The Nose in the Hole

Forget politically incorrect -- it is absolute hatespeak to suggest that homosexuality is a form of dysfunction. Biologically it can hardly be anything else, given that it is characterized by an emotional inability to procreate sexually. Artificially, yes, and even merely, mechanically, engaging with the opposite sex -- as by dissociatively fantasizing during the act ... but emotionally, unable. As I say, the suggestion is hatespeak. But what if it's true?

The HIVirus is the only DNA fragment that has civil rights, such as privacy and the right to an attorney and free housing -- more rights certainly than, say, a human fetus. Similarly, homosexuality not too long ago was classified as a mental disorder; then it was lobbied down in '73 to a mere egodystonic sexual orientation disturbance ... then removed entirely from the catalog of madnesses, referenced only for the possible idiosyncratic distress that insufficiently loving yourself might cause. Sodomy now has an equal standing with heterosexual intercourse, and never mind that only one of these has an identifiable function for the taxonomic species of Homo sapiens sapiens. An anus and a vagina are made indistinguishable from each other, not just in the eyes of the law, but socially. Well, it's never been interesting to me to just list a bunch of woes. It hardly seems worthwhile to ask what's next? -- which perversion is next for mainstreaming?

You will have been misinformed, egregiously, on the matter. You will have been given to understand that people are born homo- or heterosexual, str8 or gay. You will have heard on the nightly tv news that the gay gene has been discovered. You didn't quite pick up on the details, because they weren't offered, but it's evidence, after all, isn't it? And only an obscurantist would argue with evidence. That would be crazy, dude, just crazy.

The passion, the emotional intensity and conviction have moved you away from your youthful position, that it was sick. Advocates and their enablers have parleyed their dismay at your ignorance into your good-natured acceptance of their sodomistic ways. Bully for them. But what if their emotionalism arises not from outraged honesty, but from the very same spiritual sickness that makes them lust after anuses, or the lesbian equivalent? What if gayness is just as sick as some serious thought on the matter suggests it is? I mean, come on -- anuses? You would credit someone who wasn't even properly potty trained?

It's not just the virus that has civil rights, now. It's fecal matter. Yuck.

Hatespeak, as I say. But the word doesn't mean hate -- it just has that phoneme in it. What the word means, actually, is speaking a conviction, often based on traditional religious values, that opposes liberal orthodoxy. A crucifix immersed in a jar of urine is not hatespeak, it's art. (What is it with these people and excretory substances?) Strewing condoms in churches isn't hatespeak. But reading a passage from Romans or from Leviticus is. It's not a double standard. It's just a way of defining words. Sometimes they make up a new word: hatespeak. Sometimes they change the meaning of an old one: marriage. There's no complaining about it. It's like complaining about judges. They do what they do, because they can. They can, because we let them.

Yes, I've been vague. I haven't cited evidence, just common sense. For those who might like more actual detail, I suggest "Reparative Therapy," by Joseph Nicolosi. Or R. Fitzgibbons' "The Psychology Behind Homosexual Tendencies," linked here. The upshot is that there are very many studies that bear out the dysfunctionality of sodomist behavior, gay or homosexual. For those afflicted with it who feel the distress, what can we feel but sympathy. For those who are proud, well, pride must be another one of those redefined words.

Fitzgibbons summarizes, speaking of his work with homosexual priests and seminarians: they have "a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual, insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males and an inordinate need for attention."

Such generalizations may seem offensive. Aren't we all unique individuals? But the thing about psychology is that it is rather like physiology. Things run along general patterns. Sometimes however a heart is in reversed position. This is rare, but it follows a pattern of its own. Same with human behavior: infinite subtle variations; common gross structures.

"Most of these men had painful adolescent experiences of significant loneliness and sadness, felt insecure in their masculinity, and had a poor body image. Well-designed research studies have demonstrated a much higher prevalence of psychiatric illness in those who identify themselves as homosexual."

I was significantly lonely and sad. I had a magnificent body image and my masculinity was radioactive. So I must be bi. As for psychiatric illness, the gay lobby will cavil. You would too. It's like saying you're a freak. Even if you are. Honesty is such a difficult thing to be around.

"Seminarians with effeminacy, a clear sign of serious affective immaturity, usually failed in their childhood to identify sufficiently with their fathers and male peers. They can benefit from therapy to extinguish effeminate mannerisms and to strengthen their appreciation of their God-given masculinity so that they may become true spiritual fathers."

Simplistic? Yes, finding patterns makes things simple. This is a problem?

"A 2005 national study demonstrated that 28.8% of Americans will have an anxiety disorder in their lifetime, 24.8% an impulse-control disorder and 20.8% a mood disorder.

"The most common origins of these emotional weaknesses in men arise from a lack of closeness and affirmation in the father relationship and with male peers. These emotional conflicts result in weaknesses in male confidence, sadness, loneliness, anger and often a poor body image. In addition, those from divorced family backgrounds have major trust weaknesses."

See? Pain leads to dysfunction. Repeatedly destroy a spider's web and it eventually goes mad.

Objective measurements and predictors? Yes, as in the Boyhood Gender Conformity Scale, 90% accurate, the validation study of which identified five powerful indicators: playing with boys, preferring boys' games, imagining oneself as a sports figure, reading adventure and sports stories, and, conversely, being considered a 'sissy'. These five were a "potent and parsimonious discriminator among adult males for sexual orientation. It was similarly noted that the absence of masculine behaviors and traits appeared to be a more powerful predictor of later homosexual orientation than the traditionally feminine or cross-sexed traits and behaviors."

In 1930s Germany, a dysfunctional group took power and mainstreamed thuggishness and that host of excesses that led to the deathcamps. The gay advocates and their abortionist and free-needles and no-borders collaborationists? Who can say what their deathcamps will look like. Perhaps like a civilization depopulated by those who built it, overrun by aliens whose only virtue is their primal instinctive ability to distinguish between the alimentary and the reproductive canals.

We used to scoff at those who made slippery slope arguments. How logically invalid they were. We used to snort derisively at those Cassandras who peeped and chirped their dry-boned warnings. How amusing were the just-so tales of camels with their noses poking into tent holes -- we understood that camels cannot get into tents. We thought we understood that. But government officials are now uttering such absurdities as, "By the authority vested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Husband."

Not only is the camel in the tent, but it wants to have sex with us.


J