Best dollar I’ve spent in a while. Can barely stop laughing.
It is as if the homosexuals are not content with being homosexuals, but additionally want to force their presence on the rest of us. They are ethically and politically aggressive, demanding that everyone else consider them and treat them as normal. Nay, more: they even want us all to follow their way, and our children to be educated to do so.
Nay, more! We must resist the demands of these ethically aggressive homosexuals!
But what of the education of the children who see such posters? What of the sensibilities of purer souls, who would never even think of such acts were they not told about them? One can only suppose that such campaigns are only superficially to do with public health or targeted at homosexuals. In view of the advertisers’ indifference to the value of sexual innocence, it must be assumed that the real motive of such campaigns is to promote homosexuality.
There’s a guy in Russia who thinks pretty much exactly the same
This philosopher has therefore decided to analyze the subject of homosexuality3 – so that such people not get away with their sexual revolution. They think they’ve got it made, ethically and politically; but no, they can surely be refuted and defeated.
Philosophy to the rescue!
Our primary task is to try to understand the psychology of homosexuals, so as to objectively explain why they are as they are, and moreover why they ought not to be as they are (and how they might change). We have to show convincingly that such behavior is abnormal and harmful, for the individuals concerned and for society as a whole.
So step one would be to round them up, or conveniently identify them by making them wear symbols on their clothing?
Let us first clarify and define some terms. Forgive the explicit language sometimes used here. Concerning the terms “sex” and “gender”: they mean the same thing, of course – they both refer to the distinction between males and females. But the more colloquial term “sex” can sometimes, in the context of a discussion like the present one, be confused with reference to the sex act – so the term “gender” (which was till recently only used by grammarians) seems often preferable.
That grinding sound you hear is pitchforks being sharpened in various sociology departments.
Males and females are distinguishable physically, mentally and behaviorally. They have markedly different anatomies (sex organs, hormones, shapes and sizes, facial appearances) and genetic makeup (sex chromosomes), somewhat different feelings, thoughts, attitudes and characters, and somewhat different behavior patterns. There may also be spiritual differences between the sexes (and maybe even sexual differences between souls). Thus, gender is a complex of many factors, some of which are clear-cut, while others are more difficult to define precisely. Still, it is quite amazing how quickly we are, in the vast majority of cases, able to “tell” a man from a woman at a glance (although sometimes we are uncertain or wrong in our initial assessment).
I’m thinking his PhD in philosophy may have been one of these mail-order deals. “Get credit for life experience” sort of thing.
Thus, under our definitions, a bisexual, a male or female who has sexual relations occasionally with men and occasionally with women, or with both at once, is a homosexual. That is, whether someone only turns to the same gender for sex (an exclusive homosexual) or sometimes also turns to the opposite sex (a bisexual) – such an individual is, for all intents and purposes here, to be termed “a homosexual”. These distinctions are important to note, because apologists of homosexuality often cunningly use bisexuality to blur differences with heterosexuality in peoples’ minds. Vague terminology is used to confuse issues.
Uh…right.
It is clear that a person can be called homosexual only if he or she engages in sex with someone of the same gender knowingly and willingly. If he or she did not know the sex partner to be a transvestite or transsexual5, or if the sex act occurred under coercion or before being mature enough to understand what is happening, then he or she is obviously not a homosexual, but simply a victim of homosexual trickery or rape. The question may be asked: is a person who has engaged in homosexual activities (once or more) in the past (recent or distant) to be called a homosexual? The logical answer would be: yes – unless or until that person has sincerely regretted past deeds and resolved never to repeat them. For an unrepentant past homosexual is surely more susceptible to homosexuality than a non-homosexual. Only a repentant past homosexual may properly be called an ex-homosexual.
Ok, I could go on here, but it’s starting to make me feel vaguely sick.
Can we all agree that we should not be listening to or discussing this guy’s ideas about Nagarjuna, because he is obviously a total idiot?