On Gay Marriage
Other Gay Things
Well, for what it is worth, I do not really have an attitude problem with
regard to gays - but I do have a problem with some aspects of the
gay agenda. I will just give one example of this - the 'civil partnership'
idea, wherein gay couples are seeking to have the law and the tax office treat
them as 'normal' married couples.
And let me try to explain why I have a problem with this.
It seems to me that if, for example, two gay people who happen to live
together can avail themselves of various legal advantages (e.g. via the tax
system etc) then why cannot two friends who are not gay have such advantages?
This difference in treatment cannot be right - especially for old people.
which will ... then lead to government snoopers
checking out some very personal details
And, surely, the notion that the intimate sexual activities of couples should
have any significant bearing on their legal status in this particular situation is ridiculous - and
grossly unfair. Further, it will clearly lead in the future to people pretending
to be gay simply in order to recoup the rewards - which will, of course, then lead to
government snoopers checking out some very personal details.
And then there is the issue of single people - and people who simply live alone.
Surely, life for them is much tougher. For example, it is much more expensive to
live alone than to share living expenses with a partner. As such, why
should single people not also receive the various privileges that gay couples
seek for themselves? Single people are surely more in need of these privileges
than are couples?
And, once again, this is especially true for old people.
And I simply cannot believe that the vast majority of people
are going to sit back and continue to accept that heterosexuals who live
together and, thence, those who are single, should be disadvantaged compared to
it is part and parcel of the treacherous pathway
designed to break down traditional families.
Furthermore, the special status and privileges that were traditionally accorded to heterosexual
couples who were married were designed to help them with the maintenance of
family bonds (inheritance laws etc) and with the extra financial burdens
incurred when bringing up children. And the introduction of 'marriage' for gay couples is, clearly, just one more step in the
direction of destroying this particularly special situation - i.e. it is part and parcel of
the treacherous pathway designed to break down traditional families.
And if, eventually, as a result of political pressure - which I am sure will
come - we all end up being entitled to receive various special
privileges for our situations vis-a-vis our partners - or lack thereof - then
there is no real advantage to be gained for anyone - except, of course, for the government -
which gets to exert even finer control over people's intimate relationships -
e.g. through the tax system.
In other words, 'gay marriage' is a step in the wrong direction on many
fronts. And it can only lead to increasing resentment - much of which will be
justified, in my view.
And this is bound to be especially true from the point of view of many men who
are MRAs - for obvious reasons; the most important of which, I suppose,
is the breaking down of traditional families and, hence, the breaking down of
men's positions and, hence, their security within those families.
'gay marriage' is yet another blow to what many
heterosexual men hold close to their hearts.
In other words, 'gay marriage' is yet another blow to what many heterosexual
men hold close to their hearts. And it is gays - rather than feminists - who are delivering this extra
And, of course, as we move forward toward the situation wherein special
status is given to all couples - which I am sure will happen
eventually, unless we go back to supporting traditional marriage alone - then
this will be yet another area wherein women - who live longer than men - will
manage to suck yet more significant resources away from men simply by living
together in their old age.
And we can't have that!
They are already taking far too big a portion of the
But I think that the most
important point to understand about the legal recognition of gay marriage is
that it is bound to lead to heterosexuals and single people wanting the same
antagonism towards gays will surely rise..
If they do not get these
benefits, then antagonism towards gays will surely rise.
they do get these benefits, then no-one really benefits - except, of course, the
state - which also gets all the numerous benefits that accrue to
it from breaking down traditional marriages.
Are Gays Gay?
Anyway. I'm in such a good mood at
the moment that I think that I shall comment most gay-like over the following
Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired
Homosexual behavior appears to result from a complex, dynamic interaction
of many contributing factors including environment, free will , and
I believe that the first two factors are the chief contributing
factors to homosexuality.
Homosexuality is mostly a choice.
So, there you have it. Homosexuality is mostly a choice.
Only some 20% is
down to genes, it is often said.
But is this conclusion reasonable, given the data upon which it
No. It is not.
After all, a growing boy has no say when it comes to choosing
his parents or his brothers and sisters, nor the personalities that beset them.
He has no choice with regard to where he lives or to the era in which he lives.
He has no choice when it comes to the teachers and the adults who will guide him
through to adulthood. He has no choice over the neighbourhood in which he lives,
or with regard to his neighbours. He has no choice when it comes to the politics
that reigns throughout his childhood, over the material that he is given to
learn at school, over the TV programmes that are shunted out at him, over the
culture in which he has been embedded. He has no choice when it comes to the
classmates and the children who surround him. He has no choice over his
particular brain chemistry, his anatomy, his physiology, much of his personality, the
way his face is shaped and the way that his body is formed.
has no real choice over most of the psychological forces and the daily
experiences that will operate on him throughout his growing years.
And, of course, one thing tends to lead to another, and to another, and to
another, eventually leading to things that are way out of sight. In other words,
the destinations of these long infinitely complicated pathways in life are too
difficult for adults to figure out.
For boys, it is impossible.
twin studies suggest that homosexuality is some 20% determined by genes, many
people who should know better state, or imply, that the other 80%
must be down to choice.
But this is clearly hokum.
A young boy cannot
even choose his own name!
The 'trick' is to hide - by omission - the fact that growing
boys not only do not choose their genes (the 20%), they also, clearly,
choose the environments in which they are brought up! (the 80%)
In other words,
their 'choices' are very limited indeed. Almost zero, for much of the
Good trick, eh?
And so for my less able readers - of which there are many!
- I summarise my most magnificent conclusion. And it is this.
Some gay men had no choice over
the matter. Their brains got wired up by forces over which they had virtually no
Some gay men had more of a choice.
And one fairly good way of
ascertaining roughly the proportions of men who likely fall into each category
is to ... um ... is to ... um ... is to ask them!
In a nutshell: Twin studies
are fairly good methods for working out the weights of the environmental
and genetic factors that lead to various traits and characteristics, but
it makes no sense at all to assume that the environmental contribution
must be a measure of the amount of 'choice' that was available when this
environmental contribution was being made.