The natural goal of sex is reproduction, just as the natural goal of eating is to add fuel and nutrients to the body. Since these two prime directives of instinct are so important to life, there is carrot on the string, to help lead the horse to water; carrot of desire and pleasure has a natural goal. The problem is desire and pleasure, as the end onto itself, may not always be natural for the body, since not all roads of desire and pleasure, lead to the prime directive. This ability to choose is connected to will and choice. We do not have to be healthy or natural, if we choose.
This is easier to see and less insulting if we first look at the prime directive of food and eating. If our joy and desire to eat, always involved highly marbled beef with lots of fat, this may maximize pleasure; carrot. However, it can cause health problems, since this type of eating does not lead to the prime directive; healthy body; but lingers at the carrot or lure of pleasure. Should or does culture accept any form of eating, as long as it makes you are compulsively happy? If I like salt why should I put less? Or should a distinction be made; rule of thumb, so people know the line in the sand between carrot and water; better balance. We do that with eating, but with sex, we stop short of any line in the sand of natural and man made due to will and choice. There is money to be made if we have no line in the sand.
This is not a value judgement anymore than defining the line between healthy eating; water, and junk foods; any pleasure carrot is an acceptable end onto itself. Single gay men way over do it; buffet of common obsession, thereby creating the highest rates of disease and need for treatment, similar to those who eat too much sweets and fats, tend to need more medical care. The ancient saw the eating disorder so to speak. Evolution is not being taught at the level of the neural firmware. Consciousness evolved with the body and it now needs to learn the line between healthy food for thought and junk food for thought.
I agree, and I believe in live and let live. The problem is the political Left keeps waiving dirty laundry in everyone's face to keep the division of people alive. As an analogy, there are laws against spitting on the side walk since the sight of spit and mucous can make some people squeamish. The Left makes spitting on the sidewalk, legal, with the hope of desensitizing. This would be better in private, like straight couples do. It is polite for married straight couples not to show off in public. Why make others jealous or squeamish? What you do in private, does not add spit to the sidewalk.
If one needs an audience of approval for any behavior, one should considered why? I do not need the approval of others to be heterosexual since this approval comes from inside; innate. I can stay private and be happy. That which is not innate, needs faux or forced approval. The LBGTQ community is like a community of actors or players on the stage, that likes an audience. All the care needed to "Drag-up" would go to waste, without an audience. It is sort of a social show with actors needing the audience. There is also lots of loud personalities, The problem is the spitting on the sidewalk, for that approval, can trigger lack of approval and even aggression. Some people want to avoid seeing spit, and when they see someone do it, they can get mad, less their body cringe. Don't ask and don't tells, makes for clean sidewalks and friendly exchanges.
Forcing gender and LBGTQ in schools, on center stage, was bound to cause problems more than solutions. It was all about the tactic of dividing people to form a half population army of irrational compulsion that misses the prime directive. It would be like the cafeteria only selling junk foods and the parents getting upset, and then parent treated as criminal for complaining. At least there, culture made a line in the sand, so the parental criminal label could be avoided. The Lefty line is not in a natural place of balance.
Thank you for this post. Suddenly I feel a lot more sane. The fact that this was the only post I've made here that kind of made me nervous and second-guessing whether I should actually way in when what I posted was actually relatively tame and non-inflammatory and expressed an open mind and desire to be more informed on the topic speaks volumes IMO.
I'll state it a 3rd time - there is absolutely nothing wrong for a person to be gay on that characteristic alone.
The LBGT community has actually established itself as a separate entity from homosexuality altogether in my opinion. It didn't seem to start out that way, but, to me, that's what it has become.
It's like the movement went like this -
LBGT Community: "We demand our civil rights!!!"
Western Society: "Okay, here you go."
LBGT Community: "Um, uh... thanks?" *looks down, then back at some random marginalized person* "So what do we do now?"
Random Marginalized Person: *shrugs* "I dunno... I've got some more letters of the alphabet here - maybe we could tack these on to the end??"
It's possible that the recent surge of visibility that the transgender community has got in the media and on the political stage is a direct consequence of the LGBT community correctly identifying that the Ts have the most stigma attached to them in their community and determining that they require the most attention. Unfortunately, this has resulted in an extremely small minority of the population being placed in the spotlight and being politically dissected without a second thought for whether even trans people themselves actually want this for themselves. They then go on to compound the issue by tacking on a few more letters and a "+" sign to ensure that their movement isn't just about gay people but literally anyone who feels marginalized by their sexuality (a very dangerous and self-sabotaging move in my opinion).
An excellent example of how the LGBT community has mis-stepped and the hypocrisy involved in how it conducts itself is how factions of it decided to go to war with Dave Chappelle (another very dangerous and self-sabotaging move, I might say) - the result was him having his last Netflix special revolve around him dictating the terms of his supposed disagreement/misunderstanding with their movement that was punctuated with a story about a good friend of his who was a comedian and a trans woman who - after defending Dave Chappelle online (by simply saying that she didn't believe that he was transphobic or unfair with his jokes) and getting dragged on twitter by the LGBT community - actually killed herself. Chappelle very aptly called this special of his "The Closer" - a reference to a final knockout blow in a boxing match and said that he was done with comedy until he's convinced that
we're all laughing together, with each other. And, to my knowledge, he hasn't had a special since.
All of this is evidence to me that the LBGT movement/community isn't really about rights or fairness as it currently stands. It might have started out that way, but I'm seeing enough in today's society to suggest that it's more about a convenient cash in on victimhood culture (which is actually booming in the west right now). It's like if movements for social justice were major religions, the LBGT Community would be the Catholic Church - the largest and most influential body by a margin that isn't even remotely fair and provides an unacceptable amount of avenues for internal corruption that have nothing to do with what the supposed core message of the thing in the first place.
Victimhood culture has literally become a form of currency in western society today -
South Park did a great little side joke on it last year in that excellent episode that bashed Prince Harry & Meghan; they depicted an agency that works on cultivating any given individual's "brand" and the formula for doing so was insanely and hilariously reductive - essentially reducing any given person to 4 adjectives or nouns that describe who and what they are and what they stand for, the 4th and final word always being: "Victim". Very on-brand for
South Park having a relatively minor side joke stand alone as a remarkably profound commentary on our society and culture today. I hate how very seriously charged words like "bigot" and "racist" get thrown around so casually today - people forget just how serious these accusations actually are and people are having their lives ruined over things that don't really matter; how ironic.
However, I am old enough to remember a time when gay people really did endure quite a lot of very nasty and ugly discrimination in western society - the early 2000s weren't terrible, but there was a lot of very obvious discrimination and bigotry. Most of it was religious bigotry that I never thought would be erased in my lifetime but I'm actually astounded to see how quickly things changed - now we actually have the pope actually groveling to the LGBT community, and no one I know seems to care about what a person's sexuality is (at least in any meaningful sense - I've never seen anyone get fired, denied housing or employment or discriminated against for being gay). In fact, there actually seems to be a lot of advantages for people today for identifying with the movement besides just getting to indulge in a status of victimhood.
Final thought: I was watching a documentary the other day about the cities in the USA that decriminalized all drugs in an attempt to mirror the success places like Portugal have seen in terms of substance abuse problems - the documentary ultimately concludes that these measures in the USA haven't been successful because the USA doesn't have the same access to or quality of healthcare (specifically mental health and substance abuse resources) that the nations who successfully decriminalized drugs have. The cities were depicted as nightmares that were full of crime and little to no law enforcement with a dramatic spike in crime, addiction and chronic homelessness - that's beside the point though. The very minor thing in the documentary that I couldn't help but notice was that there was a relatively lucid young woman who tearfully described her plight - apparently she had never touched drugs before and never planned to, however, she was homeless and living off the street because she was previously living at home and had "come out" to her family as "gender queer" - the "Q" in the LGBTQ+ community that doesn't seem to have a fixed definition as far as I know - and her family had apparently disowned her, thrown her out of their house and put her on a bus and told her to never to come home again. Very sad story I suppose but I couldn't help but wonder it there was far more too it than that (she really seemed to hit that "I'm queer / gender fluid" note unusually hard and repetitively like it was a convenient veneer or excuse that served to cover up a lot more to the story than she was sharing. I couldn't help but wonder whether the "Q" (or "+" for that matter) provides people with an opportunity to claim false victimhood status and an opportunity to identify with a community that seems to pride itself on being marginalized and, thus, naturally belligerent towards people who aren't really a threat to them at all - such as: maybe their own family who is providing them a roof over their head and love towards them when, ultimately, they don't owe this person anything?
Here we go again - another long winded post from me (because I felt the need to be thorough in my explanation) that I'm thinking twice before hitting reply because I expect some kind of bombardment of abuse for expressing it. I suppose there's only one way to find out how this sits with people...
*hits reply*
