9:33 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Why not?



I got this idea during my sojourn into the Territory of Unreasoning Liberals. But that doesn't stop it from being a great idea.

There is a trend of people "googling" their own names to see what comes up. There are also many good friends I've lost touch with as I've moved around. If any of you google your name and find this site, I'm your old buddy Nathan. Email me at the brainfertilizer address and lets talk.

Andy Ferguson
Robin Barker
Jonathan Pryce
David Davilla
Stephanie Batt
Glen Singleton
Richard Joe Smith

That's all I can think of right now. I'll be adding more in the future.
|W|P|89959699|W|P||W|P|6:51 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Rough Draft



Here's a rough draft of the 7th chapter of a non-fiction book I'm
working on: Toward a Terrorism-Free Society.
Obviously, I'm going to add a few points and expand these points even more. I
don't pretend it is complete, or even clear. If enough people enjoy
this, I may post other rough drafts. Let me know what you think.
Particularly if you think it worth implementing any of this.

Let someone know where you are, where you are going, and when you are
due, at ALL TIMES. If you are expected and have not arrived, people
may worry at thirty minutes, and act at an hour, and will have some idea
where to start looking. But if no one knows where you went or what
time to expect, it could be hours before worry begins, and hours more
before action is taken, and the search area would be too broad. That could
literally make the difference between life and death.
Most experts say to "Be aware of your surroundings." Yeah, right. No
one can be "fully aware" 100% of the time. You'll find yourself being
aware for several minutes after you remember to pay attention, and then
your mind will wander. Nothing will happen, and you'll slowly grow to
be as complacent as you once were.
But Old West frontiersmen were constantly aware. Soldiers on patrol
are constantly aware. Knowing that your life is at risk at any time is
wonderful for helping you focus. Terrorists are counting on the fact
that if no threat materializes, awareness will naturally lag. You have
to fight that. Awareness has to be slowly cultivated as a habit.
Play mental games with yourself to keep awareness and observation at
the front of your mind. When driving, count all the blue cars, or all
the cars or one brand, or pick one license plate and see if you can
remember it 5 minutes after getting home. When traveling through
unfamiliar areas, pick out safe places to run to if you find yourself attacked,
like hospitals and police stations. Pretend the car that turned into
your subdivision right behind you is tailing you, so go out of your way
through different parts of your neighborhood until he turns off (so he
can't see where you live).
Constantly rehearse in your mind, "What would I do if...?" Things
like, if someone in the car next to me pulled a gun and opened fire, if
the car behind slammed on its brakes to cause an accident to get you
stopped for an ambush. Rehearsal is important because you will not have
time to think in an emergency, and your chance of survival increases
exponentially if you have already thought about what you might do. Think of
Jake Ryan in the movie "Clear and Present Danger", and how he reacted
when the group he was traveling with was attacked by an RPG. He didn't
waste time thinking, he GOT OUT OF THERE. Constantly think of how you
could flee if suddenly attacked...and the other part of that is to
never pull up close to another car so you don't have room to maneuver in
some manner.
Walk around your car every time you approach it when you've parked it
in a public place, looking for boxes or packages underneath it,
particularly underneath the driver's seat or under the gas tank. Then look
into your windows and see if anything appears out of place before you
open the doors. Obviously, if you see something, call the police. You
will probably never see anything your whole life...but you will give the
appearance of an alert, aware individual, and the terrorists will go
somewhere else.
Use family members as observers. Teach your children to start being
aware right now, as a game. They don't have as many entrenched bad
habits of routine. Make awareness their routine now. It will help them as
adults, but since children are surprisingly observant, it could save
you now.
Make terrorism a hobby. The more you know, the more you understand,
the less likely you will be taken by surprise.
Listen to your intuition. If something seems weird, don't ignore it
or assume an innocent explanation. Raise awareness and be ready to
flee. If you see two strange elements, immediately leave the area by the
fastest means possible. Terrorists will use pedestrians to get you to
slow or stop for easier targeting, so if overseas, don't be afraid to
run someone down if you have to (but head immediately to the embassy).
It sounds harsh, but the two instances of people doing so (running
someone down to escape a feared ambush zone) were determined to be the
correct move afterward. Had they stopped for the pedestrian, they would
probably have been killed.
Improve/maintain fitness. If you need to run, jump, or lift your body
weight to survive, being in shape makes it much easier. In several
terrorist attacks, including the Atlanta Olympics bombing, part of the
death toll included people dying of a heart attack from the shock.
In a related note, take a class in martial arts. Not only will it
improve your fitness and increase your ability to defend yourself from
unarmed attacks (which do occur), the martial arts cultivate a mind
disciplined to reacting and acting instead of freezing. The difference of a
second literally can mean the difference between life and death.
Maintain a well-stocked First Aid kit at home, in your car, and on
travels. Have a small kit for emergencies with you whenever possible.
Take lifesaving classes to learn how to use them effectively and rescue
breathing. How many more lives could have been saved if everyone in the
Twin Towers knew CPR? 1? 3? 10? It may not seem like much out of
3,000 deaths, but that would be 1, 3, or even 10 families that would not
have lost a loved one. Definitely worth it.
Are you not interested in any of this because you're convinced you'll
never need to worry about terrorism? Think it over, and I'm sure
you'll realize this sort of attitude and cultivated habit will also help
protect you for crime. Which, since our govt obviously has no idea how to
fulfill its most basic and most important functions, is a danger we
certainly all face.
Just another installment in my constant crusade to get people to take
control of life, and attack the problems we all encounter.
|W|P|89934927|W|P||W|P|4:50 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

I can't believe I have to spell this out again



Do people just not know how to read English???

I have never censored anyones comments to date. I might if a comment goes too far down the profanity and threats path without any real content to go with it. I don't want my readers to have to read filth.

Some may say my opinions are filth. These are the people who have redifined words like "hate" and "peace" and "racism" to suit their own twisted ends.

I don't hate anyone. I don't approve of certain behaviors. I deplore those behaviors and have provided evidence the behaviors are unhealthy. I have made it clear through logic and scientific evidence that no one is ever forced to engage in those behaviors. None of that is hate. I don't hate the people engaging in the behaviors, I'm trying to help them understand why they should stop. My campaign is nothing different than the campaign to convince America to quit smoking, or that intolerance of any opnion that disagrees with your own is wrong. But I have never said anyone has no right to exist, or no right to hold their opinion. It's too bad not everyone has that understanding and compassion. Hate is having contempt for someone. Hate is hoping something bad happens to someone. Hate is treating someone else as less than human.

But you can say whatever you want to on this blog. Anyone can rant here, or make fun of me, or even insult me. Or even do something totally rare for a liberal and provide evidence supporting your viewpoint. I will challenge, question, and refute anything I disagree with, of course. I won't roll over and submit to anyone, no matter how convinced they are that they have the only Truth in the world.

Please read the words that are written, whether by me or someone else. Even then, there are misunderstandings, but if you react to words that aren't even written down, communication gets even more mangled.
|W|P|89870874|W|P||W|P|4:27 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

I usually hate these things, but...



src="http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2003/01/os_quiz/palm.jpg" width="300" height="90"
border="0" alt="Which OS are You?">
Which OS are You?


I tried changing a few questions from one answer I liked to another answer I liked nearly as much, and I always ended up as either Palm OS or one of the Linux variations....

Woohoo! I'm NOT microsoft, and certainly NOT Microsoft Windows ME!
|W|P|89869793|W|P||W|P|4:24 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Some evidence pointing to a Need for Change



On Women
|W|P|89869670|W|P||W|P|4:23 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Philosophy of Beer



Check out the link:

Strong Bad
|W|P|89869598|W|P||W|P|4:22 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Many will disagree with this



I don't. I think he's dead on, because I've experienced the same sort of thing in my debates about homosexuality. But if you do disagree, let your voice be heard here!

blatant link
|W|P|89869568|W|P||W|P|4:21 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Ann Coulter



Just having that title should pump up the hits to my webpage by about
32%. :)

But I'm actually going to link to her. She makes some good sense, some
good points before she descends into the invective she's famous for in
the last 2-4 paragraphs.

Here's the best part:

When Clinton bombed Iraq to delay his impeachment, Senate Minority
Leader Tom Daschle was ablaze with war fever. Daschle said: "This is a time
to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that
we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration
of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq."
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said of the impeachment bombing:
"Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from
confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every
diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's
misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need
to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world."

Here's the link
|W|P|89869530|W|P||W|P|5:57 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

I wasn't going to post anything today, but...



My blog was found by another interesting person, Irene. I went to her blog and was immediately interested. That's a good sign. I like to link such blogs. In the post which she directed me to (I will be investigating the rest soon), she takes on homosexuality, but emphasizes something I don't always emphasize enough: Being a homosexual isn't the problem, homosexual behavior is the sin. And as such, a sin like any other. I know I've mentioned that, but maybe I haven't emphasized it enough.

She also approaches the argument from a more Christian perspective. I made the choice to try and argue from a secular perspective and use secular evidence because there are many people in this world (including some who visit this blog), who do not recognize the Authority of Jesus Christ. If I emphasized the Christian facet of my arguments, I would be dismissed that much more rapidly. I want to emphasize I am not concealing my faith or downplaying, I am trying to reach people on their own turf. An additional reason is that I assume (and haven't been shown to be wrong yet), that God is Logic and Reason, and so we should be able to argue the lessons in the Bible without even using the name of Christ, because they just make sense. Of course, you certainly must eventually move toward the Bible, or you are a clanging cymbal doing no one any good. This post is where I bring in the faith.

I know that, in all likelihood, the people I am arguing against are so steeped in their mindset they will never listen. You can see evidence in various comments in my blog that those who hold the opposite view will seize any excuse to dismiss and discredit before they are forced to provide any evidence for their viewpoint (maybe because they have no evidence other than their feelings?). In any case, here is many of the same arguments from a more Christian perspective:

First post

and

Second post

Be sure to visit the links she provides to what caused her to post each time, okay?

Thanks, Irene, for the links. I'm sure I'll be talking to you more.
|W|P|89837028|W|P||W|P|6:15 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

For the Single Ladies



Heck, this is for any women who has or wants a man, actually.

The older I get, and the more I observe, the more I'm convinced that the most important attractive trait in a woman is:

To be fun.

I know, sounds too simple, huh? After all, it's not something you can sit around and blame on genetics or fate or luck. If you can't find someone to love you or stay with you, it certainly could be because he's an idiot jerk, but it could be because you've forgotten to foster an attitude of fun.

I've said it before, less plainly...or perhaps less stridently. But thinking back on the girls I've known, all the girls who most guys agreed were HOT!, there wasn't much agreement on looks. Sure, everyone agreed Cindy Crawford was HOT!, but what I'm talking about here is: of all the girls we work with (or in our grade, or in our class, or in whatever group we were part of), which one would you like to date? Which one would you most like to sleep with? And interestingly, there would be strong agreement on 'what's her face' (name changed to protect the innocent). I would point out that 'that one' was much prettier, and the response I would get in most cases was, "yah, but 'what's her face' just seems like more fun."

So there you have it, folks! I've proven beyond a doubt that fun girls are more popular! Right.

Of course, I've done no such thing. But it just makes sense to me, and I hope to you. 'Being fun' means putting good memories into your emotional bank. (The book "Finding the Love of Your Life" posits that bad times are like withdrawals, and if withdrawals ever exceed deposits, your relationship may be over) You cannot control your guy, and make him love you, or be faithful, or stay with you. But you can control what you do (noticing a theme, here?), and being fun is one of the best things you can do.

Why? Cuz guys like fun. Why do you think guys are so much into going skiing, rafting, playing basketball, going out with the boys? Because it's fun. Why do adult males still play video games? It's fun. While it's nice to have a woman who is sexy, or inventive, or experimental in bed...it's far better to have one who is fun in bed, who laughs and obviously enjoys having fun. (sorry to be so blunt about that). The important thing to note here, is, you don't (and I maintain, shouldn't) have to go to bed with him until after you are married...but if you cultivate an air of fun about yourself, he will naturally think that it will carry over to bedroom activities later.

So how do you cultivate an atmosphere of fun? That's a tough question. Mostly, I think it's an attitude of willingness to try things out. To enjoy the moment, no matter what you are doing, and to show you are having fun. I remember one girl. She wasn't pretty, she was a little plump, but she made it clear she enjoyed working, and made everyone else's work easier, by laughing, cracking jokes, having a good time. So, laugh alot. But don't laugh at everything, because then you look like an idiot. Don't laugh at really stupid jokes...but you can gently tease the joker about making such a lame joke, thereby demonstrating that you enjoyed the attempt at the lame joke, and the 'sharing of the moment', despite the fact that you didn't actually find it funny. I guess I'm trying to say that a more sophisticated sense of humor seems more fun than someone who laughs at anything.

And learn to love the guy's favorite sports team. No guy earned more admiration and envy than the guy whose woman enjoyed watching The Game with him. Football, basketball, hockey, whatever. There is a "for Dummies" book out there that will explain the basic rules for you. Enough so you can say, "I can't believe he called that!" or "What a great play he just made!" You'll get to spend more time with him that way, too, cuz you'll get to go to the sports bar with him on Big Game Day, and you won't be stuck in the kitchen making snacks for his buddies if you can insist the game is as important to you as to him.

It also helps to smile alot. Or at least more. Not only does it leave the impression you are enjoying yourself (which helps other people enjoy being around you...hence you are more 'fun'), but I read once that having a 'sour' expression when your husband says or does something means you are some several times more likely to be divorced. Which makes sense. If you are showing disapproval of what he thinks/says/does, he won't really want to stay around you.

It won't get you any guy you want, necessarily. Your idea of fun might not be the same as his. But it will get you a guy, and if you have a guy, developing your sense of and ability to enjoy fun will certainly help make him value you more and therefore treat you better.

Does that help?

Have a great day!
|W|P|89774955|W|P||W|P|5:23 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Bonus Question



It occurs to me that the current drive to legalize gay marriages began at the same time as effective AIDS control drugs became available. These drugs are hideously expensive. The last quote I heard, probably high now, said that it took $100,000 each month for the drug cocktail. Even if it is only $100,000 per year, that is still inhibitively expensive for an individual, and it makes sense that homosexuals would try to make insurance companies pay for it through spousal benefit programs. It seems dishonest, though, to only care about legality if it saves you $100,000 and makes everyone else pay for it with higher premiums. Yes, I know it's a life at stake. It still seems to be a cold-blooded attempt to cheat the system to your advantage.
But since I'm busy on other research, does anyone want to try to convince me otherwise? I'm always open to listening, and it was a thought that recently occurred to me rather than a deeply considered and deeply held belief. That will make it easier to sway my opinion. I'll still challenge you, but I'd like to hear what anyone has to say on this issue. I may make it an Issue of the Month, like Bill Clinton.
|W|P|89773454|W|P||W|P|5:22 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Some Facts Regarding Homosexuality



In a recent debate regarding my opinions of homosexuality, I was told (and convinced) that I needed to do some more research into the clinical studies on homosexuality. I was told to investigate the Kinsey Report, Master’s and Johnson, Archives of General Psychology, the American Journal of Medicine, and other publications. I found a book called Homosexuality & Gay Rights, by Gary E. McCuen. It was published in 1994, part of the “Ideas in Conflict” series that looks at issues from both sides, and included results of studies from the sources I was urged to read. Surprisingly, I found more support for my views than in opposition.

Here’s what I found:

William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 50, 1993, pp. 228-239. “…there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory…the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data.”

I’ve heard it insisted that homosexuals constitute 10% of the total population. The Kinsey Report stated the figure was no higher than 6%, but even that has been shown to be a myth in the book
Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, J. Gordon Muir and John H. Court, editors, Huntington House, Lafayette, LA, 1990

In fact, homosexuals constitute 2% at most, according to
J. Gordon Muir, “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy,” The Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993, p. A-14

One study, completed in 1993, claimed to find a genetic link to a tendency toward homosexuality. It had not been replicated as of the publishing of the article in 1993. From:
“Major Genetic Component for Homosexuality” by Robert Pool. It was the 3rd article in the book, originally published in the 16 July 1993 issue of Science. It should be noted that the article was apparently intended to support the idea of a genetic component of homosexuality, yet it clearly made the admission that no study purporting to demonstrate a genetic component of homosexuality had ever been replicated, and had all been scientifically refuted.

Charles Krauthammer points out that even the strongest (but unreplicated) studies supporting the idea of genetic component of homosexuality by comparing the incidence of homosexuality in identical twins only showed a 50% concordance rate, which is below that of manic-depressive disease. Homosexuality is less genetically predetermined than serious depression, but we still don’t’ consider this serious depression as normal or desirable.

John W. Money, “Sexual Dimorphism and Homosexual Gender Identity,” in Perspectives in Human Sexuality, ed. Nathaniel W. Wagner (New York: Behavorial Publications, 1974), p. 67.
“Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child’s psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth.”

Charles W. Socarides, “Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics,” in the International Journal of Psychiatry, 1972.
“Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is learned, acquired behavior; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex.”

William H. Masters, Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984) pp. 319-20.
“The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discareded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple case-effect relationship applies.”

Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversities Among Men and Women (Simon & Schuster, 1978), Table 21.12.
Homosexual men are six time more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.

Robert J. Kus, “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men,” Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1987), p. 254.
and
Interview with staff at an alcoholic treatment center in San Rafael, CA; November, 1990.
Between 25 and 33% of homosexual men and woman are alcoholics, compared to a 7% figure for the general population

Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, p. 308
43% of homosexual men surveyed estimated that they had had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1000 or more partners.

ibid., pp. 308-309.
The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. 70% said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once.

Dr. Judith A Reisman: “Homosexual men have the highest rates of all communicable diseases – hepatitis, tuberculosis, etc.”

Logical thought from “The Plough”: “Long before AIDS appeared on the scene, the homosexual community was afflicted with Gay Bowel Syndrome, hepatitis, and an inordinately high incidence of syphilis and gonorrhea, to name just a few. In fact, a whole literature exists dealing with the health problems unique to the homosexual community.”
and
“Homosexuality is…unnatural. This does not mean that it does not feel natural to the practicing homosexual…any habitual practice, whether wholesome or harmful, will come to feel natural to its practitioner, and the attempt to discontinue the practice will feel decidedly unnatural (ask any cigarette smoker!).”

There are opinion pieces in the book, as well. Of course, I found the arguments supporting homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle choice to be much less compelling, logical, or objective than those pointing out the damaging effects of homosexual behavior. But if you find and read the book, it is clear that the homosexual-sympathetic stance is much more based on rhetoric and feeling rather than actual statistics and logic. Many of the arguments were based on the erroneous 10% fallacy, for goodness’ sake!
It is worth emphasizing that the statistics I found are even more damning of male homosexual behavior than I originally posted. Which makes all the people who vilified me in the other blog look more foolish.
I freely grant that all my evidence is from before the year 1994. It is possible, but unlikely, that some significant findings in the intervening years could refute or even merely cast a new light on these points. I’ll be searching on the internet now, and I will report what I find, whether it supports or undermines my position.
I also freely admit that I still have no strong case against female homosexuality. I think I have shown strongly that the behavior is no less a choice than male homosexual behavior, and my case is ever so slightly stronger due to the higher incidence of alcoholism among lesbians…but that isn’t enough. I’ll keep looking for evidence that more conclusively shows or disproves lesbianism to be correlated to damage.

I have two ideas I think are interesting and worth pondering over:
1) I think no one can refute that sexual stimulation is mechanical, but sexual arousal is mental and emotional. At least, no one can attempt to refute that without making himself a laughing stock… But if arousal is in the mind, what affects it? Since stimulation is mechanical, and can be accomplished by either gender, what causes a person to be attracted to one gender or the other? Surely, if a homosexual can have no choice about being attracted to the male gender, then a heterosexual can have no choice about their object of desire, right? Except that the variation of homosexual ideals of beauty is far greater than the typical variation between the genders. Consider: when food is scarce and a people are on the brink of starvation, then being overweight is attractive, as it is a sign of wealth and health. But in the last 40 years alone, standards of beauty for females ranged between extremes of a plump Marilyn Monroe to a skinny Twiggy to a muscular Grace Jones to the toned slenderness of Cindy Crawford and Christie Brinkley. And the standards of attractiveness for males varied even more wildly, from the strong silent type of the 60s to the macho/masculine dancing/sex machine of the 70s to the corporate yuppie of the 80s to the dotcom freethinker/ecologist of the 90s to the likeable buffoon of 00s TV commercials. Oh, yeah, I totally forgot to mention the androgynistic ‘sensitive’ male of the early 80s and the Neo-Strong Silent Sensitive type of the early 90s. I have had my tastes alter from buxom blondes to tall willowy brunettes to Asians over the last 20 years. Shouldn’t heterosexual tastes be just as rigid as homosexuals want us to believe their tastes are? Nope. You can train yourself to be attracted to different groups.
2) If liberals continue to insist that being a homosexual is genetically predetermined, then that puts the liberal group-mind in the awkward and self-contradictory position of insisting that a person is actually gay before they are a person. (‘Irrevocably Gay’ at conception because of gene combination, but you can abort until the 2nd trimester cuz they don’t consider it human yet…). I love pointing out logical inconsistencies!
|W|P|89773437|W|P||W|P|5:56 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Comments on Comments



Comment functionality has been down the past few days. Unintentionally, I assure you. It seems to be available now, but if it isn't blame Enetation, the company that provides it (but don't blame too loudly, they provide it for free...)

This is a public blog. All are welcome, and all are freely invited to leave comments.

One caveat: The only comments that are not welcome are those with excessive profanity or threats of violence. That sort of thing isn't compatible with a free exchange of opinions. I may leave your comments there to let your idiocy be plain to everyone if you do ignore the caveat, but the final decision rests with me.

Thank you, and please share your opinions on anything!
|W|P|89747682|W|P||W|P|6:21 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Homosexuality is a choice



And here is my evidence, reasoning, and personal experience.

Throughout my life, particularly my years in the college theater and music, I have encountered a fairly large number of homosexuals. Some I merely suspected, some were very obvious and open. And some I only found out about after friendships blossomed. There are eight with whom I was very close friends at different times. Of these eight, six of the friendships ended when they began to, and would not stop, trying to seduce me. I merely lost touch with the seventh. We'll come back to the eighth in a minute.

In the course of those experiences, I learned some things. Certainly enough to ensure that I recognize the humanity and individuality of those men.

I learned that most had come to homosexuality during a time of loneliness and/or rejection. I learned that they all insisted they were born homosexual, and all they did was realize it.

But if they were born homosexual, why did so many think they could convince me to switch over? That's when I first began to feel it was a choice.

Later in life, I went through some painful experiences. I was experiencing a sexual disfunction, and my 1st wife made fun of me for it, often, then left me for a friend. I was, of course, devastated. I lost my faith, got involved with Wicca, and was very unhappy. That's when I encountered the eighth homosexual. There were many things at work at that time in my life. I was in the best shape of my life, and had an introspective moment when I began to think about what a woman found sexy about a man's body. It's a short step from there to realize I had a sexy body, and another short step to realize that other men had sexy bodies. I also had the insight that sexual satisfaction often lies in giving pleasure to someone you care about, and feelings of love grow from someone giving you an intense sexual pleasure. If you don't obsess on the idea, then it really doesn't matter what gender is doing the giving, because it is largely mechanical. So when the eighth guy started hitting on my, I really considered it. He was the nicest guy you could ever meet, sweet and gentle. At the same time, a girl I knew was trying to seduce me into a bisexual experience with her and others. It all was having an effect on me, to tell the truth. I considered going over, but I hesitated. I knew from first-hand stories how tough many homosexuals had life. I also had the growing conviction that chasing after sexual pleasure woul not lead to a fulfilling life. I stood at the precipice, and chose to step back.

Not that I didn't still make mistakes in life. I was still hurting and lonely, after all. That was 1996, and the internet was a new thing. I got addicted to internet pornography. Interestingly, the more I looked, the more I became attracted to asian women. General characterstics of body composition and proportions are different, and what seemed too different from my original societal norms slowly became my personal norm. As soon as I realized that, it struck me that I had trained myself by spending long periods of looking at pictures and dwelling on the attractiveness of a certain look. I realized you can train yourself to be attracted to certain types of people. Why not genders, too?

Homosexuality disgusts some males. They can't understand how any guy could be attracted to the male body, which is quite different from the ideal female body. Well, most guys are also disgusted by the idea of a sexual relationship with a 300-pound woman, or an old, wrinkled woman; and yet, I can assure that a number of very normal men are married to, and love, and experience satisfying sexual lives with just such women. It happens over time, through the years of a marriage, as a person changes, we get used to their look, and love the look because we love the person. So why not with someone you really care about of your own gender?

I've also read studies. I've read studies that show that the more/longer someone looks at pornography, the more likely they are to move into weirder, less acceptable desires. Many men eventually move into child pornography. Pornography desensitizes males to the idea of rape. Pornography also leads many men into bisexuality or homosexuality. Still want to try to insist homosexuality is not a choice?

It's quite probably that there are people born with the inclination to be attracted to their own gender. But they are not locked into that tendency any more than I was locked in to being a musician.

I'm not disgusted by homosexuality at all. In fact, it does seem to me to be a logical expression of attraction to someone you care about.

So why do I talk against homosexuality? You can read the reports I've already posted here for a starting point, but here's a full list:

1) A significantly large portion of homosexual males have tried to contract HIV. That is self-destructive.
2) A significantly large portion of homosexual males are extremely promiscuous. The bath-house phenomenon is not a joke or a myth (read the article about the men's bathroom stalls on college campuses). Destructive to yourself and others.
3) From my conversations with homosexual males, it is a big coup to get a heterosexual to switch to homosexuality. One technique often used is to perform a homosexual act on a drunk male, then keep telling him he's gay because it happened until he gives in. Another technique is to put the moves on someone who has just experienced a bad break-up. This is not caring behavior.
4) A significant number of homosexual males are preying on younger boys. Please note that most of the boys in the Catholic scandal were not pre-pubescent, which means the reports of 'child abuse' by the media were misleading. The National Man-Boy Love Association is a vocal minority within the gay community.
5) Anal intercourse is not healthy, but is actually quite damaging. The body is not made for that sort of thing. There is only a thin layer of simple squamous skin tissue there, and nearly every iteration results in tissue damage and bleeding.
6) From the studies I have read, both female and male homosexuals have experienced sexual abuse at far higher rates than the heterosexual population. I admit this is not a causation, but a correlation that needs to be investigated. For those of you not trained in the jargon, that means that being sexually abused certainly doesn't cause homosexuality, but there is a relationship of some undetermined sort. From what I understand of human nature, if something happens to change you when you are so young you barely remember it, you will naturally not have any idea of what life could have been like without that experience. If something has damaged you, I think that the results of that damage cannot be healthy.

These are behaviors that are bad. They are bad because they damage the spirit of the person engaged in them. It doesn't matter what your orientation is. Simply put, if seeking sexual gratification is your main goal in life, you are hurting yourself. But you can stop, you can change (regardless of the propaganda from those who want to use "I was born this way!" as an excuse), and I will not let the facts be drowned out in rhetoric.

But these are the facts as I see them. Despite accusations by the unimaginative, I am not close-minded by any means. I'm always willing to listen to new evidence or new logic. Want to prove me wrong? Give it a try.

Right now, my feeling is that if you are not engaged in the overtly damaging activities described in 1-5, then your homosexuality is between you and God (if you believe in Him), and I have no objection. I have never actually met any male homosexuals who were in a long-term monogamial relationship that did not engage in dangerous sexual behavior, but I certainly recognize it's possible. But telling me about your cousin or friend does not really constitute proof. If you think I'm wrong and want to educate me, here's what to do:

First, my case against female homosexuality is clearly the weakest. Provide links to some studies that show that the numbers who have experienced sexual abuse or rape or violence, etc, are exactly the same or lower than the heterosexual population. Failing that, since I use mostly logic, convince me with logic. I'll challenge your assumptions, but I'll listen. You might convince me.

From here on out, we are talking about male homosexuality.

Second, demonstrate to me, through evidence and/or reasoning, that the behaviors listed above do not constitute normal activities of significant portions of the homosexual population. That would be hard, since I have already posted two articles citing studies that document numbers 1 and 2. Or, you could try to use logic to explain why all of these behaviors are not damaging.

Or, you can call me names, dismiss me as a homophobe, and refuse to acknowledge some of my points have merit. That really wouldn't do much to convince me my position is wrong. It would also be (and has been on another blog), good evidence that liberals cannot tolerate rational thought that leads to logical conclusions other than their own. Tyranny of thought, as it were.

To sum up: many of the behaviors associated with male homosexuality are damaging. I do not want propaganda to obscure the fact that if you are engaged in damaging behavior, you can stop. You can change. You may not be able to change what you want and think and feel, but you certainly can change what you do. (and then your feelings and desires will eventually change, too, I wager) And if you are reacting to damage received earlier in life, act to heal that damage. Reacting is never as good as acting.

I may be wrong, but this is what I believe.
|W|P|89711604|W|P||W|P|7:34 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

In my own defense



I've been vilified on another weblog. From my perspective, it is for nothing more than asking unsettling questions and mentioning uncomfortable truths. From the other side, they might say it's because I have posted "not-so-nice" statements. Here on this blog, I've tried to repeat that these things are my opinion, based on my experiences in life. I would also like to point out (again) that only 40% of communication is in the words themselves, the rest of communication lies in tone of voice, facial expressions, body language. All of which is impossible to include here. Someone you think is being a jerk may be making a self-deprecating comment. You must take apparently offensive comments with a grain of salt. That is, if your point is to discuss, challenge, debate, and learn. As mine is. If all you want is people telling you how smart you are, maybe you can get offended easily and avoid things you don't like.

Apparently one of the strongest objections to my writings was that I seem to lack sympathy for people in difficult situations. It wasn't articulated quite so gently, but that was the general gist. Let me get brutal first, then soften my stance, okay?

Everyone has problems. We all encounter obstacles in life. It's easy to complain. How can anyone say that the plight of a black female who was raised in an upper-class family in Connecticut has bigger problems than that of a white male raised by a poverty-level family in rural Louisiana? How can anyone say, "This group is clearly absolutely disadvantaged" without being far more racist than Hitler or the KKK? How can anyone judge the hardships anyone has in life?

There is much we can't control in life. There are two things we certainly control: what we think, and what we do. We can make what we do more effective in helping us reach our goals by improving the way we think. We can make what we think more effective by improving our information base, through self-education. To simplify all that, the only way we can really improve our life is to act. It is better to act effectively, yes, but it is certainly better to try and fail than to never try at all. You can learn so much from failure, and hopefully your next attempt will succeed.

But to act, you must put aside your excuses. Guess what? My back hurts. But I can't let that stop me from doing what I want. Why let your problems stop you?

Okay, so you're a single mother because the father of your child lied by saying he was sterile, and ran out when you turned up pregnant. You are poor, and are of a severely disadvantaged race. You've never seen how to handle money or eliminate debt, because you never had a good example. You were sexually abused when you were younger, and beaten by your boyfriend when older.

Okay. Now get up and improve your situation. How? Read, discuss, learn, grow, think! Libraries are everywhere. Start by going there and checking out self-help books to deal with confidence, trust, and abandonment issues. You can bring your children with you to the library, and to the government or education offices where you can get free advice on finding student aid and classes scheduled at your convenience. It may take years, but at least it is progress. Someday you will graduate, if you make it your main goal.

No, having a degree doesn't guarantee a good job. But then, define "good". I assert (hint: that means it's an opinion) that it is far better to make $20,000 a year working than $25,000 a year on welfare. It will be harder to live on less money, but you should/will gain immensely more satisfaction, pride, and confidence from earning it through the fruit of your own labors.

But even if you never get a job, you will have improved your life simply by getting out there and trying to learn.

Think of all the stories you have ever read/watched/heard. Was there ever a hero who sat back and did nothing? Who just said, "This is too hard, I can't do anything"? NO! Heroes are heroes because they act in the face of adversity. You don't have to succeed to be a hero, you just have to make the attempt. Isn't it better to be the hero of your own circumstance than its victim?

One more point, an amplification of what I've already said:

I have said I have sympathy for individuals, not for groups. What I mean is, if you tell me you've had it bad, and explain, I'll probably agree with you. But tell me that everyone on welfare had no choice, had no chance, tell me that minorities can't get good jobs without affirmative action, tell me that women have no power in this society, and I'll laugh. These type of statements are racist, sexist, prejudicial, and discriminatory. NO group is without exceptions. I also suspect that most "victim" groups exaggerate the plight of the group on the basis of a few particularly moving examples in order to ensure some help is provided. I maintain (hint: another word that means opinion) true justice and compassion only come through case-by-case evaluations.
|W|P|89687407|W|P||W|P|