Tuesday, 9 April 2013

A Critical Assessment of LGBT Claims




For a long time I, like many other people, thought that the campaign to stop discrimination against and even persecution of homosexuals was a worthy battle in need to be fought.

And indeed it was. But now it has become something else, something completely different, that goes well beyond the demand for recognition of fundamental rights and equality.

Many people still think of homosexuals as victims because they have been in the past, but things have changed now, and we should wake up to the new historical reality that homosexual activists now victimize those who disagree with them, using the ideological power and influence that they have acquired through the previous times of their "victim" status.

The issue of same-sex marriage, the pressure put on the Boy Scouts of America to allow homosexuals as scout masters and leaders, and the scandal of the Catholic Church's so-called "paedophile" abuse, which was in fact homosexual abuse, have made it timely, and indeed imperative and unavoidable, to confront the nature of homosexuality and whether it is just another lifestyle, innocuous to the people practicing it, harmless to children, without consequences for society, "normal" and non-pathological both physically and psychologically.

We have to take a better look at what homosexuality is, what transgender and transvestitism are, what their goals and intentions are, because now it is no longer to do with homosexuals wishing to be left alone - "Live and let live" -, but their demands, if met, are going to affect the rest of society in ways that most people are not aware of.

Let me start with a recent news item, Colorado parents of transgender 1st-grader file complaint over restroom ban, regarding the parents of a 6-year-old who have filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division because Eagleside Elementary School in Fountain banned the first-grader, who was born a boy, from using the girls' toilets.

The mother of this "transgender" child says in the video accompanying the article that they started noticing that, when the boy was about 18 months old, as soon as "she" could express "herself", she was really expressing that she was a girl.

"Transgender" is the "T" in the LGBT movement, so they are part of the great rainbow umbrella. Transgender or, to give it its medical name, Gender identity disorder, was until a few months ago on the official psychiatric diagnostic manual but the American Psychiatric Association announced last December approved changes in its official guide to classifying mental illnesses.

This follows the same pattern of the controversial and far from unanimous decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, so we can expect to see more of parents like those in Colorado declaring that their boy is in fact a girl; we can expect the medical profession, media and politicians to call this normal, and everybody else who does not want to be named "transphobic" to obediently follow suit and see this as the new normal, as has been done for homosexuality.

Now, if this Colorado incident were the case of one of those cults or religious sects that sometimes appear in the American news for not having let their children go out in the outside world, or have a blood transfusion or similar, it would have been denounced all over the media as serious child abuse and the child would have been taken away from the parents and put into care.

But both journalists and social services don't care about all child abuse, only politically incorrect one. They are perfectly happy with homophile (or transphile) child abuse, being as it is on the right side of the politically correct track.

This story should also make us reflect on the various ramifications and far-reaching consequences of the requests of the LGBT movement, which not coincidentally has decided to unify its different strands.

I want to better explain this by way of an analogy.

Various deaf associations and deaf people's rights groups have a negative attitude towards cochlear implants that help hearing, because treatment implies that there is something wrong.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) in the US has issued this position statement:
Many within the medical profession continue to view deafness essentially as a disability and an abnormality and believe that deaf and hard of hearing individuals need to be “fixed” by cochlear implants. This pathological view must be challenged and corrected by greater exposure to and interaction with well-adjusted and successful deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

The media often describe deafness in a negative light, portraying deaf and hard of hearing children and adults as handicapped and second-class citizens in need of being “fixed” with cochlear implants.
The Telegraph has this story:
Sara Kendall, profoundly deaf from birth, lives with her deaf mother and deaf boyfriend in Nottingham, and feels she has nothing to gain from an implant.

I was offered cochlear implants when I was younger but my parents refused and I’m very happy with that because I’ve seen some cochlear users admit that they feel they don’t belong.”

What many hearing people might not realise is the strong community that exists in the silent world. In fact, it’s more than a community. Deaf people (with a capital D) see themselves more as an ethnic minority, with their own (sign) language, schools and proud history.

The National Association of the Deaf was created by deaf people to advocate for deaf rights in 1880. The Deaf don’t see deafness as a disability but a cultural identity (motto: different but not deficient). It’s a world so warm and welcoming, many wouldn’t want to become hearing, even given the choice.
The controversy over cochlear implants within the deaf community has sometimes led to strong stances:
However, there has been a notable resistance in the deaf community towards the technology of the cochlear implant (CI). The deaf community is split between those who feel that it is a medical miracle and those who feel it is a form of ethnic “genocide.”
Deaf people not wishing to acknowledge that deafness is a pathological condition, inferior to hearing capability, whereas they consider them both to be of equal value, offers an evident analogy with the normalization of homosexuality and the claims of its being just another lifestyle.

It is understandable that someone with a disorder or disability, physical or psychological, may wish to deny it. In fact, it is part of human nature, denying our weaknesses gives us a false sense of defending our pride and self-image.

But the reality is that it is when people recognize what is wrong with them that they can make progress. That is why, for example, Alcoholics Anonymous requires its members to admit that they are alcoholic.

If a deaf or homosexual person wishes to remain so, it is rightly his/her choice. And whatever these persons think of their condition is also their choice.

But should the rest of society oblige, go along with and encourage this self-deception?

One way to scientifically test the prevailing theory that homosexual behaviour is normal, natural and healthy is the following.

In science, theoretical hypotheses are controlled by logically deducing from them a proposition describing an observable event, i.e. by making a prediction, and then seeing if the event occurs as predicted, which confirms the hypothesis, or not, which refutes it.

In the 1980s, in the early days of AIDS when the major groups at risk were male homosexuals, drug addicts sharing needles and hemophiliacs being given blood transfusions, the prediction was made that AIDS would spread among heterosexuals as it had among "gays".

This 1988 New York Times article well captures the spirit of the time:
Scientists have not determined whether AIDS virus carriers from other groups, such as intravenous drug users or heterosexuals, will develop AIDS at the same pace. But a recent study of hemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus found a similar rate of disease, Dr. Moss said. ''There's no reason to think it will be any better for other groups,'' he said.
''There's no reason to think it will be any better for other groups''. Indeed, there was reason to think that, if medical researchers had embraced the correct hypothesis of the pathological nature of homosexual behaviour, considering only the latter and putting aside for a moment homosexual inclination.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic among heterosexuals that never was, logically derived from and predicted on the basis of the "benign, normal, healthy" nature of homosexual behaviour, is in itself an empirical falsification of that hypothesis.

Even today, male homosexuals are at very high risk of contracting the AIDS virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published in 2010 a study conducted in 21 American cities, showing that one in five MSM (men who have sex with men) had HIV.

We are not here talking about minor differences in the incidence of this deadly disease between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but of two completely different scales.

A coincidence, you say? No, the way HIV, the AIDS virus, spreads has a lot to do with homosexual behaviour.
Before looking into the evidence of brain, genes or hormones we need to recognise that the male body is not designed to be penetrated during sexual intercourse. The lining of the anus is much thinner than the vagina and tears very easily. The lining of the anus, compared to the lining of the vagina, is also designed for nutrients to pass through it - where a healthy vagina will stop sperm entering any part of the body except the reproductive system the anus will allow semen (and any disease it carries) into the blood stream. Also the anal sphincter muscle is designed to expel not accept objects which can lead to problems in later life...

So biologically the male and female bodies are compatible with each other not bodies of the same gender.
There are two ways HIV can be transmitted: blood to blood (as in non-sexual contagion like among intravenous drug users and in blood transfusions) and semen/cervical secretions to blood. During a normal (pardon this unfashionable term) heterosexual intercourse there is normally (again, damn!) no spilling of blood because the vagina (there is no other way to put it) is the "natural place" for sexual intercourse, whereas this is not true of the anus and anal intercourse, during which there is more tearing and bleeding.

Anal sex is the most unhealthy form of sex, not just, as it tragically is, for AIDS but also for other sexually transmitted diseases.

This is from the website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal government agency:
The Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General 1982-1989) has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercouse is simply too dangerous to practice".

Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.

Even if the condom doesn't break, anal intercourse is very risky because it can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed. These tears allow disease germs to pass more easily from one partner to the other.
Psychiatric conditions are also associated with homosexuality.

I will explore this area in more detail in future posts, lest this article become a book, but here I will briefly mention some of the issues.
Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.

No comments:

Post a Comment