← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · YertleTurtle
Thread ID: 20422 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-09-27
2005-09-27 11:04 | User Profile
The Dilemma of the Libertarian Homosexual
by Bob Wallace
Most people don’t know it, but many libertarians are homosexuals. Specifically, the leftist libertarians. They also tend to be anarchists, or, as they put it, anarcho-capitalists.
They are stuck in a dilemma. Like the Marxists they so strongly resemble, they believe that once the State "withers way," then all will be equal – there will be no prejudice, no sexism, no ageism, no "homophobia," no racism. This is the leftist, utopian dream. The Left exacerbates these problems by setting people at each other’s throats; the Right ameliorates them, because they know the free market and liberty tends toward toleration.
What leftist-libertarians believe would happen is not what would happen. Like all leftists, they don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all.
Under a totally free market, people will arrange themselves into loose hierarchies, with many different tribes, with the leaders at the top and the lazy and stupid at the bottom. This places homosexuals in a quandary. Their tribe has never been accepted as the equal of heterosexuals, and never will be. That’s why there is such an uproar over gay marriage. The most homosexuals can expect is tolerance, and little else.
The fact they’re never been totally accepted is why so many of them (the leftist ones) wish to use the power of government to pass laws granting them what they see as equal rights, but everyone else sees as special ones.
I have worked with homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Asians, whatever. We all got along just fine, because it was work. However, afterward, everyone went back to his or her own tribe. After all, you don’t see straight guys hanging out at gay bars. That’s the good thing about the free market and liberty: everyone can associate with who they want. It’s why so many homosexuals have moved to San Francisco, to be with their own tribe. That’s the why it should be; it minimizes conflict.
My experience with a fair amount of homosexuals is that they can’t comprehend that straight guys can’t be turned. Some seem to think if you catch them as kids, they can be raised gay. Sorry, they can’t. It’s so strongly genetic is can’t be overcome.
The hard left doesn’t really believe there is a human nature. Male, female, straight, gay…they believe it just depends on the way you’re raised because human nature is (they delude themselves) infinitely malleable and plastic. If that was true, then homosexuals, who are raised in straight society, would be straight. But they’re not, just as heterosexuals raised in a homosexual society would still turn out straight.
Ever since I was a teenager, I wondered why anyone would care if one guy (or girl) had sex with someone of the same sex. Later, I realized for the most part, that wasn’t the problem.
The problem is that a substantial number of homosexuals are pederasts – they like boys in their early teens. That’s the reason why the fashion industry, which is dominated by homosexuals, uses female models who have the build of 12- and 13-year-old boys. The women who complain about such things apparently don’t realize what the real problem is. It’s not heterosexual men.
Then there is the problem that homosexuals, who make up two percent of the population, are responsible for one-third of all child sex crimes – murder, rape, molestation. I see no reason why it was any different in the past. Or why it will be any different in the future.
I had half-a-dozen homosexuals hit on me in my teens. It happened to most of my friends, too. Suddenly, at the age of 21, it stopped. Damning coincidence, isn’t it? I wasn’t a teenager anymore.
This tendency toward pederasty, and self-destruction, and child sex crimes, are the real reasons societies have always frowned on homosexuality. And it doesn’t help that these self-destructive tendencies are the reason that two-thirds of all AIDS cases are among homosexuals.
And it also certainly doesn’t help when they refuse to admit these things about themselves.
What leftist-homosexuals hope to do is expel the right wing from libertarianism, thinking they can impose their agenda. It won’t work. They’re wasting their time. They’re fighting battles they’ve already lost.
What exactly do they expect to do? Use social pressure and ostracism? Or, in the long run, will their statist beliefs finally surface, after which they’ll give up any pretense of being libertarians and become just plain leftists?
Most of them can’t really support the Right, because they realize that leads to vast majority of people will only tolerating them, or at best, find them amusing, the way the late Paul Lynde was amusing. Or Richard Simmons, or Liberace.
If they support the Left, then they’re stuck heading back into trying to use the State and law, something that libertarians are supposed to see as one of the worst sins of all.
So, they are stuck in a dilemma to which there really is no solution. Under complete liberty, they can only expect tolerance but not complete acceptance, (as one tribe will tolerate but ever really accept another) or under statism they can expect special rights but resentment and dislike from nearly everyone.
2005-09-27 14:54 | User Profile
[IMG]http://boortz.com/images/gallery/psycho_neal_fairtax_audio.jpg[/IMG] I don't know if this clown is gay or not, but he should be. He is most certainly a left Libertarian.
2005-09-27 22:29 | User Profile
I don't know about Boortz, either, but he did read one of my articles on his program, so he does have some good taste. ;-)
2005-09-28 02:34 | User Profile
that article is a load of crap. where did this quack get his information from, freud?
statistics show that heterosexual males (generally white) are the paedophiles in like 90% of cases (i'm making that number up, but it's ridiculously high). homosexuals are not attracted to pre-teens or children. it's a big myth.
and who, who, who ever gave this idiot the impression that lefties believe that homosexuality is learned? that's one of the funniest things i've heard in months. so now we're implying that homophobes believe homosexuality is natural and genetic, and those who support it (those evil lefties) are the ones who think it's a choice?
i swear to God, you people will read any crap and swallow it whole.
2005-09-28 02:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Katsumi] statistics show that heterosexual males (generally white) are the paedophiles in like 90% of cases (i'm making that number up, but it's ridiculously high). homosexuals are not attracted to pre-teens or children. it's a big myth.
Katsumi, I don't agree with everything in Wallace's article. But, on this score, you're wrong. A third of child molestation victims are boys and the perpetrators are almost always men. When I was a teen, homosexual men sometimes hit on me on me. They're predators with a serious sexual disorder.
and who, who, who ever gave this idiot the impression that lefties believe that homosexuality is learned?
Then why is a top priority of homosexual activists to get homosexual topics into grade schools?
that's one of the funniest things i've heard in months. so now we're implying that homophobes believe homosexuality is natural and genetic, and those who support it (those evil lefties) are the ones who think it's a choice?
This is one point I disagreed with him on. I think people can be turned if they're sexualized as young children. I think homosexuals intellectuals really believe that homosexuality is a choice. Their claims that it's a congenital trait is strategy to promote special rights. It's not the real belief of homosexual activists.
2005-09-28 03:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Katsumi]that article is a load of crap. where did this quack get his information from, freud?
statistics show that heterosexual males (generally white) are the paedophiles in like 90% of cases (i'm making that number up, but it's ridiculously high). homosexuals are not attracted to pre-teens or children. it's a big myth.
and who, who, who ever gave this idiot the impression that lefties believe that homosexuality is learned? that's one of the funniest things i've heard in months. so now we're implying that homophobes believe homosexuality is natural and genetic, and those who support it (those evil lefties) are the ones who think it's a choice?
i swear to God, you people will read any crap and swallow it whole.[/QUOTE] Your ignorance of the root cause is telling. Both heterosexual and homosexual predators try to exploit young teens who have reached modest levels of physical maturity without having yet developed the sense to handle it. The key concept is
Exploit and use for fleshy pleasure. It is a selfish act.
I am not interested in arguing percentages and numbers, for any such behavior is a grievous vacating of the responsibilities of an adult, and demonstrates profound lack of integrity and decency.
I say kill them, the exploiters, at the first offense and you will see problem will diminish dramatically. If any pedarast ever puts a hand on my son, I'll kill the sonofawhore as soon as I can find a suitable weapon.
AE
2005-09-28 09:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The problem is that a substantial number of homosexuals are pederasts ââ¬â they like boys in their early teens. Thatââ¬â¢s the reason why the fashion industry, which is dominated by homosexuals, uses female models who have the build of 12- and 13-year-old boys. The women who complain about such things apparently donââ¬â¢t realize what the real problem is. Itââ¬â¢s not heterosexual men. [/QUOTE]
That's an important insight.
I think that the author has a good take on the homosexual problem.
I think that he misses, however, that the real problem is that sodomy is just bad for the group, and the group's rights trump those of the individual.
Sodomy is bad for the group in an ultimate Darwinian sense because it distracts us from reproducing. Many men (and women) with homosexual feelings can nevertheless shoehorn themselves into the strictures of marriage and achieve family. They may have those feelings, but it's destructive for society to allow them to indulge them, and so homosexual acts must be banned.
For the same reason we should ban pornography, abortion, artificial birth control, and punish adultery. Hey, I'm human like everybody else, and I know that this isn't easy. But if we want a strong society, then individual desires have to take a back seat in matters sexual.
2005-09-28 09:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Katsumi]that article is a load of crap. where did this quack get his information from, freud?
statistics show that heterosexual males (generally white) are the paedophiles in like 90% of cases (i'm making that number up, but it's ridiculously high). homosexuals are not attracted to pre-teens or children. it's a big myth.
[/QUOTE]
Every study I've seen has shown that homosexuals are responsible for from 25% to 40% of child molestation. And like others here, I had homosexuals hit on me when I was a teen...starting when I was 12, ending when I was 21. Was too old for them after 21.
Your refusal to face the facts do not change the facts.
I never said homosexuality was learned. But if homosexuals didn't believe straights can be turned, then NAMBLA wouldn't exist, now would it?
2005-09-28 09:23 | User Profile
For the same reason we should ban pornography, abortion, artificial birth control, and punish adultery. Hey, I'm human like everybody else, and I know that this isn't easy. But if we want a strong society, then individual desires have to take a back seat in matters sexual.
This is a paraphrase, but G.K. Chesterton made the comment that only the naive can't see the eternal rebel in the heart of every conservative. That's been my experience, too. Conservatives actually understand human wildness in a very personal sense, and therefore understand it must be kept under control.
2005-09-28 13:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]For the same reason we should ban pornography, abortion, artificial birth control, and punish adultery. Hey, I'm human like everybody else, and I know that this isn't easy. But if we want a strong society, then individual desires have to take a back seat in matters sexual.
This is a paraphrase, but G.K. Chesterton made the comment that only the naive can't see the eternal rebel in the heart of every conservative. That's been my experience, too. Conservatives actually understand human wildness in a very personal sense, and therefore understand it must be kept under control.[/QUOTE]
Well put.
I think most of us proceed from a more realistic understanding of human nature.
The Left doesn't like any talk of human nature, as this article points out. We know better - that 3 million years of human evolution will trump culture any day.
2005-09-28 13:53 | User Profile
Yannis is citing "3 million years of human evolution" and an "ultimate Darwinian sense"....to promote theocracy! Sounds a little like "homosexuals claiming it's congenital as a smokescreen to promote special rights", doesn't it?
I remember being a kid of 11 or 12 back in the Jurassic Era and being too young to know about - or even [I]want [/I] to know about - sex. (Otherwise known as the "I'd rather chew bubble gum outta the sewer than hold hands with Christine" age of innocence.) But I remember feeling kinda sad about certain of my classmates who were not just different but beginning to suffer ostracism for it - the lonely, lisping, effeminate boy, and the hulking, mannish, square-jawed girl one would encounter whenever you'd crowd 35 or 40 kids into a classroom. We're talking around 1970 or so, and I doubt very strongly that these kids were learning this "behavior" from their parents, who were probably beside themselves with worry and shame, or the media, back when 'gay rights' barely existed and were never promoted.
For one thing, it wasn't actually "behavior" at all. It was more the way they were, and if anything exacerbated this type of 'gayness', it was the attempts to 'correct' them. I'd watch with a queasy stomach as gangs of bullies would torment these kids, wondering why in the world you would need to outnumber an effeminate 10-year-old boy who in all likelihood couldn't fight back at one tormentor, let alone four or five (at least the mannish girls could and did kick the bullies' asses!)
I noticed something else, time and time again. The boys who [I]weren't [/I] overtly, outwardly effeminate - who you'd be shocked to discover, years later, had grown up to be full-blown homosexuals - routinely tended to have blustering, domineering, he-man fathers who would fetishize masculinity to an inordinate degree. I strongly doubt these kids were one day preyed upon by pederast priests and/or bridge-trolls, and hence warped into faggotry. (In fact, a few of them had been part of those bully-brigades in the fifth grade tormenting the sissyboys.) If their homosexuality was learned or acquired, it was as an unforeseen side-effect of a 'toughening-up' program implemented by their at-home male role models who, I suspect, equated dehumanizing/desensitizing them with "raising them to be real men".
2005-09-28 17:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Yannis is citing "3 million years of human evolution" and an "ultimate Darwinian sense"....to promote theocracy! Sounds a little like "homosexuals claiming it's congenital as a smokescreen to promote special rights", doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
Hmmmm . . .
Sometimes I just can't help but feel that you don't really listen to anything I say.
First, I'm not promoting theocracy, as in "rule by the clergy." Perish the thought. I want a Christian king/president limited by a senate elected by free, white men of character and property.
Second, I've been (at least trying) to make a natural law case for the establishment of a general Christianity as the state religion. Perhaps I didn't make that sufficiently clear.
But I must say that mwdallas and I discussed "Darwin's Cathedral", which makes the case that humans naturally organize themselves around a religious symbols and beliefs, and that (my point) they must have a religion just as surely as bees achieve their astonishingly complex societies through the sense of smell and the waggle dance, and that a general sort of Christianity should be our established religion.
I'd like to think you've actually read Darwin's Cathedral given that both of us plugged it as shamelessly as we did, but I suppose that would be asking too much?
2005-09-29 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle] The problem is that a substantial number of homosexuals are pederasts ââ¬â they like boys in their early teens. Thatââ¬â¢s the reason why the fashion industry, which is dominated by homosexuals, uses female models who have the build of 12- and 13-year-old boys. The women who complain about such things apparently donââ¬â¢t realize what the real problem is. Itââ¬â¢s not heterosexual men. [/QUOTE] This is sooo true. No real woman can fit or would want to wear some of the "fashion" that is out there. It's obvious that it is created by someone who has not studied the female form.
2005-09-29 11:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Your ignorance of the root cause is telling. Both heterosexual and homosexual predators try to exploit young teens who have reached modest levels of physical maturity without having yet developed the sense to handle it. The key concept is
Exploit and use for fleshy pleasure. It is a selfish act.
I am not interested in arguing percentages and numbers, for any such behavior is a grievous vacating of the responsibilities of an adult, and demonstrates profound lack of integrity and decency.
I say kill them, the exploiters, at the first offense and you will see problem will diminish dramatically. If any pedarast ever puts a hand on my son, I'll kill the sonofawhore as soon as I can find a suitable weapon.
AE[/QUOTE]
:)