everybody loves gay men.

a play on "everybody loves raymond" --complete with an equally humorless writer, and a catchy title, skip to blue (the deep stuff) if you 'd rather not read intro.
I feel it obligatory, although i know only my sympathetic friends will be reading this, to state the fact that i do not dislike gays, If you read the entire thing, you probably will think i am calloused towards homosexual supporters, especially, and i do not deny this, the democratic party.
The purpose of this post is only to point out holes in the logic and hypocrisy of certain well known arguments for homosexuality, or things that many people accept about various sexual lifestyles without thinking twice. To clarify, i will not include arguments against homosexuality, only faulty logic within it's supporters own statements, methods and ideas.
i have chosen this subject, knowing how touchy it is. We have no reason to assume that any group of people would intentionally lie about their sexuality. We also know that people can believe false things, with perfectly sincere intentions. As a starting point, we must assume both supporters and denouncers of homosexuality are well meaning, that christians are just trying to help people find salvation, and gays are trying to live their lives in the best way possible. Any assumption that judges their character before looking at evicence is unjustly founded and bigoted.
I WAS BORN THAT WAY.
i have never been able believe that a condition which impairs sexual reproduction could be passed on successfully,taking a semester in biology reaffirmed these beliefs. but many gays have children in heterosexual relationships before "coming out of the closet".
considering this, the homosexual community would be small, but it would not ever be gone entirely.

A far more interesting example, one which i never would have thought of personally, is the study of twins. One is gay, one straight, identical DNA. So the genetic material does not play a role in every case, and if it is not in every case, then there is no scientific way to distinguish. considering the evidence that they are genetically the same person, this proves undeniably that inherited traits dont definitely destine everyone to be gay or straight. So this proves either
1) that people have an existence from conception apart from the physical DNA (a soul),
2) that it is a fightable and winnable battle by children born with genetics providing an orientation towards being gay, or
3) that homosexuality is caused by other factors.
Furthermore, if all sexual destiny is determined at birth, what are we to do with pedophiles? Is only the distinction between straight and gay sexuality genetically predestined? Isn't that a convenient fact for a homosexual to recently dicover without offering solid scientific data, almost too good to be true? I once heard a converted homosexual speak, and it was the most intense message i can remember hearing. He told us how he had heard that homosexualtiy was caused by an enlarged part of his brain, i can't possibly tell the story better than he can, and i'm now searching for his link. It is a message both sides should hear. It is a relitively safe hypothesis to say that if homosexuality naturally exists in genetic material, then there is genetic material that creates pedophiles. So how are we to rehabilitate pedophiles? That would be literally impossible, because the act of rehabilitation is to put something back into it's natural state after it has been disfigured from something on the outside, like drugs, or violence. But you cannot restore what was never there. If he was born a pedophile, you must alter something about him, to change him from what he was born, into something manufactured and fake. If that is true, then it is a horrible fact. You can't fix something that is not broken, if they are behaving evilly, and that is what they were made for, they must be trained to act unnaturally. it would be like training a dog to be a cat, or a straight person to be gay. (i say a straight person to be gay because of my heterosexuality, as it is almost impossible to imagine being attracted to man in the way i am to a woman) to this some people may say,
"Only gay or straight is determined at birth, but any perversion is caused by circumstances, and those affected are the victims of those circumstances". But who is to say what a perversion is? who is to say that incest, polygamy are wrong? what of beastiality? if animals can be raised for their meat, (get it?) and slaughtered, like animals, why couldn't they be raised for pleasure? If you say that animals would find it cruel, that never stopped the majority of us from eating them, and i have the highest respect for the few vegitarians who do not. Actions speak louder than words, and nothing is more infuriating than open hypocrisy.
Homosexuality is natural
If i were my nature to be homosexual, i would be entitled to the right not to be looked at as a person who chooses to be homosexual.
But, who is to be villanized in an argument about something they cannot change, i could just as easily say
If it were my nature to be homophobic, i would be entitled to the right not to be looked at as a person who chooses to be a homophobe. I cannot speak for you, but when sexual actions of gays are brought to my attention, my first instinctive response is being disgusted. But if you (the reader) are now disgusted with me, then you are judging me by my nature. No one ever told me that homosexuality was gross, i was told it was wrong in the same matter as fornication, a sin in which only consenting people are harmed. So where did i get the feeling of repulsion toward their sex lives and not heterosexual? i would say culture, accept that i can remember the feeling i got the first time i realized what gay sex consisted of. And is it my fault if my mind starts to associate gay people with their actions? I wish that i could choose not to associate disgust with them, if I could choose to look at them exactly as any other person in need of salvation, i would. But I accept that my natural condescencion toward gays is hypocritical and evil and would never conciously act on it, if it werent for my pathetic weakness in control over my will. So i try to deny my nature, while they accept it willingly. Even if gays were born inclined to that way, all that proves is that they have a sinful nature at birth, just like my sinful nature and every other person on the planet. I try to deny myself because i know that i am a terrible sinner who is no better than anyone in the sight of a perfect God, and that God's son .
So the very nature of christianity is not to give in to sinful naturul urges, while the nature of homosexuality is to give in to sinful natural urges.

I AM JUST DOING WHAT IS RIGHT FOR ME.
"Who says who marriage is to be defined by?...The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights."- argument for gay marriage from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
"The Dems' complaint seems to be that Santorum insulted gay Americans when, in the AP's words, he "compared homosexuality to bigamy"-http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003397
"Some students had urged the Jesuit university to rescind Santorum's invitation after he likened gay behavior to bigamy, polygamy"-http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Rick%20Santorum

I am sure most of the readers already see my point on hypocrisy forming, but to those who do not:
"Supporters of rights for gays have expressed a strong desire that no one should judge them based on sexual preference, but then are offended when gays are mentioned along with bigamists or polygamists. Instead of deeming themselves better than these other groups, why not just say that bigamists should have the same human rights as them, the same basic rights to love and to be loved? There is obviously a bigotry toward these groups that far surpasses that faced by homosexuals, and even a bigotry recieved from homosexuals. This bigotry coming from people fighting for equal rights is nothing short of hypocritical." -me
Who is to say that bigamy is wrong? Who are these bigots, and more importantly, "what makes them think they're better than anyone else based on sexual preference"? these are all painfully familiar questions. I have never heard any gay rights activist or other open minded person fighting for the rights of any religious sect that supports bigamous marriages. i would expect this type of hatred from republicans and conservatives, but liberals? if anyone could understand the pain and frustration of being denied such a basic right to marriage, it should be the gay community. and yet, under the bus the bigamists go. I believe: "dont force your idea of love on us!" should equally mean "don't force our idea of love on them." but this is not what we hear. Who's intolerant now? why is there so much more discussion of rights of gays than bigamists? It is true that the bigamists make up a very small percentage, but, is the entitlement of minorites for rights based on the size of their populations? If that is true, white protestants and catholics should have the most rights, followed by hispanic catholics, then black christians, all the way down the line. Denying that evil stereotype was what the first civil rights movement was soley about. Both do what they feel is right. both are rejected. and yet both reject each other. Where is the outcry against them for tyranically excluding good people from happiness? this double standard is no suprise to someone like me who encounters it all the time. maybe most supporters of gay rights really are better than bigamists, but they undoutedly, undeniably believe that they are. and anyone who disagrees, go to the 2nd and third website links to see for yourself in perfect context.
----------BUT WHY dont they have support?
POLITICAL ASPECTs constant--( a right to marry) > (no right to marry)
As for the conservative Republicans, they collectively believe that things are fine the way they are and should not be changed, so there is no hypocrisy.
if (no marriage for gays)=(no marriage for bigomists) then (rights of gays)=(rights of bigomists)
and also then, (bigomists)=(gays)
As for liberal democrats, they collectively beilieve that it is alright for gays to have marital rights such as health benefits, raise children, etc., while bigomists rights are ignored.
(rights of gays) > (rights of bigomists) > = greater than
(gays) > (bigomists)
For them to have the support of gays (=2-3%), is a political advantage, and most people (60-70%) approve of gay rights, while the small support of actual bigamists(= not much), and the large amount of people that would be repulsed from the party ( Who wants be in the same party as dirty rotten bigamists?) would have an incredibly negative affect politically.
Evangelicals hate gays.
This is a peculiar subject when looked at with the context of other religious sects. when a set of 21 terrorists who claimed to be muslim attacked our country, every media outlet, (and rightly so), said that these were individuals, and not ambassadors of the muslims. so in the aftermath of nearly three thousand dead, americans looked at their muslim neighbors in a remarkably restrained, understanding manner. we have never judged any group of religious people by the most radical of the zealots. i have never seen a bombing or pile of bodies at a gay pride parade, but even if there was, that would only prove that an individual hated gays.
To deny a person the right to love is a hateful action. Those who perform hateful actions have hatred toward those that the actions are directed. I am not saying that homosexuality is right, i am just asking when does disagreement constitute hatred? I personally do not hate people who drink more than me, smoke marijuana, or have promiscuous sex; though i have never agreed with these actions. So anyone who says that i am hateful toward gays has made an assumption about who i hate based on my beliefs. In order to understand the christian perspective, you have to realize that the worst thing that any christian could do to a gay is to condone what he does and say, "to hell with him". Any effort to convince him he is wrong is a mission to save him from the worst fate imaginable.
This view admittedly is not held by all evangelicals, they do many things out of frustration and ager instead of love.
i know my arguments will not change many opinions, if any. the truth is that most people hardly ever look for the most logical decision, but the nicest immediate results, like a person gratified by greasy food who never learns to foresee imminent heartburn(terrible metaphor, not feeling creative tonight).
Just stay out of my life, they're my decisions, not yours. I have never picked a fight with anyone and would love to say one of the following:
"your right, whatever, do what you want to, it's your life", "whatever makes you happy", and "It's none of my business" but somethings fishy...
this is not
a manner that a person would ever honestly talk to a friend,
a statement of concerned well being,
There is no better way to tell if a man is a good friend than if he confronts you. "You need to stop smoking" is something a spouse or best friend is more likely to say than an aquaintance you hardly know from work.
but is a way to...
dismiss someone you do not care about,
gain favor in the eyes of someone to get something out of them, (think political, but more on that later)
The hardest thing for anygentle, loving person to do is to confront the ones they care about because of their decisions. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT'S LIKE, SO BE TOLERANT.
refer back to bigamy, they have it much, much worse than gays do, even gays hate being compared to them, as the websites show. I'll bet that makes a little kid feel just great!! How would you like hearing that your two moms and a dad are all perversions of nature because they love each other!? The hypocrisy of these people literally makes me sick. i honestly cannot express my frustration in any way conferable through clean language, and i will spare you the other option in exchange for these questions.
Please ask yourself: "Why have i never thought of the rights of bigamists or polygamists?" It is probably because you have never seen their crying little children after they have been told that mommy, daddy, and mommy2 are fundamentally perverted. To add insult to injury, even gay people, who preach from every mountain top and valley that bigotry is the greatest evil, cannot stand to be associated with them. It's probably because you have never seen them on TV begging their basic right to love-but why havent you? Why don't they get attention from TV, News Paper, MEDIA? Besides the amusement of the occasional religious nut, (we've all heard of one, with eight young wives who's combined ages add up to less than his), no one cares. but why would they be soley portrayed as fanatics rather than an alternate lifestyle choice? Please, tell me if you know,
I DO NOT BELIEVE POLYGAMY IS RIGHT, BUT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THERE ARE LEGAL STATUTES AGAINST IT. Maybe someday the "open minded" will treat everyone equal, not just those with the biggest mouths, or those that can help them get elected, but those genuinely in need of justice.
If you get nothing else out of this post do not assume anything is right based soley on your feelings, what you see on TV, or a fear of being hurtful. i know that it sounds rough but if the truth was always nice, there would never have been a holocaust, war, or any other great evil.
what this blog is about is
1 Trying out another's shoes and seeing whose shoes fit.
2 Expanding logical conclusions to previously unthought of points,
3 Stripping people of assumptions and most importantly,
4 Always keep thinking. the greatest mistakes are made by people who believe they have the right answer but don't

most people think twice, but never a third time. We live in a time where conventional wisdom is rejected for what makes the most people feel good. if anyone is wrong, why should anyone have the right to be correct? thank you for reading.