?  Barring this oh so convenient tool, the only way to stop pedophile gays and their insane rate of child abuse (11 times that of straight men), is to eliminate all gays entirely.

Think carefully.  Just earlier in the article, we found that 20% of gay men and 5% of straight men were sexually abused as children.  Odds are they weren't abused by women, nor were they abused by straight men (by definition.)  This means twice as many boys have been victims of gay child predators as there are gays in the country.  If we go with the 'high-end' scenario of 3% of men being gay like the article said just earlier.  Tolerating that 3% of gays in our midst directly leads to 6% of all men being sexually abused as children (4.6% of straight men who are 97% of the population multiplies out to 4.5%, plus 20% of gay men who are 3% of the population, which multiplies to .6% of the population as a whole, added together is 5.2% of male children are raped by gay pedophiles.  Let's say .1% of men are somehow abused by women just to be nice, that's still 5.1%)  Deporting gays from our country, or segregating them off into their own autonomous region, can't possibly be considered as harmful a punishment as being repeatedly raped as a child.  So we're punishing fewer 'innocent' gays with a smaller punishment than the status quo, which currently punishes twice as many innocent children with one of the most horrendous punishments imaginable in life.  This pedophilia statistic, on its own, is so damning that the rest of the debate no longer even matters.  Gays are an unacceptable burden on the rest of society.

The Regnerus (2012a) study used a sample of nearly 3,000 adults, including 175 who reported that their mother had ever had a same-sex romantic relationship and 73 who reported that their father had. Respondents provided information about a number of demographic characteristics, attitudes, behaviors, personality traits, and psychological symptoms. The main analyses compared variables between adult children raised in still-intact biological families (henceforth CIBFs) and other types, including those with homosexually experienced parents. Separate comparisons were made for those with homosexually experienced mothers (henceforth, CHEMs) and those with homosexually experienced fathers (CHEFs). Both CHEMs and CHEFs showed small to moderate statistically significant differences with CIBFs. Moreover, to the extent that the differences could be judged to be desirable or undesirable, they were generally in favor of the CIBFs. For CHEMs, these differences included, among others, higher rates of welfare assistance, unemployment, nonheterosexual identification, having experienced coercive sex, depression, marijuana use, tobacco smoking, and having been arrested and lower levels of education, income, and physical health. The smaller sample of CHEFs showed fewer statistically significant differences, with examples including higher rates of welfare assistance, depression, and arrests and lower educational attainment. Most of these differences remained statistically significant after controlling for several demographic variables. 

If the gay pedophiles raping all of our children weren't enough (2 raped children for every gay male we tolerate in the country), it turns out that our now legal in all 50 states gay adoption system is also pernicious.  The children of such couples are worse in every measurable way from the children of natural, normal, God-given couples.

We simply cannot know from Regnerus’s study whether the differences he observed were caused by children’s being reared by parents with or without homosexual experience, whether the differences were caused by the presence versus absence of family disruption, or whether rearing was mostly irrelevant to the observed differences.

Because we all know how stable and loving gay relationships are.  Much more so than natural, normal, pair-bonded, monogamous straight couples.  Does it really matter whether it was directly due to their parents being gay that all this bad stuff happened, or indirectly due to the fact that gay relationships are 1,000's of lovers a lifetime and there's no such thing as family stability in a gay home?  The end result is the same, and it's ludicrous to paper over the issue with hand waving.  We're doing a disservice to these adopted children's lives by putting them in homes that clearly aren't capable of raising children well, all for the sake of political correctness.  The worst factor involved in gay adoption has nothing to do with this nonsense though.  The fact is you just put a helpless child into an environment with 2 gay parents, each of whom are 11 times as likely to rape a child than straight men, who are themselves infinitely more likely to rape a child than a woman.  Which means a household with one woman (zero threat) and one man (1/11 as big a threat) is being spurned for the sake of landing a young male child into the home of two likely super-predators, each with an 11 times higher threat ratio than the average father.  Who have every reason to collude with each other, marry in the first place, and adopt in the first place, all for the sake of getting a stable source of young helpless children in their home to rape.  (A collusion that would not occur when there's a woman in the household, who not only doesn't participate in child abuse herself, but tends to veto the men who wish to adopt young girls for the purposes of abuse as well.)

It's true that sissies tend to grow up to be gays, and tomboys tend to grow up to be bisexuals/lesbians, but this just means they were set on the wrong track from an early age, not that they were never influenced at all.  (40% of non-straight women were sexually abused as children and 20% of men were, 3 and 5 times the straight average for those statistics, so we could start by eliminating sexual abuse of children.)  Until the entirety of society is dead-set on stomping down on gayness and pressures men and women to act their gender, who's to say how they would have turned out?  Furthermore, there are plenty of girly men who grow up to be straight, no matter how girly they may have been, which means other girly boys also had the exact same choice to emulate said group, but simply chose not to.  The same for women.  So long as there isn't a 100% correlation, there's no irresistible urge.  If someone can resist it, anyone can resist it.  Saying you simply couldn't resist an immoral vice is avoiding responsibility and after that there's no such thing as morality anymore, so the whole world may as well explode.  We all have a choice, even sissies and tomboys.  (Not that there's anything wrong with being a sissy or tomboy, so long as you remain straight at the end of it all.  Boys and girls can be sensitive ballet dancers or rough and tumble hockey players and still be straight.  There's just a line you have to draw, and it's drawn at sexuality.)

A recent study in Britain showed that gays are 4 times as likely to commit suicide as straights.  50% of transgenders have attempted or succeeded at committing suicide.  Being gay is a literal death sentence.  This doesn't even include the increased mortality due to bad lifestyle choices (extra drinking, smoking, drug use, violent crimes, and most of all STD's) that gays bring down on themselves at a higher rate than straights.  Gays have lower incomes, worse health, higher depression rates, on and on and on.  If nothing else, being gay is an affront to the hard work of all your ancestors, including your parents, all of whom struggled throughout their whole lives to have and raise children, just to see their line of descent snuffed out by a worthless hedonist who betrays them all by choosing to die childless and spend all their money on themselves instead.

Parents didn't give birth to their children so that they could attend gay orgies until age 30 and then commit suicide because they have despaired at life.  They gave birth to children so that they could pass on the things they cared about to the next generation, and be assured that their death wasn't equivalent to the death of everything they loved, it wasn't the end of the world, but simply the beginning of their children's world.  Gays steal that away from their parents.  After eating their parents' bread and salt for decades, after sucking up all those resources that could have instead gone to a straight child who pays them back by perpetuating their line and fulfilling their dreams, the gay just sits like a dog in the manger and wastes all of their parents' money away for nothing.  Obliterating them.  The malice, the selfishness, is out of this world.  And this isn't the same as straight people who wish they could have children but never find a willing partner, or are biologically infertile and couldn't help it.  These gays have chosen specifically a sexuality that is incapable of reproduction, they chose it despite knowing that no parent could ever wish for all of their efforts and love to come to naught, zero grandchildren and zero future in the universe.  They chose it.  Like usual, the gays chose the most rotten choice imaginable, and they did it all for their own sake, and they could care less who else they hurt -- like their siblings who are now 5 times as likely to be gay themselves (which, I remind you, carries with it a 4 times higher suicide rate).  They couldn't care less how they affect anyone else in the family, the only thing that matters is they get the butt sex they always dreamed of.  Which itself shows an absolutely ruthless lack of caring for their own sex partner.  But I guess that's 'love' in the gay world, and 'love wins,' right?

Because bisexual women are such a tremendous number larger than gay men, women pairing with other women is also socially malignant.  What are all those single men supposed to do with themselves now that the women have all gone to marry each other?  They are denied a meaningful and happy life (single men die fifteen years sooner than married ones, and score less on all happiness measures than men married to women), any chance at children, any chance at a normal, natural life that their parents wished for them, because you selfishly went off to play by yourselves, leaving the rest of us out in the cold.  While bisexual women certainly have a choice to pair bond with these lonely men, the lonely men can't just shack up with each other, as shown previously that virtually no influence is enough to get natural straight men to act like unnatural gay men.  In addition, even if they somehow did, they still wouldn't be able to have children, so it would still just be a farce even if they could.  Every time two women get together to marry each other, they've essentially murdered two men somewhere else in the country, who otherwise could have married them.  It's like what Tinkerbell said:

Every time someone says 'I do not believe in fairies', somewhere there's a fairy that falls down dead. 

Every time two women say "I do not believe in normal, natural pair bonding, somewhere there's two men who drop dead for lack of any hope of a woman anymore."

What did all these men do to deserve being banished to nothingness, a dismal, lonely, pointless existence, shortened by 15 years, until they finally die of natural causes, leaving nothing in their wake?  Just so you could indulge in your particular sexual fantasy, no different from a sadist's fantasy or a pedophile's fantasy.  In fact, in the case of a gay man, seemingly literally no difference between his fantasy and a pedophile's fantasy.

If after all this, gays want to continue being gay, even though it only hurts themselves, recruits others into a harmful deathstyle, denies the dreams of their ancestors and denies their potential descendants the gift of life, denies innocent straight men the chance at a normal family life, raises the chances of child rape by 11 times as high an amount, resulting in 6% of all young men being raped completely unnecessarily, spreads STD's into the larger population like AIDS, killing tens of millions of straights who otherwise never would have been infected, costs the health care system insane amounts of money to treat all of their completely voluntarily caught diseases due to their own rotten sexual behavior, warps our education system to force our children to embrace and celebrate pure evil which they know in their bones is rotten, unnatural and wicked, forces people of faith to deny their own most deeply held beliefs and act exactly opposite to what they know is right and what is required of them by God by hosting gay weddings or building gay wedding cakes or calling gay married people actually married people, forcing young women to share bathrooms and locker rooms with perverted men who wish to play-act as women despite no scientific means ever being enough to actually turn a man into a woman, and on and on and on (gays vote democrat, which is evil enough on its own) --

I'm sorry, but enough is enough.  There was an acceptable equilibrium in the past.  Gays stayed quiet and out of sight, and if they were doing something we didn't know about, oh well, it wasn't disrupting society as a whole, and it was a very small minority who indulged anyway.  Now gays have broken that jar wide open, women are coming out as bisexual in droves, gays are forcing themselves in front of our eyes 24/7, even forcing themselves into women's bathrooms, getting normal, sane people fired just for speaking the truth that's obvious to anyone, witch hunting every last person of reason or faith left on the continent for their 'hate speech,' driving people out of business who don't cater to their whims, spreading disease, raping our children, insisting on the right to be boy scout troop leaders even though straight men have never been girl scout troop leaders, on and on and on.

The equilibrium is gone.  That compromise can no longer be made.  That horse has left the barn.  The only solution left to gays now (for a society that wishes to remain sane and healthy, obviously this does not apply to the USA which clearly wishes to die as soon as humanly possible and makes every possible unhealthy choice at every possible opportunity) is deportation/segregation.  They do not belong in our midst, we do not wish to be around them, and most of all they do not get the moral authority to condemn us anymore, when they are the ones who we've been tolerating despite all the harm they've been doing to us all this time.  No more moral censure.  No more pc police.  No more CEO's being fired for defending the traditional definition of marriage which has lasted since the beginning of recorded history in all places and all people worldwide.  No more!  No more.  Transgenders invading our bathrooms and our girl's locker rooms.  The speaker of the house being a pedophile rapist predator.  No more!  It has to stop.  They have to go.

If they're truly such gay people, I'm sure they can figure out how to be happy among themselves and only each other.  They can be as convivial and genial as they wish, out of our sight and out of our mind, no longer able to influence us in any way.  And our evil bigotry, which they claim is the cause of all of their problems, will also be gone from their lives, as we will no longer interact with them in any way.  Both of us should be infinitely better off, according to both of our theories.  They have to go -- or we have to go, which is fine by me.  So long as I get to be away from them.  If the USA wants to be a gay and transgender country, then straights should have the right to secede and set up a non-gay and non-transgender country, however small that country might be.  And if we can't secede, then we can set up an online virtual reality world where gays and transgenders are politely banned from entry and live there.  And if we can't do that, then we can go into space and colonize a new planet, this time gay-free, and once gays start popping up there, they can be exiled to a small fringe colony, instead of us, since we're now clearly in the majority this time around.  But one way or another, we should declare our independence from the Sexual Deviant States of America.  This hellhole is too far gone in so many ways, homosexuality is the least of our problems.  But even if it were the only problem in America, it'd still be an unlivable hellhole destined for annihilation.  That's just how far gone we are.

No comments: