Just a few quick notes since I’m quite busy at the moment. (Added later: In retrospect, I should have divided this post into three separate ones, too late now).

Another sexual orientation change study

I haven’t had time to read the study below (on my list), but it looks like another hole in the wall of the narrative. And more proof that people who believe that homosexuality is inborn are clearly ignorant about psychology and sociology. Theirs (the “born this way” crowd) is nothing more than the kind of barbaric early 20th-century Eugenics theories applied to sexuality.

I’ll write more when I have more time.

First Things has an article by Peter Sprigg:
Why Science Doesn’t Support Orientation-Change Bans
September 4, 2013


[Gov.] Christie’s press release reductively declared that “people are born gay.” Yet there is no firm scientific basis for this conclusion. The three studies in the early 1990’s which were hailed by the media as providing evidence for a “gay gene” (or at least for an innate and biological cause for homosexuality) have long since been discredited by the failure of any other researchers to be able to replicate those early results.

In fact, the American Psychological Association itself has actually moved away from asserting certainty about the origins of homosexuality, declaring in their most recent statement on this question that: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. . . . Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.

If even the American Psychological Association says “there is no consensus among scientists” about the origin of homosexuality, then it seems presumptuous of politicians to act as though there is in order to stifle conservative viewpoints on the issue. And if “nurture” plays any role in the development of homosexuality, then it cannot be said that “people are born gay.” Indeed, researchers from Columbia and Yale found that evidence supports “the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.”

Evidence that sexual orientation can be fluid rather than fixed is particularly strong with respect to young people—the very people whose freedom to seek change has been crushed by the New Jersey law. Ritch Savin-Williams, who is the nation’s leading expert on homosexual teenagers, wrote in Current Directions in Psychological Science:

“In the data set of the longitudinal Add Health study, of the Wave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction, only 11 percent reported exclusive same-sex attraction one year later; 48 percent reported only opposite-sex attraction, 35 percent reported no attraction to either sex, and six percent reported attraction to both sexes.

This means, according to Savin-Williams’ cited source in the Journal of Biosocial Science, “the Wave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction” consisted of “69 boys [who] indicated that yes, they had ever had a romantic attraction to the same sex, and no, they had never had an attraction to the opposite sex.”

Not only did those who were exclusively homosexual not all remain so, but only 11 percent did. Some measure of change in sexual orientation—which many homosexual activists say is impossible, and never happens to anyone—is not only possible, but it is the norm for adolescents with same-sex attractions, having been experienced by 89 percent of the respondents only one year later.


Reflections on the fundamental link between privacy and democracy

I had come across a brilliant comment (where to find it now!) on an article regarding the Snowden saga or related issues that clearly laid out something I had never thought of before: democracy is impossible without a certain level of privacy. As much as I am in favor of the government being able to violate privacy to identify sexual and child abusers (and other kinds of criminals), I never realized until now how much harm can be done when “citizens” (heh!) no longer have a right to any privacy. I’m not talking about this obvious fact in a repressive, violent dictatorship. It had never occurred to me that this complete lack of privacy could occur in our societies, laughably called “democracies” and non-repressive. You are effectively no longer a citizen in a Big Brother kind of society, and that goes for “democracies” as well. And yet, I still believe law enforcement should have the power to investigate (including by violation of privacy) and find out who are the people who are torturing children and bring them to justice. As for the “terrorism” threat as a justification of destroying any semblance of privacy/democracy, nothing could be more preposterous and ludicrous.

I had not previously realized just how fundamental the importance of privacy is until it became clear to me how fragile the state of this right is today (thanks to Snowden’s revelations). It is like what has happened to heterosexuality culturally speaking. Until the unabashed attack on heterosexuality that people with a homosexuality agenda began to carry out a few decades ago, I had never realized how precious and sacred it was, simply because it had not been a target of destruction before. It is not possible to understand how deeply important certain things are until someone (or an entire demented group of people) start to viciously attack it (“heteronormative” et al). It simply was how things were. The same with privacy. It’s not a question of taking it for granted, but not having a reason to think of how many profoundly interwoven ripples of consequences there are when such precious things begin to be destroyed.


CENSORED: Debate about the definition and use of the word “heterosexual”

Navajo Nation – Men and women have been created in a sacred manner April 25, 2005

The Navajo Nation on Friday outlawed same-sex marriages on its reservation. The Tribal Council voted unanimously in favor of legislation that restricts a recognized union to that between a man and a woman, and prohibits plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives. “Men and women have been created in a sacred manner. We need to honor this,” said Del. Harriet Becenti.

My thoughts exactly. Sacred, and unless honored, desecrated.


Be insulted and shut up or you’re being insolent – says man with a transsexual problem to me!

Lastly, another unpleasant but revealing interaction with a shamelessly unethical liberal (with a major transsexual problem to boot!), who came onto my blog to spill a sanctimonious, twisted rant against me. Click on the link and read the interaction in the comments, if you’re interested.

I will have more to comment on the interaction, but for now I just wanted to note that when this guy says LGBTs just want a “peaceful co-existence” with social conservatives and then vomits his bile and ad hominem attacks at me (and everyone else who questions his agenda), he displays the true colors of the LGBT crowd. They remind me of the “peaceful co-existence” that Germany offered France in the 1930s.

As Stacy McCain so beautifully wrote recently (Lubricating the Slippery Slope: The Intellectual Astroglide of the Elite):

Basically, the enemy got inside the perimeter. The bombardment of liberal propaganda convinced both the Republican Party elite and leading figures of the conservative intelligentsia that all those hillbilly Bible-thumpers were, on balance, a detriment to the GOP’s political prospects, so shut up, Sarah Palin, shut up Michele Bachmann, shut up Rick Santorum and anyone else who doesn’t applaud gay marriage as enthusiastically as Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan.

Way to go, Republican elite! You saved your reputation as sophisticated, tolerant, enlightened intellectuals and you are . . . Doomed.

The revolutionary turning point is now in your rear-view mirror, and you’re all Vichy Republicans, negotiating with the radical Left the terms of your collaboration with their progressive agenda. In November 2008, I explained where we were heading:

The Lawrence ruling was the culmination of what Justice Antonin Scalia called “a 17-year crusade” to overturn the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision (which had upheld Georgia’s sodomy statute) and, as Scalia noted in his dissent, the Court’s “emerging awareness” argument was a disingenuous way to avoid actually declaring a “fundamental right” to sodomy. The legal effect was the same, however, and Lawrence was repeatedly cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision five months later mandating the legalization of gay marriage in that state. . . .
Gay activists do not construe their “rights” in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality. They insist that same-sex relationships are identical to — entirely analogous to and fungible with — traditional marriage.
Common sense resists this assertion, perceiving something fundamentally false in the gay marriage argument. Yet it seems common-sense resistance can only be justified by resort to religious faith, through the understanding that men are “endowed by their Creator” with rights. Eliminate the Creator from discussion, and it becomes impossible to refute the activists’ indignant demand for equality. . . .

You could read the whole thing — if you’re an ignorant hillbilly Bible-thumper like Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Lawrence decision stopped just short of declaring a “fundamental right” to sodomy, but they might as well have gone all the way (if you’ll pardon the phrase) because we see how Justice Kennedy struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as though no law prior to the “emerging awareness” had any validity at all. In 2003, the Supreme Court decreed that Texas had no authority to prohibit sodomy. Ten years later, the Supreme Court decreed that Congress itself could not deny recognition to same-sex marriage, and anyone shocked by the hasty destruction of what Chief Justice Warren Burger called “millennia of moral teaching” — well, shut up, haters.

McCain’s post is a must read!

Getting back to the stupid transsexual who landed on my “About” page, aside from all the insults he spewed there, I found it telling and amusing how he berated me for being… insolent!

Insolent for questioning his delusional sexuality agenda! Now if that doesn’t clinch how petty and tyrannical this LGBT idiot is, nothing else does. And what image came to mind? The Catholic Church hierarchy in the Middle Ages who was enraged any time anyone questioned its ideology (or its practice). Le plus ça change…

This twisted transsexual has not yet realized that nothing gives me more pleasure than being “insolent” to such stupid people (that is, criticizing their harmful and destructive liberal ideology on sexuality and relationships).

For another “lovely” example of the kind of “peaceful co-existence” that LGBTs and their agenda supporters want to have with socons, see this:

The ugly mind of a pro-homosexual