Sure it is. We're just blinded by all the blue that we forget how much green light hits us.
You gotta feel sorry for people who are blind. You want to help them, but since they're adults, you presume that they're competent to handle their own business. You don't want to interfere with their often clumsy attempts to help themselves. You wait for them to ask for help before you offer assistance. Then you give only the bare minimum assistance that the situation demands.
Same for the physically blind as well as those who just won't see what's in front of them. But let's limit this to clinical illness rather than those who are suffocated by the garbage of feminist castration propaganda being dumped daily upon them. They're not sick. They're just being manipulated.
We know how to handle physical disability. What about a mental disability?
When a man walks down the street shuffling his feet because he can't lift them, when he stops to have an argument with his own reflection in shop windows, you know he has schizophrenia. He has a mental disability. He's not competent to handle his own affairs because he exhibits classic symptoms of severe illness. He cannot repress them. The disease controls him -- he is not in control of the disease.
The man who is profoundly disturbed with a mental illness is not competent. Period.
What about the man who's sick, but not profoundly? He whose behavior exhibits many abnormalities, but who can still function normally otherwise? Is he sick? Yes. Is he competent? Depends. It depends on how much the abnormalities interfere with the ability to live a normal life (both of himself and of the people with whom he interacts). It's a matter of self-control.
So then, what's a normal life?
For the purposes of this conversation, the part of "normal" that we're interested in is the ability to perform biological functions: respiration, digestion, and so on. Reproduction. "Sex" in the biological sense as in coitus.
Why is that? Because we're limiting the discussion to tangible sickness -- to something that can be observed, measured, and theorized about. Scientific process. Something that falls on the margins of the bell curve. Something abnormal.
That's where anecdotal evidence fails. As much as I trust my eyes and ears, you don't. Or maybe someone else refuses to believe anything that doesn't support his position. Whatever. We have to rely on statistics, logic, and so forth.
Hominids have been around for maybe a hundred thousand generations, give or take some tens of thousands. Statistically speaking, natural selection does not fail to remove any genetic cause for lowered fertility. If there is a genetic cause for homosexual behavior, it will die off simply because anything that lowers fertility is at a disadvantage. A compensatory benefit would have to exist. However, only a small fraction of the population ever engages in homosexual behavior. Any said benefit fails to exist for the overwhelming majority. Any said benefit affects only a few at the extreme edge of the bell curve. And those genetic lines that do benefit -- are the ones being bred out. Thus, any purported compensatory benefit is utterly improbable (can never be proved). From a genetic point of view, homosexual behaviors are abnormal.
If there is no genetic cause for homosexual behavior, again, it lowers fertility. It interferes with the ability to perform a biological function. Why? Because every minute someone spends doing homosexual behaviors is a minute that the person is not doing mating behaviors. Displaced reproductive behavior with no compensatory benefit (for the rest of humanity, as noted above). A tangible, measurable activity that detracts from reproduction. An abnormality.
What do you call a person who performs behaviors that detract from the ability to perform biological processes? Incompetent. He is not in control of these behaviors; rather, they are in control of him. What do you call someone who is incompetent due to behavior instead of physical disability? Mentally ill.
Some people are less ill and can choose to abstain from homosexual behaviors (in the same way that an alcoholic can abstain from drinking). Others are more ill and cannot control themselves.
This line of reasoning is pretty obvious. However, some choose to not hear, not consider, and to trash any discussion along these lines because they do not want it being said that homosexuals are not competent to comment on homosexuality. Let someone who ever performed homosexual behavior abstain for, say 30 years -- only then will I grant even the slightest credibility to his words. If not, it's self-satisfying garbage: "let's talk about it." That's a sickness of blighting social discourse. That's a social disease.
You gotta feel sorry for people who are blind. You want to help them, but since they're adults, you presume that they're competent to handle their own business. You don't want to interfere with their often clumsy attempts to help themselves. You wait for them to ask for help before you offer assistance. Then you give only the bare minimum assistance that the situation demands.
Same for the physically blind as well as those who just won't see what's in front of them. But let's limit this to clinical illness rather than those who are suffocated by the garbage of feminist castration propaganda being dumped daily upon them. They're not sick. They're just being manipulated.
We know how to handle physical disability. What about a mental disability?
When a man walks down the street shuffling his feet because he can't lift them, when he stops to have an argument with his own reflection in shop windows, you know he has schizophrenia. He has a mental disability. He's not competent to handle his own affairs because he exhibits classic symptoms of severe illness. He cannot repress them. The disease controls him -- he is not in control of the disease.
The man who is profoundly disturbed with a mental illness is not competent. Period.
What about the man who's sick, but not profoundly? He whose behavior exhibits many abnormalities, but who can still function normally otherwise? Is he sick? Yes. Is he competent? Depends. It depends on how much the abnormalities interfere with the ability to live a normal life (both of himself and of the people with whom he interacts). It's a matter of self-control.
So then, what's a normal life?
For the purposes of this conversation, the part of "normal" that we're interested in is the ability to perform biological functions: respiration, digestion, and so on. Reproduction. "Sex" in the biological sense as in coitus.
Why is that? Because we're limiting the discussion to tangible sickness -- to something that can be observed, measured, and theorized about. Scientific process. Something that falls on the margins of the bell curve. Something abnormal.
That's where anecdotal evidence fails. As much as I trust my eyes and ears, you don't. Or maybe someone else refuses to believe anything that doesn't support his position. Whatever. We have to rely on statistics, logic, and so forth.
Hominids have been around for maybe a hundred thousand generations, give or take some tens of thousands. Statistically speaking, natural selection does not fail to remove any genetic cause for lowered fertility. If there is a genetic cause for homosexual behavior, it will die off simply because anything that lowers fertility is at a disadvantage. A compensatory benefit would have to exist. However, only a small fraction of the population ever engages in homosexual behavior. Any said benefit fails to exist for the overwhelming majority. Any said benefit affects only a few at the extreme edge of the bell curve. And those genetic lines that do benefit -- are the ones being bred out. Thus, any purported compensatory benefit is utterly improbable (can never be proved). From a genetic point of view, homosexual behaviors are abnormal.
If there is no genetic cause for homosexual behavior, again, it lowers fertility. It interferes with the ability to perform a biological function. Why? Because every minute someone spends doing homosexual behaviors is a minute that the person is not doing mating behaviors. Displaced reproductive behavior with no compensatory benefit (for the rest of humanity, as noted above). A tangible, measurable activity that detracts from reproduction. An abnormality.
What do you call a person who performs behaviors that detract from the ability to perform biological processes? Incompetent. He is not in control of these behaviors; rather, they are in control of him. What do you call someone who is incompetent due to behavior instead of physical disability? Mentally ill.
Some people are less ill and can choose to abstain from homosexual behaviors (in the same way that an alcoholic can abstain from drinking). Others are more ill and cannot control themselves.
This line of reasoning is pretty obvious. However, some choose to not hear, not consider, and to trash any discussion along these lines because they do not want it being said that homosexuals are not competent to comment on homosexuality. Let someone who ever performed homosexual behavior abstain for, say 30 years -- only then will I grant even the slightest credibility to his words. If not, it's self-satisfying garbage: "let's talk about it." That's a sickness of blighting social discourse. That's a social disease.
