Rants on Homosexuality.

Any here seeking a well articulated argument will find the back button attached to your browser quite convenient. These brief comments are nothing other than raw emotion mixed with facts from readings across the internet, and as such, no citation is given. You take what I say on the good faith that I wouldn't lie to further my cause, but, in light of that, since I am a 'dirty liberal,' I cannot be trusted... As the description said: ranting.

And if you get offended, deal with it. That's why it was written.

I only apologize if you find one of my racial comments offensive. I don't really mean for them to be, I am using the issue of race (something you can't change) to support my claims. Don't take it the wrong way because I am only trying to demonstrate that sexuality, like race, cannot be changed.



---On 'Choice'.---

Now, of all the things I have heard in my short span of life here on Earth the most absurd has to be that homosexuality is a choice. After spending so much time reading and researching this subject, it is the only logical conclusion you can really come to.

Really, sexuality has to do with the way that the brain is wired, if you will. The way that the synapses are lined up and the pattern in which they fire, all play key parts in your sexuality. Now, as fascinating a concept as this may be, and as hard to swallow as it may seem, you can't re-wire your brain. Or, well, at least as far as I've read.

The research I have seen has all pointed to the conclusion that sexuality is rather set in the brain; like carvings into a wall.

Now, mind you, there are documented cases of people changing their sexuality. But, also, take a look at the people who claim that. Religious zealots who are completely and totally opposed to homosexuality. Now, I am not saying that those people really didn't change their sexuality, but what about the possibility that the organization is just making it up to inspire those who want to change?

Maybe, it's part of some sick joke. Maybe, just maybe, those two people got so tired of it they just said they were straight to get the hell out of the program! Because goodness knows, the things that goes on in those things are absolutely psychologically damaging. People, almost quite literally, try to beat the homosexuality out of you! Excorcisms, one-to-one chats about the evils, talk of hell, it's enough to make a person sick.

And maybe they just left because they knew what was coming.

And another argument I hear on this is that you choose to live the lifestyle. You can't help the fact that you're gay, but you can help the fact you sleep with men.

Now, pardon me, but when did society begin to condone people pretending to be something that they aren't? When did lying to yourself and to other people suddenly become acceptable?

You just know you've flat out hit hypocrisy when you see someone yelling at Avril Lavigne for being a poser, and then telling a gay guy that they should choose to be straight.

People shout at each other, screaming that we should be who we are on the inside. And then it is when we do try to be who we really are, we get slapped in the face for doing what we are told.

Avril Lavigne chooses to pretend to be something she isn't and we hate her for it, but we love the gay guy who pretends to be straight!

So, society. To you and your belief of choice, I say you're wrong. You can't choose every aspect of your life, and sexuality is just one of those things you can't change. You shouldn't lie to yourself about it, let alone anyone else.

After leaving this up for a while I recieved a wonderful review, not so much a review as it was an actual letter. It was from an, if anything, intelligent individual, who argued that sexuality was a choice. And, yes, he had a wonderful argument, but it failed to sway me.

He explained to me the Kinsey reports and the findings of the fluidity of human sexuality; how we are all bisexual to a certain degree. To that I agree entirely, simply because it makes sense. Humans are sensual creatures, and it seems logical that at times this sensuality would slip to one side in favor of another.

But, in my opinion, once you set up that little number there you find certain statistics undoubtedly that can be assosciated with each number... Mm... In my opinion, within each number there is in fact room for flow; within each number there are certain attractions to males and females.

I suggest that instead of actually moving from one end to another, or to a whole other bar, that rather each bar has its set fluidity; its set ratio of same to opposite. And within the course of one's life one will fulfill this ratio by inevitability.

The point raised, getting back on track, was that a person may undergo a religious treatment and convince themselves that they are straight and as such will choose to be straight; going with the weaker hand, as he put it. To this, I agree. A person can in fact choose to ignore it, but it goes back to the argument above.

And needless to say, choosing does not affect the reality of the situation--my simple rebutal. One could very well be bleeding from the arm by a cut they had. But they could choose to ignore the cut. To them, it no longer exists. But it is still there, still bleeding, is it not?

You can choose to be straight, or be convinced that you are, but it doesn't change -what- you are. I could be convinced that I were a twelve year old school girl, but I would still be an arrogant and stupid teenaged boy.

So, rather, this person will choose to ignore their homosexual desires in favor of the weaker heterosexual ones. But, their ratio still falls in favor of the one number, and as such their ignorance has not changed their sexuality, rather prevented them from knowing themselves wholly.

At least, in my opinion.



---Standing up---

This wonderfully intellectual person also detailed to me yet another wonderful reason as to why he does not advocate inability to choose.

And that is simply that pleading this lack of choice; this lack of power, is really no more than weakness.

I wish not for my immature voice and tone to taint his eloquent form and tone, thus I will lay his words here below.

**The "no choice" argument isn't one of pride, it's one of shame. It's as though we're saying, "yes, I know this isn't desirable, but don't you see I can't help it?" It's as though we're giving bigots the right to sit in judgement on us and be bigoted. Why should a black man beg a white lynch mob to forgive him, when it's their racism which is the problem? Why should he have to plead, "I can't help being black?" Are we cowering or standing up for ourselves?**

Words of wisdom, ladies and gentlemen, credit of very=deb_sampson . And, actually, since he gave a review, it may actually be publicly available... somehow.



---Raising Our Voices.---

To the liberals who read and are impassioned, I encourage you to take your passion to creative ends. Struggle not to topple the enemy, but struggle to make your voice heard.

Make a blog, write something down, write a letter, start a group at school, do what you can to let the world know what you think and care about.

Liberals, I urge you to end your silence and speak. Two or three voices cannot break down walls, but thousands can. This is your mandate: to spread our ideals. Do not force them down the throats of others, but do not let them go unheard.

Make them publicly available. That way it is not being forec and no one can say that; just simply lay it down somewhere so that those who are willing may pick it up.

May your voices carry truth that will shake the foundations of intolerance.



---On Sodomy.---

Given my belief that homosexuality isn't a choice, it can definately be assumed that I really don't think you're going to go to hell because of it.

Why can I think this? Because I don't think God could send you to hell for something you have no control over.

Would God send a black man to hell for being black? Would he send a retarded kid to hell for being retarded? Would God discriminate against someone for any reason whatsoever if it were beyond their control?

My answer is no.

Why would God create you just so you could go to hell? Maybe he's up there giggling as he watches the beings of his creation writhe as they suffer eternally in hell. No.

God is a loving, and understanding being. I think he is well aware that homosexuals have no control over it and as such it really isn't a sin.

But, someone brought up the concept of original sin; that man is automatically a sinful creature and doomed to hell from the very beginning unless they are 'saved' by a good Christian.

Once again I offer the same theory. Would God create you just so you could go to hell in the first place?

And if the answer is yes, my dear God please do tell me why. I may sound as ingorant as a jackass but I am willing to listen to just about anything so long as I learn.

Either way, though, for the time being I don't really think you can go to hell for something that you can't change. God can punish you for your choices, but not for the fate he has written you.



---On Religion.---

You thought I was through, didn't you? Bringing religion into homosexuality. Ha!

Another thing I hear is how people correlate homosexuality with a lack of a belief in God. Well, duh.

Would you join a religion that told you right off the bat you would suffer eternally for choosing to be who you are? Wait, not even for choosing, just for being?

I wouldn't think so. So, really, that topic ends in a kind of no-brainer sense.

And another thing I have to point out to the 'Compassionate Conservative' crowd: Faith was never intended to be a weapon.

God did not give you his love for you to twist it and use it to beat down whomsoever you choose. God wants you to help them, sure, but not beat them. And I don't mean beat literally, I mean stop throwing your religion around like it is some kind of weapon.

The only spikes and spurrs the Bible has are the ones you give it. God wants you heal through love, not flailing someone until they change their sexuality.

And, on another note, please do not try to change anyone else's sexuality. And another thing, please do not try to pray for that other person to come out straight. UNLESS, and I do mean unless, they want it. Because it doesn't feel good at all.

Yes, we know you mean well and it's a sign of love, but it's not supportive. It's more along the lines of, "I love you for who you are, but I'd love you more if you were something else."

Would you walk up to a hispanic guy and ask him to turn white? No, you wouldn't. So please, don't ask a gay guy to turn straight.



---On AIDS.---

This one goes out to the right-wing again.

AIDS WAS NOT SENT BY GOD TO DESTROY THE GAY POPULATION. Thank you.

Now I am sorry, but if you people have your noses so stuck in the bible, why don't you finish looking at your favorite stories of Soddom and Gomorrah. Forgive any misspellings.

As you claim, God destroyed the city because it was full of homosexuals. So what's stopping him from just destroying them now? God's suddenly gone from direct attacks to furtive ones!

To be blunt, if God really wanted to destroy something, he'd just destroy it. Because, not to mention the fact that it's also affecting straight people, it's beginning to seem more like a thing of nature than an act of God.



---On Society.---

One thing I HAVE to do is point out the sheer hypocrisy of society.

I can sit there and watch a lot of straight guys drool over a pair of lesbians making out on TV, then freak out when they find out one of their best friends is gay.

There is nothing else to say but that that is yet another of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

We will condone two women living together, being in love, making out, having sex, and being happy. But when it comes to two other men, homosexuality is suddenly horribly disgusting.

It's time you wake up. Either stop drooling over the lesbians, or start making friends with the gay guys.

And once again I am going to touch on the hypocrisy of the choice issue. You will scream and yell for a gay guy to stop being who he is, and encourage his delusions, but you will then condemn anyone else who lies about being who they are.

We are only able to support whichever view makes us feel better. It feels better to see some person being who they are on the inside, but it feels anything but better to see a gay guy being a gay guy.

You will conform whoever and whatever you can so long as it fits whatever view you have. I will do the same thing, mind you, but I must say I have never encouraged someone to be something they aren't.

And, it's bad enough the law is against it as well. Two men in Houston were fined for having sex in their own room. Doors closed. No one knew anything about it. Completely and totally private, but goodness knows that the right-wing rules in Texas! And before you could say homosexual they were flown into jail.

Society should be synonamous with, "The hypocritcal, the prejudiced, and the cruel."



---Gay Marriage.---

The half-witted ninny that we have for a president wants to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Now, I am sorry, but since when did people suddenly decide that they can define something as amazing as love?

To think that we would allow something as cold as society to attempt to define and limit love! It's preposterous! The things we have written, read, heard, experienced; everything that we all know about love proves that it is of all things boundless!

And suddenly, here we have a silly man in a ten-gallon hat and a bible in his left hand saying that he can define love. And that he will do anything and everything in his power to defend the 'sacred' union of man and woman.

And then people have the nerve to turn around and say it is about the economy! No. Ideologically, it would be about the economy. Ideologically, we could look at this, measure it, weigh it, and make a decision. Ideologically, religion wouldn't be a factor.

But it is. And it's not just a factor. It is the factor. You don't see people walking around with stickers that read, "I don't want my job taken by a queer!" or "The gay guy destoryed my social security!" No. We see religion.

We see, "God created Adam and Eve! Not Adam and Steve!" That is what we see. Not economy, but religion.

I wish it were about the economy, beieve me, but it isn't! The moment we drag the word 'sacred' into anything, it passes beyond feasible gain and crosses into religious belief.

Another thing I hear is that marriage is about reproduction. Worse yet, I heard that from my father.

But, what the hell? If you are married to someone just to fuck them, you better think again because in just a matter of years they won't be that great looking. Let alone capable of reproducing.

But you already know that! So, if it really is about sex, then why get married at all? Because you know that when they aren't sexually attractive anymore, there will still be something there. That something is love. And that is why you really got married.

In short? Wake up, society. You can't limit love, and more importantly, stop living in the delusion that it's about the economy and kiss your mate whom you're in love with. Because you should know by now, that there is something more about them than just physical appearance.



---On My Sexuality.---

I don't know what it is. But I know there's a good chance for me really going either way on this one. Take it any way you want, your opinion on my sexuality is near irrelevant.

But allow me to say something that I've been wanting to say for a long time. And that goes out to those specific people who tell me all the time to 'not worry about it'. To just 'let go'.

I can't not worry about it. It's too big to not worry about it. It will one day define who it is that I am going to spend the rest of my life with, and maybe I am wrong, but that seems like a big deal!

I don't want to wake up with a woman one day and realize I'd rather be with a man. And I don't want to wake up with a man one day and realize I'd rather spend my time with a woman.

For some reason you think it doesn't matter, but why? I could run off and start a family right now, and then leave them in my mid twenties because I finally realized I was gay. Or I could run off and be with a man whom I love, and then break his heart in my middle twenties when I realize I'm straight.

Yes, it's a lot to worry about, but let me worry about it. Don't shoot me down when I ask a question and tell me to not worry about it, try to help me out with an answer.



---Censorship.---

Lately I've been seeing stuff like this come up in the media: radicalized Christian group seeks to topple cartoon character for suggested homosexual reference!

The last time I saw something like that they were attempting to attack Spongebob. And I know that it continues.

Another time they were criticising one television show because one of the main characters was a single mother. And then her friend, another female, came over and spent time with her just helping with the kid and around the house. I believe the time frame in the movie was a few hours.

And suddenly, before you can scream 'common sense', complaints come pouring in. Radicalized groups claiming that it suggested lesbians could raise a child. They believed that because for a few hours a friend came to help out that lesbianism was suddenly spread across the airwaves as though a cancer were crawling into their homes.

I simply believe they're nimrods. It had, as far as I believe, absolutely nothing to do with lesbianism or homosxeuality. Absolutely nothing! Yet why do they attack? Because they are scared.

Voices, crying out in desperation, fly into television stations across the US and coalesce into copper and silver nets that lay across the airwaves. They stop reality from entering homes, they act as safety nets that serve to protect... but eventually, to all that witness, the net begins to tarnish. And then it breaks. Held back for ages, a river of truth flows forward into homes and washes everyone away. Chaos insues.

Too often are people trying to prevent things from entering their home. I can understand murder, death, rape; but something like homosexuality?

Heaven forbid children think that it is okay for people to be homosexual. No, no, scratch that. Not heaven forbid, people forbid.

I beseech you, what do you do when Jimmy develops a crush on Tim? Or when Jimmy commits suicide years later because he never thought it was okay? All I am saying is that in this case, because children and people learn from example, that it would not be horrible to have a positive message about homosexuality out there. At least some sort of something saying that it is okay.

I have to admit, for me it may have been different if I had known what I was feeling was alright. But because of it I am now floating through the river, randomly grabbing bits of wood that float by to try and keep from drowning; to try and salvage what of myself I can.



---The Spawn of Satan.---

The conservatives have really got me riled up on this one, come to think of it. And that is that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

They claim that this will result in the children becoming homosexual themsleves.

To them I simply would like to point out the few studies that have been around. Granted, they all have their flaws, but that does not mean that an entire experiment is 100% inaccurate. Yes, the one had a small sample size, but in instances like this is there really that big of a chance that the pattern will not be repeated?

And they not only claim that the experiments are innacurate, but they also claim that the conclusions were entirely incorrect: the conclusion that children raised by homosexual parents didn't vary all that much from those of heterosexual parents.

They bore no 'significant' differences that would indicate a severe degree of sexuality change. Roughly the same ratio applied---roughly the same number of homosexual children to heterosexual children. So, there really wasn't that much of an impact on their genuine sexuality.

But instead the conservatives are pointing out the meager details to get their way:

-The males do not perform typical displays of masculinity.
-The males tended to be less sexually experimentive.
-The females tended to be more experimentive.

Now, excuse me, but when did we start panicking because one guy refused to beat his chest? As far as I am concerned I think a lack of 'masculine displays' are a very good thing.

It would reduce the possibility of bullying other people in school, as he feels no need to validate himself to the world as a male. He is secure in the fact that he is a man, and feels that he doesn't need to beat anyone up to prove that. He would be less likely to hate, less likely to be intolerant, less likely to kill.

When did that become a bad thing?

And a lack of sexually experimentive males... Ooh, ahh! Fewer guys getting blowjobs! The future of the world is at stake! Please... Maybe this is just years of hatred toward my own gender speaking up, but a less sexually experimentive male is a GOOD thing.

I've seen countless numbers of girls broken because a guy thought with his penis and cheated on her. I've also seen girls get pregnant before and drop out of high school. Worst of all, I've even seen guys make lists of who they plan to be boyfriend/girlfriend with and keep them on a timetable.

Is that really what we want? I don't seem to think so.

And girls being more sexually experimentive? Well, maybe that is a bad thing. Maybe instead it will be the girls keeping timetables and cheating. But do we know? No. Maybe it just means that they will do the experimenting for the guys? They may retain faithfulness and be more bubbly simply because they are more sensual. I don't see giddy girls as a problem. But, I do see cheating girls as a problem.

So, in short, my take is this: allowing homosexuals to adopt will not end the world. Nor will it utterly ruin the lives of those children. Minor differences are simply minor differences, so, it should be rather simple to get over them.



---The AFA.---

Surely, anyone reading this is well enough aware of who the AFA is. At least mildly.

They are, quite blatantly, a group of Christian radicals who work in a desperate attempt to stop the 'homosexual agenda' that their paranoia has launched.

To be blunt they claim to foster a deep love for the American Family and its values. Meanwhile it's based in the Mississippi, a place notoriously known for not giving a bloody damn about civil rights. Can anyone say, "Civil War?"

Needless to say I find the irony amusing. They are completely and totally anti-homosexual, and boycott any company and/or organization that even so much as implies it supports homosexuals.

They launch boycotts, a noble assault I must say, on companies like Ford. Ford because for this year, 2005, they have pledged to donate $1,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation group for every Jaguar or Land Rover sold this year.

Gasp! NO! Not support for a group that is trying to establish an equal share in society?! How can this thing of civil equality exist?

Pfft, they're in Mississippi. What on Earth should you expect?

They've targeted Disney for having gay days in their park. They're targeting Wal-Mart for supporting its homosexual employees. They're targeting Kraft for supporting the Gay Games.

How much worse could they get?



---Plan of Battle.---

I cannot believe I have had this peice up here for so long, and never once mentioned the homosexual agenda except for in passing! In short, allow me to act as one of them; the conservatives...

Oh my good God! The homosexuals! They are out to destory the American family! They want to take our children from us and rape them. They want to destroy our economy by seeking health benefits. They want to brainwash everyone by spreading their propaganda that sexuality is an immutable trait. They want to destroy our society by marrying! My goodness... They want to have family, raise children, marry and make a commitment... But they just aren't like us.

What the bloody hell? For some reason the homosexuals are supposedly out to ruin America. Nay, not America, the world! The homosexuals have united to destroy everything in society, simply by seeking equality.

People draw these conclusions from the dark. They cannot see the similarities between the homosexual family and the regular, simply because they choose to focus on the fact that the parents are of the same gender.

Not that they don't have a point, you know. How is a gay guy going to talk to his adopted daughter about her period? Geeeeeeeee, I dunno. He's gay. Chances are he knows plenty of girls, and chances are he has a rough idea and understanding of 'girl talk.' And, well, if he doesn't, there's always a convenient female best-friend available to the little girl if she feels inadequately prepared. And yes, this feeling comes even in the traditional family. And espescially in the single-parent family. But we haven't really done much to stop those, have we?

And needless to say, it's not like the child can't understand his or her body on their own. But hey, I'm a radical. Self exploration is what I breathe; and to some it's poison.

Needless to say, people think that the homosexuals are out to destroy society. Because they want healthcare? You mean, just like everyone else? Oh my God! What an atrocious thought!

If you cut them they still bleed. And then, since they bleed, they still need medical treatment. Everyone, as far as I am concerned, should have a right to health care. Does not everyone deserve the right to live; once they have begun to live, not just exist?

And the right to settle down and raise a family? Anyone ever hear of pursuit of happiness? That's not infinging on anyone's rights at all. But hey, apparently homosexuals and children just don't mix. Nope.

You can cite all the cases of homosexual molestation of children you'd like, but you won't sway me. And why is that? Because there are much less homosexuals than heterosexuals. And there are even less that are legally capable of adoption. As such, it's only obvious that the numbers themselves are already skewed to magnify the extent to which adopted children of homosexuals are molested.

And if you would like to say that homosexuals aren't seeking a commitment, you may cite the number of homosexual divorces that took place in California. But that doesn't change anything. Why?

Let me ask a question. Say you loved someone dearly, and really did want to marry them. Say you did marry them. But, rather, you know that soon enough, some big authority is going to come and get inbetween you and your true love. Would you rather he desecrate the marriage, or you two end it?

You'd rather end the marriage yourself. So you do. So did they. They knew the inevitability of an annulment. And they'd rather get a formal divorce while capable, rather than have someone just say they aren't married anymore.

The homosexual agenda, really, doesn't exist. The facts that support it, aren't really facts either. Everything used to explain and elaborate on this concept is just as bogus as the idea itself.

Well, if it's one thing that can be said about conservatives, it's that they have an active imagination. Congratulations, conservative. Woo.



---Civil Unions---

What this really should go back to is the argument/discussion about gay marriage that I have up there, but I feel that this particular discussion merits its own block. I know a lot of homosexual advocates like to pander the idea that homosexuals want marriage because of the legal titles and rights it allows, but if that were true we would have settled with civil unions when we had the option.

Now, I can't say that the legal aspect isn't a big motivator behind all of this, but what I want to do is draw the line between 'civil union' and 'marriage.' Primarily, this comes down to rhetoric and linguistic anthropology.

So, what comes to mind when I say the word 'marriage'? Champagne, caviar, groom, bride, elaborate celebration, music, joy, crying inlaws, reception ceremony, honeymooning... Exactly. In short, you see the ritual, the celebration of love and commitment. This elaborate ritual designed to epitomize a relationship and share it with the rest of the world.

Now what comes to mind when I say 'civil union'? People signing papers at a desk. That's roughly it, isn't it? There's no ceremony, no celebration, no anything. It's just a legal agreement.

What happens is the term 'marriage' implies that the relationship is supposed to be celebrated, shared with the world, because of how ritualistic it is. The ritual epitomizes its importance; makes the love itself important and raises it beyond something that is personal, to something that the whole community can share in. The ritual makes the love important not just to the individuals, but also the community.

So when you have a civil union, you lose the ritual. You lose the connotations of importance and celebration, implying that the relationship is in itself not something to celebrate. Because it isn't celebrated, it lacks the same feeling of importance, adn thus -implies- the same unimportance.

So by calling it a 'civil union' you are reducing the implications of the relationship---rhetorically calling it 'less' than a heterosexual relationship because it doesn't have the ritual importance that is ascribed to a heterosexual relationship. It stratifies the differences between the two types of relationships, and places the heterosexual relationship above the homosexual relationship.

And to think, all of this is done through language and ritual.

So if you are any kind of true advocate, you will fight not for a civil union, but for marriage becuase it sets the homosexual relationship at the same social level of the heterosexual relationship---as something to be celebrated.



---The end.---

Now, this ends the ranting so far. Just wait. There is always more to be said. Once again, my apologies to any racial groups I may have offended.