Thursday, February 16, 2006

That's so gay...

Ok. Those of you who know me may already be expecting something like this to be put up here. And those of you who don't know me are going to get a toned down version of a little thing I call 'gay'. Here at Penn State, we have a newspaper that claims to be the utmost "professional" outpost for the students....... They. Can. Not. Be. Serious. Fuck, just come out and say it! "We here at the daily collegian have a terrible bias towards the left." Fucking say it. If I could twist the proverbial arm, I would be doing that right about now. YESSSS. Read it bitches:

"Early childhood education should cover homosexuality

I have heard students from elementary school through college use the expression "That's so gay" as a response to just about anything. For many children and adolescents, this derog
atory use of the word is the first understanding they have of a gay person.

For this reason, children in elementary school should learn about homosexuality as early as first grade when they begin to talk about family, and then again in fifth grade when they study the reproductive system. This might help children to grow up with a more accepting attitude toward gays if they are educated on homosexuality the way they are educated on other aspects of life, nature and the human body. For example, the following few simple statements could clear up a lot of confusion and misinformation: Homosexuality is not a choice; it's biologically determined. Homosexuality is not a disease. You can be friends with someone of the same sex who is gay and not be afraid that they will be attracted to you. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and there is no reason to be ashamed if you are gay.

If acceptance is taught in the curriculum, gay adolescents may have an easier time in elementary, middle and high school, and by the time they are in college, they will not h
ear students say, "That's so gay."

Lori Melfi
sophomore - secondary education"




YESSSSSSSS. Oh fuck, this is so full of garbage I may have to take two f/n trips. Alright, first of all. Gay means happy. Just so you all know. If anyone fucked up the word usage, its the people who coined the USAGE of "gay" to mean heterosexually challenged. Another term for a gay person is queer. Right? When people use the phrase, "That's so gay" is it not always in context with something thats rather, QUEER? Hmm. Thats odd now isn't it. Someone, I think, has their belt strapped on too tight. "That's so gay" is a perfectly liable phrase through the bastardization of our language (thanks in part to the Rap Community). So, I guess all I'm trying to say about that part of Lori's expose is, frankly, that it's pretty gay. Now. On to the real substance of her message, the REAL reason she wrote in. This is going to be FUN:

"elementary school should learn about homosexuality as early as first grade when they begin to talk about family". So, what would you teach our children about, Lori? Would you teach them that broken homes usually provide society with mal-adjusted teens and eventually adults? Would you teach them that a child needs both Mother (woman) and Father (man) to grow up with a healthy aspect on life and adjustment. No kid who grows up in a homosexual family is going to be normal. It is as plain as that. Gay "couples" should not be allowed to raise children. End of story. Thats all she wrote. If they want kids, they can be straight.

"and then again in fifth grade when they study the reproductive system.". Holy hell did she set herself up for this one. The glorious reproductive system. We all love it don't we. Apparently gays don't. Let's just get down to it shall we? The male's penis is meant for, and only for, one place in the female, which is the glorious vagina. And why might you ask? Soley to reproduce. I mean if we look at this straight-forward topic as a liberal would have it, we're all just animals anyways. Animals don't have sex other than to reproduce so my original hypothesis is correct. Penis=>Vagina. Look at the diagram and tell me what you see. A single male and a single female. There's a fucking reason for that folks. Its called biology. Man was meant, scientifically (which, in our liberal mindset, is the only thing that matters and is the utmost authority), for one other being, the Woman. And there you have it. Study it well. Ok, now to address the quote at hand. Lori, dear, what would you have us teach our impressionable children about homosexual reproductive systems? Should we be telling them that it is unnatural and ill-conceived? Should we tell them it is ok because it's sole purpose is PLEASURE. What then would become ok? Child pornography, beastiality (try explaining beastiality to a kid without naming names or pictures....sounds a bit like homosexuality, doesn't it????), polygamy? How could you refute their young inquiring minds? There is nothing wrong with any of those aforementioned practices due to the acceptibility of pleasure being the only reason why it is. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality does not fit with science! Then, I ask of you, where does it fit?

"Homosexuality is not a choice; it's biologically determined.". Fuck. I'm just gonna say it. This girl is lacking a brain. Only a dumbass would be so bold as to make that statement. What biological determinant impacts sexuality, Lori? The mysterious gay-ene? No. There is no such thing. There is no proof of that. Sticking with strictly science here folks, what, if there was a gene for homosexuality, would be its purpose? We all know, or at least those of us that are hetero, how to reproduce. If it is nature's intent to "sometimes" throw the gay-ene in there what should that tell you about how mother nature feels about that person. If they are incapable of feeling a desire for a woman (or man, depending on your gay sex) how then, are they capable of reproducing, like the rest of normal society? Is it truly mother nature's intent to weed out these individuals? If not, what would be her purpose to bastardize the gay-ene for the purpose of determining sexuality? We have opposable thumbs so we can manipulate objects, inner ear fluid to balance us, hair to keep us warm, perfectly tuned lenses in our eyes to precisely focus light, a system that regulates our body temperature (and one that even regulates the temperatur of our sperm), lungs that will heal themselves after quitting smoking, and a liver that regenerates itself. What is the gay-ene for then? Mental retardation is a biological problem that renders the individual incapable of doing many things. On levels, autism allows people to play music that no one thought was possible, or gives them the ability to read books and remember them line to line but impedes them from carrying on a normal conversation. These are all mother nature's tiny little screw-ups. There is no reason for them. What then, is the reason for the gay-ene and homosexuality if it was mother nature's intent, and if you can not find a reason, are you willing to agree that it is one of mother nature's screw-ups, one that is treatable? I think not. That would mean you would have to take on the opinion that there is something "wrong" with gay people. You would never do that. I suggest you think of the implications of your words before you decide to grace us with them.

I truly hope that she either drops out of school or changes her major because I can not honestly believe that someone of her caliber should be teaching our children. Seriously....WTF

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see you convey these ideas to your faithful blog readers by speaking to them like children. Commendable.

February 20, 2006 12:01 AM  
Blogger DrAwkwArD said...

Not too sure what you mean Anonymous. Elaborate for me please. Seriously.

February 20, 2006 12:51 AM  
Anonymous Alex said...

Hi, i came accross your blog through the photo club message board. I am going to be quite straight with you (no pun intended...ok, maybe a little). It is fine for you to have your views, and if you are against homosexuality then that's fine, but, you are trying to beat this article up over its lack of logic and such. i have one particular problem with your arguement: when you talk about the "gay gene" and say that it would serve no purpose, that is just bullshit, in that, not all genes serve a purpose, what about the genes that cause dwarfism? or the ones that cause down syndrome? those serve a purpose? maybe "mother nature hates those people."

February 23, 2006 10:45 AM  
Blogger DrAwkwArD said...

Again Alex, you missed the point of my post. I'll re-assert it here.

"Mental retardation is a biological problem that renders the individual incapable of doing many things. On levels, autism allows people to play music that no one thought was possible, or gives them the ability to read books and remember them line to line but impedes them from carrying on a normal conversation. These are all mother nature's tiny little screw-ups. There is no reason for them."

I think that addresses your outrage effectively. I have never said that Mother Nature hates those people with mental retardations or dwarfism, thats just false. They are consequences of luck and chance. Nothing is their fault and they bring joy and happiness as good as you or I could. But that fact remains that if being gay really is biological, and there clearly is no advantage or reason for being gay, then it MUST be a retardation of some sort, a screw-up if you will.

February 23, 2006 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is my question for you Doc...I see what you are saying about the intended purpose of a human is to reproduce and thats why we have our specific tools, if you will. But are you saying that because someone is gay that they can not reproduce? I feel that it is definitely something someone is born with and not something someone chooses to be. Your argument based on the reproduction aspect of life is weak in that even if someone is born gay, that does not mean they could never concieve a child. Also, dolphins have sex for pleasure.

February 23, 2006 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, this is the first post I have ever made, so don't get on me for posting the above twice. Thanks.

February 23, 2006 7:09 PM  
Blogger DrAwkwArD said...

Ah, the double poster, I shall smite you, haha. Anyways. I never make the assertion that gay people can't reproduce. Thats an absurd notion. What I am saying is that because of their homosexuality, they don't possess the will to. Sure, some might want to have kids, but that is not the will to reproduce, that is the instinct to nurture. I approach the aspect of biological homosexuality from an extreme because I do not believe in it. The lack of will to reproduce is just an example of how mother nature would have "screwed up" if homosexuality is genetic or biological.

Also, the fact that dolphins have sex for pleasure is a moot point. The purpose of sex is to reproduce, plain and simple. As humans, as animals, we will naturally like anything that gives us pleasure, but that does not, and should not take away from the simple fact that sex is meant for only one thing, and that is to reproduce.

It may help you a little better to understand from what aspect I am writing this stuff. I take on the thoughts and basic scientific ideas of your run of the mill Liberal Atheist. Science rules all. I however, do not agree with that. I have the distinct advantage to be able to pretend I do though. Haha. Thanks for reading.

February 23, 2006 11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was sent a link to your entry by a friend who thoguht I might find it amusing. I admit that I did. Your use of juxtaposition and straw men did not fail to make me laugh.

Your assertion, though, that sex is simply for reproduction is patently false, however. If that were the case there would be *no* monogamy but instead a free-for-all sexfest. Sexual activity acts as a form of bonding between two people, and studies have shown it can even have an effect on brain chemistry. Ignoring your spurious argument about homosexuality, sexual union of any sort acts as an acceptance of each other fully, and a commitment to each other, emotionally and biologically.

I would suggest reading Kinsey's findings as well as the countless psychological studies regarding human sexuality before diluting a complex issue into a simple one that actually has no bearing on the point you are making.

Cheers!

March 06, 2006 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Were you ever planning on including some credible research or supported facts (other than man have penis girl have vagina)to back up your incredible work or nonsense?

So if we're all "just animals anyway" as you say perhaps you could consider some actual scientific research. Surely you see the reason for me to bring this article up since you know we're all animals. The inner-workings of every animals' genes are very similar. Though I'm not really sure this article will fare well against your deft argument:

"The mysterious gay-ene? No. There is no such thing. There is no proof of that. Sticking with strictly science here folks, what, if there was a gene for homosexuality, would be its purpose?"

Airtight man, airtight.

March 07, 2006 12:53 AM  
Anonymous John said...

First off, gay does mean "happy", but it also means "homosexual". Languages love to change the meanings of words (or rather, their speakers do), and to be honest, the only time I've heard "gay" mean "happy" is in "Deck the Halls". If we were to follow your rules and never change the meaning of words, "nice" would still mean "stupid".

Secondly, the quality of the parent(s), and not their sex, defines the quality of the child raised. I admit that only one parent will have a much harder time of it, but it's still quite possible to raise a well-adjusted, well-rounded child. And unless your definition of "normal" is Christian right loco, like yourself, your comment that two men or two women can't raise a happy, healthy, well-rounded child is bullshit--I know several children being raised by gays who behave better than the kids of some of my straight friends. Also, despite my evidence being anecdotal, at least I have some--where the fuck is yours that all children of gays will be abnormal?

Sex's only purpose is not reproduction. Were it so, sex would not be pleasurable. Most animals don't enjoy sex, they just feel the need to reproduce. And while we humans are certainly animals, we derive pleasure from the act of sex, meaning sex's other purpose is to provide us pleasure. From an evolutionary standpoint, that means humans evolved to have fun with sex. From a religious standpoint, God gave us the ability to enjoy sex (most certianly within the bonds of marriage, of course), which means he wants us to have fun with it, and do it even if we're not just trying to have children. And any sociologist will tell you sex is an important part of most marriages, for forming and strengthening the social bonds between two people. So basically, if reproduction were sex's only purpose, why is it fun, and why is it so necessary in a relationship? Also, gay people aren't the only ones who fuck up the ass.

Furthermore, an adult should know the limits of where s/he should derive his/her pleasure, knowing that children and animals are SO off limits, which is why no one advocates the legalization of pedophilia or beastiality. (Secondly, any human male can also fuck a female animal's vagina, which, if no pictures were provided, would also sound similar to straight sex--another nice, pithy, cheap shot). I'll also mention that heterosexuals participated much more in polygamy than gays (since gays were never really allowed to marry to being with).

Also, if you're going to so "rigourously" stick to science, there's no proof there isn't a gay gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_gene), so until the matter's resolved, your assertions are as bold as hers. And Mother Nature is not the most efficient machine (what's up with vestigial organs in all sorts of animals?) As for your cheap shot that gays are genetic mutants, well, maybe they are, but just because a supposed genetic mutation isn't beneficial doesn't mean it's counterproductive-and, our highly evolved brains have created new sciences that don't limit us to having to reproduce the old-fasioned way. In addition, I would imagine you'd be thrilled that the gay gene were true--it'd mean that all those non-reproducing gays aren't passing that gene onto new generations (though, thanks to science, that may not be quite as successful as you'd like). And since evolution is a trial-and-error process, not all mutations are beneficial (though they may not be counterproductive either), it's not a screwup of mother nature, nor is she trying to accomplish some purpose by genetically influencing sexuality, she's simply trying new things to see what works better--that's the purpose of every genetic mutation.

And when Anonymous said that you spoke to your readers like children, I'm sure s/he was looking at your essay, seeing it as the exact opposite of thorough, scientific, well-planned, and well-documented. I mean honestly, you expect people to believe your baseless rants (and they're baseless simply because you didn't even try to back your words, supposing that everything you say should just automatically be believed. In true science, and in most adult conversations, no one expects anyone to believe them without having first demonstrated it. Adult conversations have laxer rules, but you still aren't allowed to shoot off at the mouth without providing some backing to your claims)

March 12, 2006 11:37 AM  
Blogger DrAwkwArD said...

To Anonymous 1 who gave the compelling arguments on sexual behaviour. I have said time and time again that in the mindset of the atheist scientific researcher, sex is simply for reproduction. There are no other reasons for sex. The fact that sex brings two people closer together is a result of that union, not the reason for it. The fact that homosexuals use sex, STRICTLY for its results (pleasure, "oneness") is against what nature has intended which is what the point of my post was. I am using a simple socratic method of proving my point, which I have. I started with science and ended with science. Thanks for the comment!


To Anonymous 2, who gave the link entitled "research". Your link is abotu a research study in the behavior of fruit flies. Fruit flies have 4 chromosomes. The supplantation of one of the female chromosomes for a male chromosome would have an enormous effect on the outcome of the fruit fly's behaviour. To compare a fruit fly, which is simply an animal of reaction, to a human being with a brain more complex than we will ever know is simply asinine. Thanks for the comment!


To John. I appreciate your immediate name-calling and roughness, it's a great way to show "emotional" arguments. The children of "gay" parents, if you really DO know any, behaving better than some of your "straight" children means absolutely nothing. NOTHING. I was commenting on the perceptions and adjustments of the child. Parents are, NATURALLY male and female, not male and male or female and female. I firmly believe that gay partners should not be allowed to raise kids, at all. The fact or fiction of my religion has nothing to do with this view and your opinion of me being "loco" is only because I don't agree with YOU. But, thats how liberals work I guess.
Your assertations on sex being pleasurable are all true. However, the point of sex is REPRODUCTION. There is no other point, animalistically, to have sex. NONE. We are animals. Mind you, I am only playing the athiest protagonist here. Sex in relationships does provide a special bond, because we are human, but does not preclude the simple fact that sex's only natural reason is reproduction. The fact that straight people enjoy anal-sex is just as wrong as gay people. Whether you are gay or not, anal sex is not a natural process.
Why is sex with children and animals illegal though. Why should we inherently KNOW this as you suggest.
I'm not sure I understand your reason for this,"(Secondly, any human male can also fuck a female animal's vagina, which, if no pictures were provided, would also sound similar to straight sex--another nice, pithy, cheap shot). I'll also mention that heterosexuals participated much more in polygamy than gays (since gays were never really allowed to marry to being with)." I never said any of that is more prevalent in the gay community. I am pretty sure you made that statement because you are assuming I am a Christian conservative.
You've apparently missed the point of my post on the gay gene. I am NOT disproving it's possibility, just that if it is real, then it must be a genetic mutation, mother nature's FUCK UP. Mother nature has a patent on the correct workings of the human body. If the gay gene is indeed real, it is just a retardation of the mind/body.
As for the whole "speaking to readers like children" nonsense; I am merely assuming that my readers aren't complete idiots. Any science that I have used in this last post is all factual, not this garbage you and the other anonymous have posted about fucking fruit flies and whatnot. I assumed that my readers know about reproduction and mental retardation. If that's too much to ask, maybe you guys should go out and buy some screen protectors and hockey helmets, cause you're retards.
I don't give a shit if people are gay. I only care about the social issues here that I think are relevant to me.

March 28, 2006 11:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home