Minorities Have No Rights…(That Majorities Don’t Have)

MinorityMinority’ has two meanings; one is honest. That one simply says, a minority is less than a majority. Inarguable. The other, political meaning includes that and adds political privilege to the deal. Blacks in the U.S. are less than the majority, running about 13% of the population, but they have some 18% if the Federal government jobs as a result of political privilege…Affirmative Action. Hispanics may be eligible for such privilege too; consider hiring for firemen. Never mind that said Hispanics may no longer constitute a mathematical minority in the localities involved. Math and politics have never got on too well.

Homosexuals, male or female, have been with us from before recorded history and more often than not, had a hard time. In white societies, so have blacks and Jews; largely because they didn’t, for their various reasons, seem like everybody else. See, our species seems to have an instinct or maybe a gene, for accepting the similar and holding off the not-so-similar. Likely a racial defense mechanism, seems to me. Sort of, “If you ain’t like me, I’m gonna kill you first, and ask you questions, later.”

Note that black African societies have been no different. (Visit South Africa.) It’s a pretty standard human thing. It’s also of course, very unfair in today’s developed, high-tech world. Unless of course, you are Moslem, in which case, God has told you to kill everybody who isn’t. Per a rather permanent, fundamentalist fringe, anyway.

But  we have those homosexuals. Around a tenth of all societies, give or take, including both men and women. We in the U.S. are in the process of deciding that they are equal to everybody else, enforceable by government gun point, when in physical fact, they are not. We are confused on this and our government is dishonest, not unexpected from politicians.

It is not only we who are confused; Christian, Jewish and Moslem churches are equally muddled. This will be a while sorting out and would be expedited by honesty but best we don’t plan on that. Homosexual sex acts are generally though sinful by churches. They are an implicit attack on the species, very threatening since they achieve no progeny.

Biblical verses may be cited to forbid them. But somebody not only created homosexual people (and continues to do so) but also equipped them with the same sex drive  as everybody else. Roman Catholics, I’m told, say that being homosexual isn’t sinful; only such actual behavior is so. Noting that Catholics have their fair share of illicit sex, unmarried mothers, clerical pederasts etc. leaves one wondering how they can hold out against gay sex any more than against the rest of it. They do offer heterosexual couples an out, called ‘marriage. ‘ That is offered in order to continue the species, which is the only rationale for said ‘marriage.’ So in Catholicism, heteros’ sex drive has an out but homos, equally equipped with said drive by the same Creator as the heteros, must take a lot of cold showers. Something wrong with that picture? And some other churches are even less realistic. Nobody ever asked to be homosexual, as brain imaging is beginning to demonstrate.

But it isn’t only the religious and politicians that are less than honest. Homosexuals are demanding ‘marriage’ as equality when they well know–if they’re honest–that the claim is baloney. ‘Marriage’ came to tie mom and pop together tighter to provide for the lengthy raising of kids, no other reason. No kids, no marriage because there’s then no reason for it. But governments stepped in, attaching subsidies to marriage, again to help assure reproduction. Now, the homosexuals smell a chance at the goodies. Were the state to cancel the subsidies for marrieds, the ‘gay marriage’ movement would vanish overnight.

The politically incorrect police will no doubt, send a SWAT team after me for saying this. Greed is so ugly…especially, when it’s one’s own. But the truth, tough as usual, is that homosexual folk are just people, like all of us and therefore, there are no ‘gay rights.’ Only human ones, that we all share. It takes government to invent and enforce Affirmative Action, Gay Rights and other fabrications for political gain.

We’re all…white, black, gay, male, female, smart, dumb, tall, short or whatever– on this planet together, sharing the same rights and the same duties that the rights are granted to fulfill. Our challenge is to learn how to live that, likely against our own human DNA. Politicians who try to set us against each other, exploiting that DNA, aren’t helping the species. Nor are we, when we let them do so.

Advertisements

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Affirmative Action, Blacks, Catholics, Equality, Gay Marriage, Jews, Muslims and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Minorities Have No Rights…(That Majorities Don’t Have)

  1. James Teague says:

    Here is the summary of Hamer’s research on gay twins. Keep in mind that correlation is not the same as cause.

    Researchers’ public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

    “Gay gene” researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

    “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

    But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

    …the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.

    Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman’s terms, this means:

    It is not possible to know what the findings mean–if anything–since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

    Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn’t understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, told her readers that “homosexuals are born, not made.” The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters. Repeating a statement does not make it true, but has been historically effective.

    A 2008 study measured brain tissues and blood flow using MRI and positron emission tomography.This study examined possible differences in the way heterosexual and homo­sexual brains processed certain cognitive tasks; the para­meters studied were not related directly to sexual behavior. Although the researchers reported that homosexual men had brain struct­ures that were more closely related to hetero­sexual women, the degree of overlap between homo­sexual and hetero­sexual men was quite great. What may be significant sta­tistically does not appear to be so in actuality. These types of tests will not allow a clear differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual males.

    A small series of recent studies has suggested that second sons have a higher likelihood of being homosexual.With the first son, the mother begins to develop a type of immunity to the male as blood from the two mixes during delivery. This immune response generates antibodies in the mother that react with male proteins during pregnancy with the second son. The studies hypothesize that these antibodies might somehow alter development of the brain in such a way that he is more likely to be born gay. At present, no specific antibodies have been identified to support this hypothesis.

    A 2008 Los Angeles Times article looks at a variety of bio­logical and physical measurements that have been used to compare gay and straight males. The writer concludes that there is currently no indicator that allows a reliable prediction of sexual orientation.

    Here are some parameters that need to be set for conclusive studies:

    The populations being studied need to be defined clearly. There currently is no clear-cut distinction between “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” The most commonly used scale for categorization has seven gradations. Most early studies did not do a scale ranking. In contrast, the 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study on brain structure included a Kinsey scale and used only “maximally heterosexual” and “maximally homosexual” subjects (those scoring at one end of the scale or the other; there were no subjects with intermediate ratings). This type of care in subject selection will be necessary in order for any meaningful data to appear.

    The marker must be reproducible. Different teams using different techniques should all get the same results. Using different techniques eliminates the possibility of having a measurement error in any specific method. To date, none of the research looking for any marker has been reproducible, except for studies that show a slight genetic influence, and that finding can be explained away.

    The marker needs to distinguish the populations clearly. No marker to date is seen clearly in the homosexual population or in a significant number of the nonhomosexual population. Brain structure studies show considerable overlap between the two groups.

    The research should allow no chance for observer bias. A neutral observer should be able to look at the data and draw conclusions based solely on the scientific evidence and not on any personal agendas. The two major areas of research, unfortunately, have been clouded by a certain amount of personal bias. Both Hamer and LeVay are open about their own homosexuality. Hamer, to his credit, knows his personal bias and recognizes the limitations of his research. In a November 1995 interview in Time magazine, he states, “From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors.” LeVay, on the other hand, resigned his research position, returned all his grant money, and helped form a gay activist organization within a year after his paper on brain structure was published. His writing to date focuses on broader issues of interest to the homosexual community and he is no longer doing lab research.As knowledge of genetics increased, there was a steady growth in the attitude, “My genes made me do it.” Research literature has reported on genes that it considered responsible for alcoholism, drug addiction, risk-taking, sexual promiscuity, infidelity, violence, and other forms of inappropriate behavior. One study even suggested that people’s political leanings are partially determined by their genes. There is thus a widespread belief that genes determine actions and people behave certain ways because their biochemical makeup compels that behavior.

    Proof for such a belief, however, is lacking. Biological pro­cesses that fully explain behavior do not exist. There are no obvious biochemical or genetic factors that would compel a person to engage in homosexual behavior.

    Even if there are genes that influence specific behaviors, do we simply excuse the behavior because of this? Of course not. We don’t just ignore the behavior of smokers or alcoholics, but try to help them. We would not excuse violent people, but get them the help they need. We all have normal sex drives, but we do not just allow them free rein. Teen pregnancies, rapes, sexual abuse, pedophiles, pornography are all social problems. All these behaviors have adverse consequences, as does unrestrained homosexual behavior. In moral terms these activities are “sin” and sinners need a Savior.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Well, that lays out the current state of the science. It adds up to certainty that a constant percentage of folk will fall into the categories but we aren’t sure exactly why, seems to me. But we do see indications, though they are inconclusive. We have much to learn about us, seems to me. And we should be very careful when government asserts regulatory power over private behavior of any type. It usually ends enforcing political motivations. I’m no expert, especially on ‘sin.’ I note that the Pope has just pointed out that heaven is open to non-believers. That will likely scandalize some, but is simple justice, I think, We tend to shift seamlessly from what we know, to what we believe, sometimes without noticing…a point made in your comment, I think.For me, where sin is involved, I’ll leave it to God to decide. Human decisions are suspect for me, and government ones more so…

  2. James Teague says:

    Yes, I think God will let the Pope know the truth in time. Yes, I purposely shifted to belief, since I believe God has revealed His definition of “sin”. You also have now shifted to “private behavior” which is where we were before “rights” were demanded. Society has accepted some of what God said, ignored other parts and redefined still more because we want to do what we want to do. Humans will keep on doing that right up to the end of the human race. Now it is all in your face, shock to max. demand respect. Behind closed doors is a quaint old Charlie Pride song.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s