Phew!
By: Unknown
Now, I have a question to pose. If a kid is Amish, does that make him an Am-lette?
An Issue! Finally!
Gays in the U.S.A.
The other day, I got into an argument with Maggie over homosexuality (she was egging it on. She's weird that way). Maggie accused me of being a bigot because I said it's wrong to be gay.
Frankly, it is.
Aside from the moral reasons, of which everyone is, I'm sure, aware of, there are the scientific reasons.
To be perfectly straightforward, homosexuality is a crime against nature.
The purpose of life, and the desire to mate, is to carry on the species. Homosexuality achieves no such thing. In fact, it actually increases one's chance of death through AIDS, which Reagan, by the way, supposedly said was divine retribution. While I will make no such claim, I will say that homosexuals should be persecuted for their choice.
And it is a choice. Homosexuality cannot have a genetic basis as some believe. It would simply evolve out of the species. And it can not have a environmental basis, as is proven by the numerous sets of identical twins raised in the same structure with widely different sexual orientations.
It can only be construed as a social choice. Maggie asked why someone would choose to be gay, if it meant persecution and hatred. Well, why do humans do anything? Why would the Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior choose to fight for civil rights when he knew he would be persecuted? Similarly, why would someone join the armed forces, or become a Goth, or go on reality TV shows, or buy stocks, or be a Nascar racer, or marry their cousin, or join band, or become the spokesman for Subway? In all cases, the chooser perceives a potential gain that outweighs the assured loss. Perhaps this gain for the homosexual is acceptance in a community, or even being outcast from a community, or some other factor.
Now, the USA is not a dictatorship, and freedoms are important. Homosexuals should have the right to choose. The government cannot legislate against that. That's one of those things that makes America America, and it shouldn't be changed.
However, they should be punished societally. Maggie accused me of being intolerant, yet tolerant is exactly what I am. I tolerate homosexuals. I will not force my morals on them, I will not yell at them about their choice, I will not argue with them about it unless they argue first. If I come across a store owned by a gay couple, I will not patronize it. I will not encourage the choice, and I will not accept it in my friends without at least mocking them for it. Homosexuals should be made to feel bad, as should bimbos, jerks, bullies, people with eating disorders, and any other person who makes a choice to live their lives incorrectly. This is what makes me tolerant, but unaccepting.
People will criticize my views, but how different is it than saying "The guy who owns that restaurant is a jerk, so I don't eat there anymore"? Society must clean house to maintain morals, and the only ethical way to do that is by discouraging an immoral choice. Society cannot harm or kill people for individual choice (so long as it doesn't harm others), but should look down upon them.
Mildly on topic, someone asked about gays in the military. I personally would be fine with this (it's a public institution), but there's a severe logistics issue. The point of seperate barracks for males and females is to keep distracting physical attraction to an absolute minimum. This is darn near impossible with homosexuals added to the mix.
You couldn't put gay men in the male barracks (possible gay-straight attraction) nor lesbians in the female barracks (same reason). You couldn't put gay men in the female barracks (possible straight-gay attraction) nor lesbians in the male barracks (again, same reason). You couldn't put gay men in a gay male barracks, and you couldn't put lesbians in a lesbian barracks. The only possible way is to have straight men and straight women barracks, and literally hundreds of two-person barracks containing a gay man and a lesbian each.
This would not necessarily work either, because it would be very easy to play the system and land yourself with your girlfriend in a two-person barrack.
~Michael Akerman,
...feel free to comment...
Well, there we go. The long period of silence is broken. It is now November, college apps are in (for now. Round 2 is like... January or something.) Anyways, I'm finally free, but I took a lengthy hiatus last week as I fought the common cold.
I hate being sick...
At any rate, I'm back. And better than ever. Well... not really. I'm still congested a bit. But not as congested.
Now, I have a question to pose. If a kid is Amish, does that make him an Am-lette?
An Issue! Finally!
Gays in the U.S.A.
The other day, I got into an argument with Maggie over homosexuality (she was egging it on. She's weird that way). Maggie accused me of being a bigot because I said it's wrong to be gay.
Frankly, it is.
Aside from the moral reasons, of which everyone is, I'm sure, aware of, there are the scientific reasons.
To be perfectly straightforward, homosexuality is a crime against nature.
The purpose of life, and the desire to mate, is to carry on the species. Homosexuality achieves no such thing. In fact, it actually increases one's chance of death through AIDS, which Reagan, by the way, supposedly said was divine retribution. While I will make no such claim, I will say that homosexuals should be persecuted for their choice.
And it is a choice. Homosexuality cannot have a genetic basis as some believe. It would simply evolve out of the species. And it can not have a environmental basis, as is proven by the numerous sets of identical twins raised in the same structure with widely different sexual orientations.
It can only be construed as a social choice. Maggie asked why someone would choose to be gay, if it meant persecution and hatred. Well, why do humans do anything? Why would the Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior choose to fight for civil rights when he knew he would be persecuted? Similarly, why would someone join the armed forces, or become a Goth, or go on reality TV shows, or buy stocks, or be a Nascar racer, or marry their cousin, or join band, or become the spokesman for Subway? In all cases, the chooser perceives a potential gain that outweighs the assured loss. Perhaps this gain for the homosexual is acceptance in a community, or even being outcast from a community, or some other factor.
Now, the USA is not a dictatorship, and freedoms are important. Homosexuals should have the right to choose. The government cannot legislate against that. That's one of those things that makes America America, and it shouldn't be changed.
However, they should be punished societally. Maggie accused me of being intolerant, yet tolerant is exactly what I am. I tolerate homosexuals. I will not force my morals on them, I will not yell at them about their choice, I will not argue with them about it unless they argue first. If I come across a store owned by a gay couple, I will not patronize it. I will not encourage the choice, and I will not accept it in my friends without at least mocking them for it. Homosexuals should be made to feel bad, as should bimbos, jerks, bullies, people with eating disorders, and any other person who makes a choice to live their lives incorrectly. This is what makes me tolerant, but unaccepting.
People will criticize my views, but how different is it than saying "The guy who owns that restaurant is a jerk, so I don't eat there anymore"? Society must clean house to maintain morals, and the only ethical way to do that is by discouraging an immoral choice. Society cannot harm or kill people for individual choice (so long as it doesn't harm others), but should look down upon them.
Mildly on topic, someone asked about gays in the military. I personally would be fine with this (it's a public institution), but there's a severe logistics issue. The point of seperate barracks for males and females is to keep distracting physical attraction to an absolute minimum. This is darn near impossible with homosexuals added to the mix.
You couldn't put gay men in the male barracks (possible gay-straight attraction) nor lesbians in the female barracks (same reason). You couldn't put gay men in the female barracks (possible straight-gay attraction) nor lesbians in the male barracks (again, same reason). You couldn't put gay men in a gay male barracks, and you couldn't put lesbians in a lesbian barracks. The only possible way is to have straight men and straight women barracks, and literally hundreds of two-person barracks containing a gay man and a lesbian each.
This would not necessarily work either, because it would be very easy to play the system and land yourself with your girlfriend in a two-person barrack.
~Michael Akerman,
...feel free to comment...
0 comments:
Post a Comment