factbat.com

The problem with the subject of male homosexuality within contemporary American society is that everbody but Elvis appears to have an opinion as to what these men's rights and responsibilities are; regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans are never, actually, directly affected by male homosexual behavior.

There are females with an opinion, unattractive and obese men with an opinion, politicians, special interest groups, human rights organizations, and any number of other literal "outsiders" whom are incessently brow beating the primary victims of homosexual males with a protagonist plethora of boisterously bombastic, and nearsighted, opinions which invariably ignore the rights of any actual vested party to the opposition.

While it is certainly true that all people in a society are affected by male homosexuality - and many of them negatively so - the fact is that those whom are primarily affected are young and adolescent boys, and attractive men. And the manifestations of injuries caused them are as diverse as the people damaged.

America is a horrifying place for an intelligent, attractive - heterosexual - single man to live in these days. There is almost nobody worth talking to, or hanging-out with. The adult males who aren't idiots or homosexuals are either married or in a serioius relationship, and thus, while they may not be ogling your noodle in the restroom, are generally intolerably ignorant and boring, regardless of their mental capacity.

Moreover, if an adult male is particularly interesting and youthful to the eye, the chances of any man treating him with reasonable regard is extremely slim. And the behaviors exibited by homosexuals are vampish, stealthy and vicious. Nearly inhumane in their perversely sexual nature, wherein the object of affection becomes entirely obscured by obsessive, deviant desires.

As for the subject of pedophilia and the existence of organizations such as NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) -- which actually exists regardless of the fact that it is unconstitutional -- there does not appear to be any lobbyists, or their political counterparts, who give a rat crap about the kids or the young and impressionable. At least not enough to actually protect their interests by staying out of the "same-sex marriage" debate. Or protecting child sovereignty by restricting adoption to qualifying, safe households with both a male and female parent. Or prohibiting the funding of abortions with federal and state monies -- i.e. tax dollars of even those whom act sexually responsible, and do not engage in killing babies, nor agree with those who do.

America's children are first to be dragged into the epicenter of the fracturing grounds of obscenity, slipping through the cracks of this nation's foundation as the documents which bind and secure it are distorted and denied by a bloated and blustering percentage of political hacks. And now the primary perpetrators of shameless perversion are being allowed to play "house" with America's homes. Pretending to marry eachother, and adopting young lives whom are not in any way able to give informed consent, as they are relegated to veritable guinea pigs of impetuous idealism in the laboratories of mad sociology.

Likely, these bright-eyed national resources are so often neglected and marginalized by the Washington "Pansy Politics" machine for the simple fact that they are mostly silent victims whom typically are too young to legally vote. And rarely are politicians noted for their generosity and honor. Excepting, of course, those very-few, staunchly-egalitarian and reliable statesmen such as Ron Paul. A man who does not merely go-around kissing babies for cameras, he is an obstetrician who has delivered many of them.

It really is high-time that this nation, as a whole, begins to actually treat children with the respect and dignity they deserve. But, unfortunately, that conversation cannot even be engaged until the majority of men and women confine their social skills to building respectable and functional relationships on a regular basis, and quit lying to their children...about anything!

Further complicating matters in this veritable "who's who" of tabu is the fact that far too many Americans find it fascinating to precociously indemnify even the worst of homosexual depravity by claiming that heterosexuals also abuse children, rape and kill each other, idefensibly pronouncing homosexuals somehow equally qualified to procure primary status within society.

However, the fact is that regardless of the quid pro quo of animosity and abuse that occurs exclusively between males and females in this society, there is no reciprocal blame or behavior, whatsoever present between adult males of diverging moral conduct.

Heterosexual men and women, both, are equally responsible for the despicable debacle sex has become in this nation. The majority of adults treat sexual intercourse as if it were a carnival ride, lining up like juveniles at the barker's belt.

Few Americans -- heterosexual or homosexual -- have any real respect for the act of procreation in its literal sense, and even less for the spark of life, as so many callous deviants argue it reasonable to circumvent, manipulate, debase and destroy it on a regular basis.

However, much unlike the "war of the sexes", there is no equal perversion occurring between homosexual males and heterosexual males. Heterosexual males whom become the focus of homosexual males' salacious interests are not in any way contributing to the devolving, predatory environment these deviants typically cultivate. And are rarely, if ever, anything but stalked, spied on, flashed, attacked, manipulated, and generally treated like crap by carnal creeps of their own gender.

It is truly a nauseating realm of twisted torment to be the object of sexual obsession and repression by both genders in America, suffocating in a cesspool of indiscriminate denial and neglect, gawked at and mocked by blind passion that renders the few of conscionable character socially invisible to an empire of eyes.

The rights of the individual are placed in imminent peril by special interests when people are granted rights based on any choice, whether it be sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious belief or personal determination.

Homosexually behaving persons are no more or less entitled to their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" than anyone else. Inalienable rights are equally afforded or they would not be inlienable.

However, homosexuals are being allowed to encroach upon "life" in their open denial of the crucial elements of gender relations and procreation, defiling the institution of Marriage. Upon "liberty" in their constant clawing at social real estate, swearing to destroy it rather than lose it as they grope gyrating genitalia in parades celebrating their choice to flamboyantly flaut natural law. And upon "the pursuit of happiness" in that they have certainly done everything they felt they could get-away-with in making this author's life as miserable as inhumanely possible.

Moreover, the "gay" group is no less a religious one than is Christianity or Catholocism. They are merely differing doctrines of an identical structure, based entirely on belief rather than on "those truths we find to be self evident."

How unremarkable that yet another group of sterilized progressives, weaving a web of distorted perception, emulates and romanticizes the demise of humanity. Just one way in which monotheists and homosexuals are similarly deviant.

But I digress. The pressing point is that regardless of anyone's opinion, this aberrant group -- according to the United States Constitution's very first amendment -- is precluded from official recognition by The State. And thus off-limits to the personal aspirations of any legislative body which seeks to tip the balance of their approval, or peceived equanimity, within society.

One noteable parameter of capacity which characterizes American propriety -- and indemnify's this analysis -- is the very real fact that choices make the person. And thus, people of any free society are gradiently unequal, regardless of the levels of equal opportunity which may exist within their collective environment.

Unless, of course, every person in the nation is forced to think the same way, and believe the same things. Which, as everyone knows, is the complete antithesis of Americanism, and a social fabric far too easily tailored to authoritarian bodies of corruption, oppression and brutality.

The diversity of thought, and thus self-determination of individuals, is the only existential factor capable of preserving the posterity of this species. And no monochrome mentality of any kind possesses the elements of discovery that are so critical to human survival.

No person's rights exist above or beyond their choices, and thus, actively biased persons -- such as homosexuals -- remain legally accountable to anyone they may injure, due to either deviant or negligent behaviors.

Just as a plumber will never be equal to a brain surgeon, in capability or specialty, a homosexual will never be equal to a heterosexual, in capacity or diversity; and a society composed entirely of homosexuals would physically disappear in less than 100 years without medical manipulation.

Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with such discriminations, or finds them offensive, is more than welcome to have their head examined by Roto Rooter. It could only be an improvement.

While it is certainly true that, according to the United States Constitution, any properly informed and discerning adult must be allowed to pursue their personal aspirations unobstructed by discrimination against them based solely on their natural "god given" proclivities and basic physical features, this nation's founding documents also prohibit any citizen, or any group, from infiltrating the personal boundaries of those who do not possess the ability to give informed consent.

Human beings are born with inalienable rights wherein they are guaranteed equal opportunity under the law. This means that each and every child must be allowed to see the world as it was designed, and thereby exist and grow in an environment that is a true example of that which created said child.

To propose that this environment is such that any human being has the right, or even the ability, to define its functionality and/or its necessitousness to or for any other individual on this planet, is to debase the very meaning of inalienable rights, and discourage their protection under the law.

There is not one person alive who can conclusively determine just what may be the deciding factor or factors which shall become the inherently indispensable aspect of learning which codifies for any particular person their soul's search for meaning and fulfillment within the Universe.

Therefore, no person in this nation has ever been granted any authority, constitutionally or otherwise, to make determinations of fact which can justify legally placing a child under the care of a same-sex couple.

Regardless of whether or not any legislator, magistrate or personal citizen is of the opinion that homosexuality is a benign, and thus negligible, behavior within society, any such opinion has absolutely no bearing on the finding of fact that determines it to be in direct opposition to, if not defiance of, the laws of nature and sexual reproduction.

Therefore, there is no legal basis for placing a child in an environment where they are to be raised by a same sex couple. To even expect this environment to fulfill the parameters of legality under the constitution is to ignore the basis under which the constitution was conceived; namely: truths that are found to be "self evident".

The main reason why same sex couples cannot be allowed to adopt - as clearly outlined above - is due to the fact that it is actually illegal according to the United States Constitution. However, below are seven more reasons. There are actually an endless number of logical arguments against this practice, but this article only lists seven of them. They are not listed in order of importance, but randomly selected.

Number One: Same Sex Couples cannot lead by example.

The first reason same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt is simply the fact that they cannot offer the child an example to follow. No parent can properly raise a child under the unresponsive and dictatorial moniker "do as I say, not as I do" that far too many parents screwed their kids with in the past; and thereby forced the entire society to accommodate, and tolerate, inordinate levels of crime and capriciousness perpetrated by rebellious adults who are also unable, or unwilling, to lead by example.

No matter how poorly parenting has been defined in the past, or how many couples are inhospitably ignorant of their true role in their children's lives, to introduce legalese into the equation under the express intent of debasing the very structure of parenthood sets the stage for the utter destruction of the entire society.

Allowing same sex couples to legally adopt children diverts human progress in a direction that ends the process nature has designed to teach humans how to evolve socially in compliance with their physical environment.

This then greatly reduces the chance of humanity ever reaching the plateau of cooperative global interrelation this species is expected to both attain and surpass. Now there's one more smoldering weapon that proponents of the New World Order - who generally condone homosexuality - have counter intuitively shot themselves in the foot with. But I digress.

Number two: Children require the influence of both genders.

Number two on the list is the fact that children require the influence of both male and female guidance for them to properly function. And while it can certainly be proven that both genders have at times completely failed in their role as a gender-based influence, the fact still stands that seeking to legally deconstruct this necessary component is a step in the wrong direction.

It is imperative that each and every individual on this planet eventually learn to properly do their part in guaranteeing the posterity of the human species. Not merely propagation, but humanity's actual posterity where each succeeding generation is inured with their birthright and ownership of their world with the proper knowledge and functionality inherent within the system, enabling seamless advancement within the cyclic realms of human evolution.

Number three: It sets legal precedent for insubordination.

The third reason to prohibit same sex couples from adopting is that no child can be legally placed in an environment where they are expected to oppose the basic lifestyle of their parents, or in this case, legal guardians.

Legally remanding a child to an environment such as this means that the government is contributing to a character of rebellion, and condoning acts of insubordination.

Furthermore, to insinuate that this is not the case, then establishes a clear violation of basic human rights in that it would create an environment that is expected to be compliant with an inherent prevention of human life, and carries with it both genocidal and exclusionary properties that are far too easily manifest on a continental scale.

It would require very little effort to create a structure of adoption that could cause one particular demographic of children to be placed under the care of same sex couples. Whether or not such efforts would be guaranteed success depends on the actual objective and the level of technology present.

However, the possibilities for adverse manipulation inherent within a system based on legally binding familial structures of this nature are nearly boundless.

Number four: It is an illicit act which bears the likelihood of destructive results.

Humans, and certainly politicians, are not capable of predicting the natural course of the species, and thus cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that the act of allowing same sex couples to adopt children will not place either party in violation of the law.

Furthermore, a violation of this nature could unravel entire lives and livelihoods if and when they are proven to be based entirely on actions that are determined unconstitutional. Which also sets the stage for legal challenges that are intended to absolve involved parties of any number of legal obligations to myriad entities, including government agencies and lending institutions.

Number five: Same Sex Couples cannot teach kids heterosexuality.

Number five in this argument against adoption by same sex couples is that they are not capable of teaching children about healthy sexual relations with the opposite sex. And given the fact that it is ultimately the parent's responsibility to ensure that a child is properly educated, the government is clearly overstepping its authority, in that it must then naturally be expected to assume this responsibility since it is the one that created the inequity in the first place and based their decisions on incongruities accepted within the legislative process.

Number six: Same Sex Couples oppose a child's basic needs.

Same sex couples are inherently complicit in an express intent to exist in opposition to the basic needs of a child, considering the fact that the family unit is the strongest bond any human being is ever influenced by, and the identity of any child is a nearly interminable reflection of its parents.

This proclivity to emulate one's parents, often regardless of consistent efforts by the child to do otherwise, is an inherent human trait that is one of the most important factors enabling the species to progress in a fashion that creates the cohesive elements essential to survival within a social environment.

If a child's parents are shown to be overtly non-compliant with easily recognizable parameters that allow this reflection to occur seamlessly, then the expected results designed within the species are upset, and the actual, and thereby aberrant, results will evade even the most ardent attempts to either predict or properly compensate for them.

Number seven: Same Sex Couples do not carry the code of existence.

The seventh, and final inherent inequity explained in this article, is in the fact that the family unit is a heterosexual one, and there is no other family unit on the planet. The many redundant mechanisms, and essential life lessons that are inured within this indispensable building block of all human activity, carry with them the basic code of existence, and the very essence of all that humanity currently knows, and will ever know.

To so unabashedly seek to upset this order is the beginning of a nearly infinitesimal number of destabilizing nuances that will inexorably crystallize into definitive perceptions of reality that are both unrealistic, and unrelenting in their ability to increase various rates of crime. Not only in nearly every aspect of delinquency currently infecting this society, but also in the unimaginable ones that pervade the rectories of recalcitrance that are dug deep beneath the subliminal substrate of this absolute defiance against humanity.

While this is only an analysis of the likely results, there is no logical reason for anyone to assume a best case scenario when engaging in actions that clearly defy logic.

Therefore, any argument intended to prove this analysis to be incorrect is one that falls moot on its merits alone. However, I would love nothing more than for the very best and most intelligent minds on this planet to engage me in a debate on the issue. I dare anyone who has the stones -- enter my realm. But come prepared to dine on a feast of defeat.

In a video on ABC News, addressing the controversial subject of public breastfeeding by mothers, two actors with a hidden camera set out to see what kind of reaction they will get from unsuspecting patrons at a local restaurant when one of the actors -- who is pretending to be the manager of the restaurant -- demands that the actress who is pretending to be a mother innocently breastfeeding her infant, cease exposing her breast in public or leave the establishment.

What is remarkable is that several people in the restaurant did not immediately side with the woman, even though most of them were females of child bearing age. But then it is likely that firstly the women may not have felt justified in defending the woman, not only because of the general attitude of this over-sexed society, but also because of the disloyal policy many businesses expect to operate under which states that they have the right to refuse service to anyone. This policy is actually a most preposterously pragmatic approach that they actually do not have a right to enforce, but I digress.

The actor in the video even goes so far as to protest “I am trying to work here, I don’t want to have to see you expose your hooters.” To which the woman replies indignantly “My hooters?”

But still nobody does anything to defend the woman’s right to nurture her young child.

That people would actually be so salaciously motivated or repugnantly prudish as to object to a mother exposing her breast in public simply to feed her baby is preposterous. What do these people say of the Venus de Milo, or Michelangelo's statue of David? This is a society of which a majority allegedly believes that the human body is art, not just some depraved sex toy to be veiled or seductively posed.

If for any reason people truly believe public breastfeeding to be something which is offensive, or liable to debate as an objectionable act, then the nation should first forgo all forms of denigration of women and their bodies by prohibiting all production and sale of pornography and sexually explicit businesses such as “titty bars” or strip clubs; including places such as Hooters, a popular eating and drinking establishment which hires women to dress in tight revealing clothing and wait on tables. What is remarkable is that Hooters actually uses an Owl as its logo. The wise bird would likely object if it could.

Bill Maher, a popular television show-host and comedian who feels uncomfortable around breastfeeding moms, actually claims, “breastfeeding a baby is an intimate act…I don’t want to watch strangers performing intimate acts, at least not for free.” But then Maher is an idiot, and hopefully nobody is actually taking him seriously on many subjects his feeble mind attempts to pretend it understands. Yes, he gets paid to be ridiculous…or maybe he’s just being himself. At any rate, one would hope that the American public does not hang their morals on his assessment of social decency.

The fact that America has become a nation which intends to profit from the exploitation of women, or the frailties of humanity, is no reason to be invading the realms of perfectly natural human behavior as if the human being is to reflect the depravity that media and corporate money mavens appear to have hijacked.

To prohibit women from breastfeeding anywhere is certain denial of the collective human species in one of the most deplorable and ignorant fashions. The act of breastfeeding is one of the most beautiful and socially nurturing commitments the human species is capable of engage in, and to adulterate it by likening it to a sexually intimate act is an extremely slippery slope, and indicative of a society on the brink.

What is astonishing is that a married couple in the video actually has the nerve to side with the store manager, and the wife, obviously not an open minded or nurturing individual, claims that she has kids and would never do that in public. The husband then dutifully states “yeah, it makes me feel uncomfortable.” As if anyone expected him to say, "oh, honey, what's wrong with it? It's just another woman's boob. I rather enjoy the human purity of it, makes me feel alive"

These days, in this society, a statement like that would likely get a man in more hot water with the wife than missing an anniversary party to watch the big game.

Alarmingly, 57% of Americans disapprove of mothers breastfeeding in public. Which is of course directly affected by the fact that pornography is a burgeoning businesses in the nation, and sexually explicit content is one of the most prolific forms of entertainment in almost all areas of media and the internet. Just take a look sometime at what videos are most popular on social websites such as Youtube and Myspace.

Not to mention the fact that the latest Christina Aguilera video is a depraved and sleazy expose that is targeting, of all things, children. Regardless of what anyone claims, the musical entertainment industry has been targeting the youth of each generation for decades, and typically attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator by attacking young people when they are most vulnerable. The industry predominantly employs a strategy which seeks to pander to rebellious and confused teens when their hormones are doing most of the talking. But then, there is a dearth of truly eductional content out there that is meant to combat this corporate assault on our society...but once again, I digress.

That so many Americans actually now defer to the depravity and hyper-sexuality of the nation’s marketing schemes, and denigrate the humanity it exploits, is utterly perverse, and I would say that those who are most outspoken on this subject should be ashamed of themselves, however, it is obvious that they are already excessively controlled by the shame they have been deceived into embodying.

What is unfortunate, is that these people then expect to shame all of the other functionally sound individuals around them who are just trying to live their lives in an equitable and symbiotic relativity which is compliant with the laws of nature, rather than follow the degrading trajectory of social exploitation and media hype that causes narrowminded and pedantically puritanical morons to demand that the humans around them hide their humanity.