Monogamous lifetime mating with female mate selection produces a society where men have to meet the requirements to be a desirable mate before they get sexual access. Hence the disgust response to both rapists and male homosexuals as they circumvent the requirements to get sexual access and 'cheat' the males who gain their sexual access by fulfilling the requirements set by females and society to be seen as a valuable, productive and reliable mate.
There are evolutionary reasons for homophobia that are worth considering too. Below is a cut and paste from the 'leaky vaccine' telegraph group:
Disgust and Contagion,
Research shows healthy normal people show the same biochemical reaction to seeing gay men kissing as when they are shown maggots crawling over eachother.
"The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing."
What do two men kissing and a bucket of maggots have in common? Heterosexual men’s indistinguishable salivary α-amylase responses to photos of two men kissing and disgusting images | Psychology & Sexuality (2017)
Being averse to and disgusted by homosexualists is not just randomly coded into our instincts to be mean and hateful for no reason.
Here is an excerpt from a book by Richard Berkowitz, a gay Jewish man, Stayin' Alive: The Invention Of Safe Sex (2003):
"I estimate I've had approximately 3,000 men up my butt ... I estimate that I went to the baths at least once a week, sometimes twice, and that each time I went I had a minimum of four patners ... I also racked up about three men a week for five years at the Christopher Steet bookstore ...Then of course there was the MineShaft; the orgies; the 55th Street Playhouse; the International Stud backroom ..."
"Let me present my own history of STDs. From 1973, when I came out, to 1975, I only got mononucloeosis and non-specific urethritis, or NSU. In 1975, I got my first case of gonorrhea. Not bad, I thought. I'd had maybe 200 different partners, and I'd only gotten the clap twice. But then, moving from Boston to New York City, it all began to snowball."
"First came hepatitis A in '76 and more gonorrhea and NSU. In 1977, I was diagnosed with amebiasis, an intestinal parasite, hepatitis B, more gonorrhea, and NSU. In 1978, more amebiasis and my first case of shigella, and of course, more gonorrhea. Then in 1979, hepatitis yet a third time, this time non-A, non-B, more intestinal parasites, adding giardia this time, and an anal fissure as well as my first case of syphilis ... By 1981, I got some combination of STDs each and every time I had sex ..."
"At age twenty-seven I've had: gonorrhea, syphillis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis non-A, non-B; intestinal parasites including amebiasis, e. historicia, shigella, giardia; herpes simplex types one and two; venereal warts, mononucleosis, cytomegalovirus, and now cryptosporodiosis, for which there is no known cure."
They are not "just like you and me", and the media is desperately trying to keep a lid on that fact. Though the actual threat of Monkeypox toward the normal population remains low, there is no doubt occupation media would sacrifice public health in an instant for the feelings of sexual deviants, who have been historically oppressed for good reasons of which we are being reminded of in new ways all the time.
In my lifetime homosexuality has gone from illegal to legally protected, and from being socially condemned to being equated with heterosexuality in the marriage ceremony. One has to keep up, and the gays I know are lovely people, and I would fight anyone who attacked them. That does not mean, in my case, that I think it equates across all metrics, but disliking lpeople for traits they can't change is never kind and gays often contribute greatly to society. The sad case of Alan Turing comes to mind.
The idea that people are born gay was always openly acknowledged by gay activists as a propaganda tactic. There is no evidence for it. Ex-gays actually outnumber gays.
But let's say people were born gay. They should then not act on it. Likewise, if people were born paedophiles, they shouldn't act on it.
Adopting the "one has to keep up" mindset is wrong and will lead logically to the acceptance of paedophilia. If you don't understand that, you haven't read enough about the LGBTQIA2S movement. Start with my 'Dirty Thirty' article.
I shall leave it to you to crusade on that issue ! I don`t dispute that it has been used for social engineering motives, just as money has been, and arguably the latter has had more success. I would recommend `The creature from Jekyll Island`, and Frederick Soddy`s `Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt`, 1926.
The question I would ask is whether homosexuality is more of a symptom or a cause; if the former, then one still needs to understand the principle involved that causes systems that we rely upon to let us down.
Reading this, its not clear to me whether you are making an observation or endorsing the practice of bullying. It might be worth making that clarification.
Kids can be unnecessarily cruel, and cruelty is always wrong. But bullying can serve an important social function. So bullying isn't always wrong. It can even benefit the person being bullied by correcting his deviant behaviour.
I think we might be talking across purposes here because it there is a thin line on this subject and it is easy to be on the wrong side of it. From a Christian perspective, Christ provides the archetype for an adult, and that is to reject the judgementalism of the pharasees, and to reach out to sinners, not to judge them. But I agree that kids are going to be kids. But the danger with taking a view that seems to endorse bullying is something to do with millstones and the bottom of the ocean etc.. Thats the danger I see here. Also, I know of cases in my locality where young lads have taken their lives because of exactly that kind of bullying. I'm not saying that that is what your article is about, I'm just making the point that it needs to be factored into consideration on case some of your readers get the wrong take home message.
Monogamous lifetime mating with female mate selection produces a society where men have to meet the requirements to be a desirable mate before they get sexual access. Hence the disgust response to both rapists and male homosexuals as they circumvent the requirements to get sexual access and 'cheat' the males who gain their sexual access by fulfilling the requirements set by females and society to be seen as a valuable, productive and reliable mate.
There are evolutionary reasons for homophobia that are worth considering too. Below is a cut and paste from the 'leaky vaccine' telegraph group:
Disgust and Contagion,
Research shows healthy normal people show the same biochemical reaction to seeing gay men kissing as when they are shown maggots crawling over eachother.
"The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing."
What do two men kissing and a bucket of maggots have in common? Heterosexual men’s indistinguishable salivary α-amylase responses to photos of two men kissing and disgusting images | Psychology & Sexuality (2017)
Being averse to and disgusted by homosexualists is not just randomly coded into our instincts to be mean and hateful for no reason.
Here is an excerpt from a book by Richard Berkowitz, a gay Jewish man, Stayin' Alive: The Invention Of Safe Sex (2003):
"I estimate I've had approximately 3,000 men up my butt ... I estimate that I went to the baths at least once a week, sometimes twice, and that each time I went I had a minimum of four patners ... I also racked up about three men a week for five years at the Christopher Steet bookstore ...Then of course there was the MineShaft; the orgies; the 55th Street Playhouse; the International Stud backroom ..."
"Let me present my own history of STDs. From 1973, when I came out, to 1975, I only got mononucloeosis and non-specific urethritis, or NSU. In 1975, I got my first case of gonorrhea. Not bad, I thought. I'd had maybe 200 different partners, and I'd only gotten the clap twice. But then, moving from Boston to New York City, it all began to snowball."
"First came hepatitis A in '76 and more gonorrhea and NSU. In 1977, I was diagnosed with amebiasis, an intestinal parasite, hepatitis B, more gonorrhea, and NSU. In 1978, more amebiasis and my first case of shigella, and of course, more gonorrhea. Then in 1979, hepatitis yet a third time, this time non-A, non-B, more intestinal parasites, adding giardia this time, and an anal fissure as well as my first case of syphilis ... By 1981, I got some combination of STDs each and every time I had sex ..."
"At age twenty-seven I've had: gonorrhea, syphillis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis non-A, non-B; intestinal parasites including amebiasis, e. historicia, shigella, giardia; herpes simplex types one and two; venereal warts, mononucleosis, cytomegalovirus, and now cryptosporodiosis, for which there is no known cure."
They are not "just like you and me", and the media is desperately trying to keep a lid on that fact. Though the actual threat of Monkeypox toward the normal population remains low, there is no doubt occupation media would sacrifice public health in an instant for the feelings of sexual deviants, who have been historically oppressed for good reasons of which we are being reminded of in new ways all the time.
Happy Pride! 🏳️🌈
There are people "born that way" biologically, and would be helpful to write something on that. They don't deserve to be bullied.
"Born that way" is a myth. But even if it wasn't, that still wouldn't make homosexuality OK.
In 'After the Ball', the propaganda playbook for the gay agenda, they talk about weaponising the "born that way" lie.
In my lifetime homosexuality has gone from illegal to legally protected, and from being socially condemned to being equated with heterosexuality in the marriage ceremony. One has to keep up, and the gays I know are lovely people, and I would fight anyone who attacked them. That does not mean, in my case, that I think it equates across all metrics, but disliking lpeople for traits they can't change is never kind and gays often contribute greatly to society. The sad case of Alan Turing comes to mind.
The idea that people are born gay was always openly acknowledged by gay activists as a propaganda tactic. There is no evidence for it. Ex-gays actually outnumber gays.
But let's say people were born gay. They should then not act on it. Likewise, if people were born paedophiles, they shouldn't act on it.
Adopting the "one has to keep up" mindset is wrong and will lead logically to the acceptance of paedophilia. If you don't understand that, you haven't read enough about the LGBTQIA2S movement. Start with my 'Dirty Thirty' article.
I shall leave it to you to crusade on that issue ! I don`t dispute that it has been used for social engineering motives, just as money has been, and arguably the latter has had more success. I would recommend `The creature from Jekyll Island`, and Frederick Soddy`s `Wealth, Virtual Wealth, and Debt`, 1926.
The question I would ask is whether homosexuality is more of a symptom or a cause; if the former, then one still needs to understand the principle involved that causes systems that we rely upon to let us down.
Homosexuality is mainly a symptom of the breakdown of monogamy. This means two things:
1) Fewer women available. Without monogamy, more of them only give sex to the top men.
2) Boys craving the masculinity they didn't get from their fathers.
Reading this, its not clear to me whether you are making an observation or endorsing the practice of bullying. It might be worth making that clarification.
Kids can be unnecessarily cruel, and cruelty is always wrong. But bullying can serve an important social function. So bullying isn't always wrong. It can even benefit the person being bullied by correcting his deviant behaviour.
I think we might be talking across purposes here because it there is a thin line on this subject and it is easy to be on the wrong side of it. From a Christian perspective, Christ provides the archetype for an adult, and that is to reject the judgementalism of the pharasees, and to reach out to sinners, not to judge them. But I agree that kids are going to be kids. But the danger with taking a view that seems to endorse bullying is something to do with millstones and the bottom of the ocean etc.. Thats the danger I see here. Also, I know of cases in my locality where young lads have taken their lives because of exactly that kind of bullying. I'm not saying that that is what your article is about, I'm just making the point that it needs to be factored into consideration on case some of your readers get the wrong take home message.
The parents, schools and society at large must judge the deviant behaviour; otherwise, the peer group will.
You respect deviants by making clear to them that what they are doing is wrong. Tolerance disrespects them.
I am not going to say that bullying is always wrong. That is false.