0 comment Monday, May 19, 2014 | admin
A question occurs to me: if liberals say that preferring one's own people is 'xenophobia', which means fear or dislike of that which is different, then could not homosexuality be described as a form of xenophobia?
If not, why not?
Would it not be an example of preferring those like oneself and fearing the different?
Liberals claim that homosexuality is inborn, and genetically determined. It used to be considered a psychological ailment or a mental disorder, but was suddenly removed from the psychologists' Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of disorders back in the 1970s, just about the time that homosexual activists became powerful, and the laws regarding homosexual acts were being removed or left unenforced.
The fact that something can be a pathology and a mental disorder one day, and perfectly normal the next, naturally leads me to question the scientific validity of the psychological belief system. No other science is so nebulous and so open to interpretation and subjective opinion, unless it's one of the other social 'sciences' like sociology.
But if liberals in general, and the psychologists, are willing to justify homosexuality on the basis that it is innate, why is ethnocentrism considered pathological or at least morally blameworthy? A case could be made that ethnocentrism, including what the liberals call 'racism' is an innate tendency, present in all peoples. Why excuse one behavior on that basis, while condemning other seemingly universal, inborn tendencies?
Liberals believe in evolution; if one believes in natural selection and the survival of the fittest, then a tendency like ethnocentrism is a positive aid in survival; people tend to trust and accept those like themselves, and to regard outsiders and strangers and those more unalike as potential enemies and threats to survival, or at least, as competitors for territory, resources, or mates. So ethnocentrism or distrust of strangers is useful in many cases; it causes us to put our guard up with strangers, who may in fact be a threat to us.
Homosexuality, however, seems to have no positive function in the cause of survival; it's a behavior, which, if universally practiced, would lead to extinction. So why is it justified and praised by liberals, although it is a net negative in the Darwinian sense, while ethnocentrism, simple preference for one's own, is condemned and called unhealthy?
Again, liberals speak of human beings 'evolving' towards higher, more enlightened behaviors. They speak of human beings needing to 'evolve beyond' warfare and violence. Yet warfare is seemingly ubiquitous in human societies.
Back in the 70s, when I studied anthropology for a while (I ultimately decided against majoring in it) we were taught about a tribe in the Philippines who were supposedly pacifistic and childlike, with a language that had no words for war or killing or violence. By contrast, we were taught about a South American tribe whose culture was violent in the extreme. Of course the attitudes of the professors were not at all unbiased in the matter, scientific objectivity be damned; they held the supposedly 'evolved' peaceful tribe up as an example of perfect, uncorrupted human nature. The ultimate noble savages: innocent children.
Of course, some of you may already have known that in more recent times, the story of the peaceful Tasaday tribe in the Philippines was shown to be a hoax; the idea of their Edenic, pacific society was a fabrication. So much for the myth of the idealized noble savages. But the anthropologists and leftist ideologues needed this myth of the peaceful little tribe to further their ideology, so they perpetrated this fairytale. Some insist even now that the tribe was genuine, but the evidence seems to say otherwise. Still, the truth is always hard for the ideologues to come to terms with.
Despite the fact that no such perfect, peaceful society has ever been known to exist, the liberals cling to the idea that man is perfectible, and basically good if not corrupted by some evil belief system. Just as liberals claim that 'you have to be carefully taught' to fear or dislike others, they believe you have to be carefully taught to be aggressive or to use force. And they believe that if we could simply 'teach peace' and outlaw guns and weapons and warfare, we could all live like that mythical tribe of childlike naifs.
So if human beings should 'evolve' out of the tendency to aggression and conflict and violence, which seem inborn in the human race, why should people not evolve out of homosexuality? Why does that behavior get a pass simply because it is claimed to be genetic? Why not teach human beings to be heterosexual?
The fact is, I am not sure I believe that liberals actually think being 'gay' is innate; I think they simply use that as an excuse to allow it and promote it as a healthy, natural option. Having options and 'creating oneself' are all-important to the liberal.
I've been told that among some of the younger generations, in certain circles, to be exclusively heterosexual is considered to be 'homophobic.' We knew it would come to this. I wouldn't be surprised if and when the liberals get the 'hate crime' laws they keep demanding, that rejecting a homosexual advance, or asserting a preference exclusively for the opposite sex, will be designated a 'hate crime.' So it appears that certain choices are not allowable; one has options but must choose the correct options, like sexual 'openness' towards the same sex, or one risks being branded as some kind of 'phobic.'
Liberals truly seem to see the world in an upside-down way, in which preferring your own people and kindred is a crime and a pathology. In their eyes, it's virtuous to prefer strangers and to take their side, but somehow it's good to prefer one's own sex to the opposite sex, in contravention to nature. Some objective anthropologist should do a study on the strange tribe called liberals, and their quaint and utterly irrational belief system.
If not, why not?
Would it not be an example of preferring those like oneself and fearing the different?
Liberals claim that homosexuality is inborn, and genetically determined. It used to be considered a psychological ailment or a mental disorder, but was suddenly removed from the psychologists' Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of disorders back in the 1970s, just about the time that homosexual activists became powerful, and the laws regarding homosexual acts were being removed or left unenforced.
The fact that something can be a pathology and a mental disorder one day, and perfectly normal the next, naturally leads me to question the scientific validity of the psychological belief system. No other science is so nebulous and so open to interpretation and subjective opinion, unless it's one of the other social 'sciences' like sociology.
But if liberals in general, and the psychologists, are willing to justify homosexuality on the basis that it is innate, why is ethnocentrism considered pathological or at least morally blameworthy? A case could be made that ethnocentrism, including what the liberals call 'racism' is an innate tendency, present in all peoples. Why excuse one behavior on that basis, while condemning other seemingly universal, inborn tendencies?
Liberals believe in evolution; if one believes in natural selection and the survival of the fittest, then a tendency like ethnocentrism is a positive aid in survival; people tend to trust and accept those like themselves, and to regard outsiders and strangers and those more unalike as potential enemies and threats to survival, or at least, as competitors for territory, resources, or mates. So ethnocentrism or distrust of strangers is useful in many cases; it causes us to put our guard up with strangers, who may in fact be a threat to us.
Homosexuality, however, seems to have no positive function in the cause of survival; it's a behavior, which, if universally practiced, would lead to extinction. So why is it justified and praised by liberals, although it is a net negative in the Darwinian sense, while ethnocentrism, simple preference for one's own, is condemned and called unhealthy?
Again, liberals speak of human beings 'evolving' towards higher, more enlightened behaviors. They speak of human beings needing to 'evolve beyond' warfare and violence. Yet warfare is seemingly ubiquitous in human societies.
Back in the 70s, when I studied anthropology for a while (I ultimately decided against majoring in it) we were taught about a tribe in the Philippines who were supposedly pacifistic and childlike, with a language that had no words for war or killing or violence. By contrast, we were taught about a South American tribe whose culture was violent in the extreme. Of course the attitudes of the professors were not at all unbiased in the matter, scientific objectivity be damned; they held the supposedly 'evolved' peaceful tribe up as an example of perfect, uncorrupted human nature. The ultimate noble savages: innocent children.
Of course, some of you may already have known that in more recent times, the story of the peaceful Tasaday tribe in the Philippines was shown to be a hoax; the idea of their Edenic, pacific society was a fabrication. So much for the myth of the idealized noble savages. But the anthropologists and leftist ideologues needed this myth of the peaceful little tribe to further their ideology, so they perpetrated this fairytale. Some insist even now that the tribe was genuine, but the evidence seems to say otherwise. Still, the truth is always hard for the ideologues to come to terms with.
Despite the fact that no such perfect, peaceful society has ever been known to exist, the liberals cling to the idea that man is perfectible, and basically good if not corrupted by some evil belief system. Just as liberals claim that 'you have to be carefully taught' to fear or dislike others, they believe you have to be carefully taught to be aggressive or to use force. And they believe that if we could simply 'teach peace' and outlaw guns and weapons and warfare, we could all live like that mythical tribe of childlike naifs.
So if human beings should 'evolve' out of the tendency to aggression and conflict and violence, which seem inborn in the human race, why should people not evolve out of homosexuality? Why does that behavior get a pass simply because it is claimed to be genetic? Why not teach human beings to be heterosexual?
The fact is, I am not sure I believe that liberals actually think being 'gay' is innate; I think they simply use that as an excuse to allow it and promote it as a healthy, natural option. Having options and 'creating oneself' are all-important to the liberal.
I've been told that among some of the younger generations, in certain circles, to be exclusively heterosexual is considered to be 'homophobic.' We knew it would come to this. I wouldn't be surprised if and when the liberals get the 'hate crime' laws they keep demanding, that rejecting a homosexual advance, or asserting a preference exclusively for the opposite sex, will be designated a 'hate crime.' So it appears that certain choices are not allowable; one has options but must choose the correct options, like sexual 'openness' towards the same sex, or one risks being branded as some kind of 'phobic.'
Liberals truly seem to see the world in an upside-down way, in which preferring your own people and kindred is a crime and a pathology. In their eyes, it's virtuous to prefer strangers and to take their side, but somehow it's good to prefer one's own sex to the opposite sex, in contravention to nature. Some objective anthropologist should do a study on the strange tribe called liberals, and their quaint and utterly irrational belief system.
Labels: Liberalism, Political Correctness