A Child is Like a Star - An Evolutionary Perspective of Deviance
Paul Lynch | 13.06.2004 17:04 | Analysis | Gender | World
If children are born with their deviant future in our hands, what are the consequences and responsibility for society?
by Paul Lynch 13-6-04.
A CHILD IS BORN
A child is like a star, the light it produces does not come magically from within, it is simply is a reflection of the light shone upon it.
From the perspective of evolutionary thinkers such as Steven Pinker, a child enters this world with no reference to associate the new stimulus it encounters in the first days of life. In other words the child's mind starts of as a blank slate. "The blank slate is the doctrine that the mind has no unique structure and that its entire organization comes from the environment via socialization and learning" (Steven Pinker). Subsequently I think it reasonable to say that the combination of the 5 basic senses, inherent to each of us, teach the child all it knows throughout it's most earliest of days. I would also agree with Pinker when he argues that a particular axonal will either zig or zag in a particular given direction (which is a metaphor explaining each brains unique wiring process) depending on the particular stimulus the child experiences within a given environment making each child unique.
With this wiring up process underway patterns would soon start becoming familiar to the new born child. Within time certain things will become evident to the child each day of its life, e.g. such things like who Mammy and Daddy are - as they as essential ingredients to the biological family and are therefore familiar to nearly every child in the world, except of course with one of the parent is no longer present in the child's life, which, even today, is thankfully more the exception rather than rule, as surely each child deserves the love and protection from it's biological family (whose blood tie has always been their natural bond) to nurture them into adulthood with the appropriate behaviour for them to thrive.
For most children the family becomes a barrier to the hazards and pitfalls of a everyday life in the modern world, subsequently teaching the child suitable behaviour in which to engage in society so it can thrive. Of course not all children do thrive, and many succumb to what society deems, criminal, anti-social or deviant behaviour. This logically being a result of a failure to learn appropriate behaviour from it's individual environment (i.e. what the child encounters when learning from it's 5 innate senses to form it's attitude), whether because of corrupt social environment, or possibly biological reasons that may effect a child's development (e.g. early brain injury).
AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
If all that is true, and I personally believe it is (after all, I can see no reason to doubt it) then it becomes quite clear that any stimulus in a child's environment, that offends or abuses one or more of it's senses, would naturally have an effect the child's development. Therefore when something in the child's environment offends the child's senses, (e.g. anything the child would instinctively see as conflicting with what it had already learnt from it's environment.) the child would be then nurtured with an adjustment to it's earlier concept of it's surroundings, thus learning along the way that life is not as predictable as in might have initially thought, which in turn would serve to create an overall attitude in which to view the world it lives in.
Each child's attitude is therefore created by it's own individual environment. Certain behaviours have been suggested as being genetically determined, but there are those who dispute this theory quite strongly, and I suppose until scientist can prove their assumptions with regards to genetics and behaviour, the world must remain sceptical, and if not then at least entirely objective about such claims, after all, rational thinking has been responsible for societies rapid evolution. Patently, there are those who interrupt the flow of the common sense logic (that society instinctively learns as it grows) with their perverted or irrational thinking, but even then history teaches us the errors of such thinking, and thankfully those who have developed with an appropriate attitude will seek to learn from those mistakes and use reasoning and to bring about a better society. Hence we learn to make adjustments to our environment so that society can thrive in a world where common sense prevails. Yet people do this even though they may not even be responsible for those mistakes themselves, thus showing the ability to adapt, in order to become stronger and stronger with each passing moment of every single day - in much the same way a child evolves into an adult.
In 2004 some of us are privileged to have the technology and facilities to educate and inform ourselves far more efficiently than ever before. In that sense the Internet has become our teacher to a large extent, and is consequently entrusted with the responsibility of the future of mankind. There is no point in me telling you to use it wisely, because, if you got this far, common sense tells me you must be an optimist like myself, and by nature (or, as I have pointed out - 'nurture') you will of course already see that statements as common sense logic.
So, if you hadn't already guessed by now the issue I want to raise with you all is about the social environment, particularly that of our children - the essence of which is discussed in the explanation given above which show us that a child's surroundings are invariably responsible for it's behaviour (except for biological reasons that may effect a child's development - e.g. early brain injury). This is based on the theory "the mind has no unique structure and that its entire organization comes from the environment via socialization and learning". Or to put it more poetically; A child is like a star, the light it produces does not come magically from within, it is simply is a reflection of the light shone upon it. Having said that, the issue I want to raise with you is just as much about 'common sense' and it's consequences. So I suppose you could say the overall issue I want to raise with you concerns the teaching, development, and nurturing of our children, which, as I will attempt to demonstrate, is ultimately responsible the future of society.
CHANGING WORLDS
In this day and age, behaviours that were once deemed offensive, such as any form of "sexual deviance", are often treated with far more tolerance than ever before. Take homosexuality for example, it may be true that homosexuals were more or less accepted in society in the pre-Christian / Greek / Roman times, but even then, it was never seen as an alternative to the biological family. Today, however, gay rights activist are campaigning for just that, and a gay family unit is emerging before our very eyes in the worlds media. Ironically, even though marriage has been a declining trend in the last few decades, homosexuals still want the right to get married, and if they so choose, by gay vicars and priests no less (regardless of the obvious fact the church has always traditionally opposed homosexuality), then, once married, gay people want the equal right to be able to pop down to the politically correct adoption agency to complete their new politically correct homosexual family unit. All in the name of equal rights and progress.
In a world that seeks to rid itself of unfounded prejudice and bigotry, society has been told by it's masters that those who oppose homosexuality are suffering from a mental illness called 'Homophobia'. With this in mind, homosexuals claim they want gay education taught to school children in an attempt to stamp out any remainder of homophobia within society. Governments so far appear willing to sanction these monumental changes within society. Even societies with homophobic Presidents seem strangely willing. Perhaps they are simply powerless to prevent such changes? Although using good old 'common sense' I personally fail to see how that could really be the case, especially with a President who is so well know for ignoring the mass of opinion.
To plagiarize another likeminded individual: The institution of the biological family is not merely an arbitrary social construct tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; it is civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. Hence, should the collective will of the people in a democracy have a say in the possible nurturing of homosexuality in children?
THE TRUTH WILL OUT
Camille Paglia, a lesbian activist has had the courage to boldly state what most homosexuals refuse to admit: 'Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm.' "Whether homosexual behaviour is normal and genetic is a significant issue under debate in American culture today. Congress is stampeding to pass 'hate crime' and 'non-discrimination' laws providing special rights for homosexuals; school textbook writers are producing pro-homosexual materials for elementary school children; Hollywood is openly promoting homosexuality and cross-dressing; and liberal church leaders are blessing homosexual 'unions'—all under the false premise that homosexuality is a positive, normal, and genetically-based lifestyle....From the faulty premise that homosexuals are born that way flow a number of other equally flawed assumptions. Two of these are: That society must encourage and protect individuals who think they were born gay; and that those who oppose homosexual behaviour are mentally unstable (homophobic) and are trying to force homosexuals to deny their genetic destinies".
Logically, if homosexuality results from environmental conditions, children that are subjected to a normalisation of homosexual behaviour will be more likely to turn out gay than children raised in a traditionally heterosexual environment. Surely as common sense individuals we must take a step back and ask ourselves some questions, such as; On what premise are our governments allowing such monumental changes to take place within our societies ? Have we been presented with ground breaking science, or at least sound argument or logical reason that allows us to change our perspective on homosexuality so radically? As surprising as it may seem, the excerpt below clearly shows us that this is NOT the case.
(from) "THE GAY GENE: GOING, GOING … GONE" by Yvette C. Schneider, Family Research Council:
*** "Many misconceptions exist about the supposedly inborn nature of complex behaviors such as homosexuality. Most of these are due to media reports that present scientific studies in selective sound bites.
In reality, no scientific studies show an inborn cause for any such complex behaviors. In this day of shirking responsibility and blaming anything but ourselves for our actions (e.g., I spilled coffee and burned myself, but it was the restaurant’s fault for serving hot coffee), claims that someone is genetically or chemically structured to engage in dangerous or antisocial activities find increasing appeal...
When the question of the origin of homosexuality arises, homosexual activists tend to resort to the often-heard refrain "I was born gay." There are even T-shirts sold at homosexual functions and bookstores that say, "Hey Mom, Thanks for the Genes." The idea that homosexuality is a predetermined condition that originates in the womb also has been increasingly embraced by society as a whole. A February 2000 Harris Poll of 1,010 randomly selected adults found that the number of people who believe "sexual orientation" "is more dependent on the genes you are born with" has increased 6 percent since 1995. Thirty-five percent of the people polled believe that homosexuality is "genetic," versus 29 percent who held that opinion in 1995. Fifty-two percent believe that "what you learn and experience" causes homosexuality, as opposed to 65 percent who believed that in 1995...
In the March 1993 edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry (AGP), Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined past and current claims and concluded that "there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. The appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data."...
Science published an article in 1994 that included the following statement:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. ‘Unfortunately,’ says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, ‘it’s hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ‘All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."...
There is increasing debate among homosexual activists as to whether or not they should even be advocating the idea that homosexuality is genetic. It was once thought to be politically expedient to say, "I can’t help my attractions. I was born this way." Stein told the Advocate.
Many gay people want to use this research to promote gay rights. If gay people are ‘born that way,’ then discrimination against them must be wrong. … A gay or lesbian person’s public identity, sexual behaviors, romantic relationships, or decisions to raise children are all choices. No theory suggests that these choices are genetic.
Not only is the scientific research that tries to prove an inborn nature to homosexuality questionable, but the researchers also fail to take into account the existence of thousands of former homosexuals. If homosexuality were biologically determined, it would seem impossible for homosexuals to become heterosexual...
Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.
Yvette C. Schneider, a former lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council." ***
------
end
MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL
From reading that I can't help think that the if the idea that individuals are born gay is as false is it so obviously appears to be, surely it only serves to lock homosexuals into some sort of psychophobic nightmare where they are metaphorically pulled apart by any thoughts that question whether they were in fact born gay, or indeed whether they can change their sexuality. Naturally, any such thoughts would instinctively be forced to become suppressed because of widely held assumptions such as the notion that suggests for homosexuals to think anything other than the misguided belief that they are born gay would paradoxically mean they are self-haters, or they are denying themselves their genetic destinies. Thus, the much hyped theory that homosexuals are born gay is recklessly misleading, and could therefore be said to be counter-productive for who think they are innate homosexuals - as it may even lead further delusions about themselves and subsequently the world they live in.
Shouldn't we be at least asking ourselves how as ever it got to the point where those who do not support the assumed and much hyped theory that homosexuality is innate are said to be suffering from a mental illness (homophobia), when there is simply no evidence to support that much hyped theory? Surely such emotive and assumptions accusations are to be viewed with scepticism without any kind of proof to back up them up. You would at least think there would be a clear logical explanation to reason our senses with - without this surely any such claims are to be seen as completely unfounded, and perhaps entirely peculiar under the circumstances.
IDENTIFYING TO COMPARE
Adult sibling who commit incest are also a minority group who are prejudice against, and just like homosexuality, there is no conclusive evidence to support the nature or the nurture theory on why they do what they do (i.e. whether incest it is innate or the result of social conditioning). Should we therefore accept incest as an alternative lifestyle which should be promoted and protected in the same way homosexuality is? Should we have an Incest Museum in London paid for by the tax payer? Should we be teaching our kids education on incestuous relationships? If not, why not? Surely to accept one and not the other would be sexual discrimination.
It appears that merely because scientist were trying to prove homosexuality was innate, that was enough for gay activist to get ahead of themselves. So, using the same logic, shouldn't we be accepting other forms of "sexual deviance", such as incest along side homosexuality and transsexuals just as equally? Surely if we accept the unsubstantiated argument that alleges that homosexuals are born gay, we are morally obliged to accept the same for incest as well, as anything else would be paradoxical and hypocritical sexual discrimination based on the law of the land, instead of the same (flawed) reason and (paradoxical) logic used to make homosexuality acceptable?
For an interesting perspective on incest I strongly recommend you read the following:
An Anarchist Perspective on Incest
by Sarah Valery 9:04pm Sun Apr 25 '04 (Modified on 9:58am Tue Apr 27 '04) article#9986
Why Incest should be decriminalised and promoted in our "society"
Incest is sexual activity between close family members. It is a taboo in most "societies" and a criminal offence by being an impediment to marriage in most countries, as well as being opposed by most modern religions.
But the exact definition of what is a "close family member" varies widely: some jurisdictions consider only those related by birth, others also those related by adoption or marriage; some prohibit relations only with nuclear family members and ancestors or descendants, while others prohibit relations with aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, and cousins as well.
Anthropologists, foolishly, have found that all "societies" place restrictions on who one may marry (for those that belive in marriage). Although "marriage" should not be confused with sex, many societies in the past only permitted sexual relations within the bounds of marriage — hence, their rules regarding marriage were the same as their rules regarding sex.
In some other societies, where sexual relations were permitted outside marriage, persons prohibited to marry were also prohibited to have sex. The most closely related biological kin — parents, children, brothers and sisters — are wrongly but almost universally included.
Most societies also specify rules that encourage and sometimes FORCE marriage within groups, frequently ethnic and religious ones. Even in modern Western societies, individuals consistently express preferences for mates from similar social class and educational backgrounds and attempts to violate this endogamic principle can cause dramatic resistance from the associates of the violators, despite the society's pervasive emphasis on love and individual choice.
In most of the Western world incest generally refers to forbidden sexual relations within the family. However, even here, definitions of family vary. Within the United States, marriage between (first) cousins is illegal in some states, but not in others, and sociologists have classified marriage laws in the United States into two categories.
There is also the much rarer phenomenon of consensual incestuous relations between adults, such as between an adult brother and sister. This is illegal in most places, but these laws are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people (provided the couple have no children) and so should not be criminalized.
Incest may be a form of inbreeding and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. However, Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. First, in many societies partners with whom marriage is forbidden and partners with whom marriage is preferred are equally related in genetic terms; the inbreeding argument would not explain the incest taboo in these societies.
The "inbreeding" argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population. Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals.
As an Anarchist, I strongly support Incest being decriminalised.
I further support it to be promoted and encouraged in schools as part of an alternative to the failed and discredited capitalist falsehood of "marriage" and the grinding hardship and oppression that forced-heterosexuality has created for so many individuals.
The narrow-mindedness and fanaticism of a small section of this world has created many dangerous and unhealthy attitudes.
Incest is NOT taboo.
Incest is something to be cherished, promoted and celebrated.
In Anarchy,
Sarah Valery
http://www.brisbane.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=9986&group=webcast
-------
end
Of course, you will realise that I am not proposing normalising incest, I am just using it to point out the glaring paradox.
THE BIG QUESTION
With this in mind I put the question; "Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults", to a UK gay rights group "OutRage!". Unfortunately sensing where I was leading with my question they refused to even answer (and so did other gay people who were following the discussion), even though I repeatedly asked the same question. I even offered them multiple choice answers in this following post to try and get some answers quicker by showing my reasoning:
Q: Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving monogamous relationship?
"No" ---- "Because to accept homosexuality and not incest would be sexual discrimination...?" Are you sure...? I don't think society would not tolerate that. Think again!
"Yes" ---- Well of course!
Then why would you expect heterosexuals not to prejudice against homosexuals when, just like homosexuality, there is no conclusive evidence to support the nature or the nurture theory on whether incest it is innate or the result of social conditioning. After all, they are also in a minority group and are prejudice against by society. What if incest is innate and homosexuality isn't? We don't know for sure, do we? And on the surface, incest certainly seems more likely to be genetic, seeing as it obviously occurs in families..!
Surely the truth is, with the jury being out equally on both homosexuality and incest, to accept one into your culture and not the other would be hypocritical sexual discrimination based on the law of the land, instead of the same (flawed) reason and (paradoxical) argument given for accepting homosexuality? Using the same logic as gay rights activists, aren't the LGBT morally obligated to add the letter 'I' to it's acronym to protect and promote incest as well as lesbians gays, bisexuals and transsexuals, in order to avoid hypocrisy?
If you are morally happy to prejudice against incest, perhaps heterosexuals don't have to accept homosexuality either. Maybe the idea of a Gay Museum to a lot of people is just as offensive as would be an Incest Museum to most people. Perhaps therefore we shouldn't even consider teaching other peoples kids education on homosexuality after all ? Think about it objectively. Why would heterosexuals accept the teaching of homosexuality, and not incest. (unless they were being bullied into it using the paradox that is 'political correctness gone mad'.)
Hence, people do evidently have just as much moral right to object to homosexuality as they do incest.
And bizarre as it may seem, using the same fuzzy logic of gay rights activists, those who commit incest have precisely the same moral right (but not legal right - which actually means they are discriminated against more than gays!!) to parade down a high street near you, flaunting their alternative sexuality as "normal", whilst campaigning for kids to be educated on the normality of incestuous relationships, and using all sorts of subversive methods to achieve their objectives along the way, which not only deliberately antagonize, but show a total disregard for anyone else's beliefs and opinions.
How do you feel about that.....?
-------
end
DENIAL
Perhaps not that surprisingly I still have not had any reply, even though I posted the question to Peter Tachell and Brett Lock from "OutRage!" in a comment attached to an article called "Queering Palestinian Solidarity Activism" written by Yoshie Furuhashi (08.06.04). Although I never got a answer, Peter Tachell has responded to Yoshie Furuhashi. In his response Tachell wrote: "freedom for Palestine must be freedom for everyone". I immediately took my opportunity to ask the following question:
"Does that mean abandoning the fear of incest as well as homosexuality, "to create a truly liberated nation based on human rights for all" ? Because, to quote Brett Lock: "By what moral compass do you determine that one example of persecution is "less of an issue" than another ?". "
Again, even though I used Peter Tatchell's own words to clearly contradict his colleagues Brett Lock wrote (and vice versa), I have had no reply to this question - they simply refuse to answer. I think that silence speaks far louder that maybe they realise. Feel free to judge for yourselves: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/292987.html
CONDENSING LOGIC
I suppose when you really get down to it there seems to be two types of people in the world, those who see nothing morally wrong in the idea of having sex with a family member --- and those who do! Which begs the question, why are some people so ready to accept the idea of having sex with a family member? Could it just be attitude? I don't see why not. There are many cultures that permitted the practice of incest, including the Polynesians. Is it so ridiculous to think it could it be because the idea has somehow been normalised to them, through some sort of socialisation process? If so why would homosexuality be any different? Could it just simply be because they are "special"...?
One must presume that because incest is a criminal offence and therefore patently discriminated against, OutRage will be challenging the law, to prevent further discrimination. Anything else would contradict itself (as I predicted), and would therefore be highly hypocritical, and if reputation is anything to go by, highly unlikely. The general public should at least be aware that with the support of OutRage, those who commit incest have precisely the same moral right to parade down a high street near you, flaunting their alternative sexuality as "normal", whilst campaigning for kids to be educated on the normality of incestuous relationships, and using all sorts of subversive methods to achieve their objectives along the way, which not only deliberately antagonize, but show a total disregard for anyone else's beliefs and opinions...
WHAT TO DO?
After reading this I hope you will agree that it is time for people to ask themselves if they really want to live in a world that normalises homosexuality to our children? And if you are, you still happy to live that world that would be deemed openly hypocritical unless it accepts incest as well as lesbians, gays bi-sexual and transsexuals as all having equal right to heterosexuals? If we do, we could be opening the door to a world where the vulnerability of our children would be put in severe jeopardy. Child abuse is defined as any act of omission or commission that endangers or impairs a child's physical / psychological / emotional health and development. Children are everyone's responsibility. If and adult discovers a child is being abused or at risk of this happening, he or she should do all they can to stop the abuse. Children have the right to a safe and nurturing environment. If you don't want to live in a world that shows such utter contempt for it's children (and lets face who would), I recomend you raise this issue with as many as you can, post this groups and people you know, write to as many politicians, journalist, social thinkers and other influential individuals as possible, and the ask the question:
"Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving monogamous relationship? (fill in with bits from above - compare with lesbians, gays bi-sexual and transsexuals) Then add; If you find you are not able to answer the question, please could you pass it on the relevant people so that it can be answered clearly and fully." But remember, the whole point is not so much to get a satisfactory answer from writing one letter - it is to raise the awareness of this issue by simply asking the question, over and over again. WE need to get this issue out in the open before we inadvertently open the door to what could very well lead to a hidden epidemic of child sex abuse - because as I'm sure you are probably be aware there would be a very grey area between incest and child sex abuse. For example, can a 60 year old dad *ever* ethically have sex with his 16 year old daughter - at what point did they start courting..?
I honestly don't think some people who support OutRage! realise they are supporting incest as well as homosexuality. People have a right to know precisely what it is they are supporting. If incest is legalised using precisely the same flawed reason and paradoxical argument that has been used for homosexuality we may not be able to stop a great many abuses from happening within our society, because logically if incest was legal it could open the door to an epidemic of child sex abuse. Would such a society nurture children into adulthood with the appropriate behaviour for them to thrive - or would many succumb to what society deems, criminal, anti-social or deviant behaviour?
Is this what you want for the future of our society? Because only you can stop it happening.
DO THE RIGHT THING - START FIGHTING BACK !
Sincerely,
Paul Lynch
PS - I decided to use my real name because someone called "Al" (whose job it appears is to pervert..) seems to have already worked out who I am, and subsequently I thought better let everyone know seeing as "Al" obviously does - just in case you read about me in the obituaries that is... Well, that might sound far-fetched, but surely it's a screwed up world when the "liars, deviants and cheats"(sic) seem to be the only ones winning. Having said that, and having grown up in an environment where your either a "faggot or a fighter" (sic) I have learnt (from a young age..) that empty threats make the most noise, and subsequently I see them nothing more that brainless intimidation techniques to try and stop me putting something like this together. No doubt, if I had been brought up in a different environment I wouldn't have..!
A CHILD IS BORN
A child is like a star, the light it produces does not come magically from within, it is simply is a reflection of the light shone upon it.
From the perspective of evolutionary thinkers such as Steven Pinker, a child enters this world with no reference to associate the new stimulus it encounters in the first days of life. In other words the child's mind starts of as a blank slate. "The blank slate is the doctrine that the mind has no unique structure and that its entire organization comes from the environment via socialization and learning" (Steven Pinker). Subsequently I think it reasonable to say that the combination of the 5 basic senses, inherent to each of us, teach the child all it knows throughout it's most earliest of days. I would also agree with Pinker when he argues that a particular axonal will either zig or zag in a particular given direction (which is a metaphor explaining each brains unique wiring process) depending on the particular stimulus the child experiences within a given environment making each child unique.
With this wiring up process underway patterns would soon start becoming familiar to the new born child. Within time certain things will become evident to the child each day of its life, e.g. such things like who Mammy and Daddy are - as they as essential ingredients to the biological family and are therefore familiar to nearly every child in the world, except of course with one of the parent is no longer present in the child's life, which, even today, is thankfully more the exception rather than rule, as surely each child deserves the love and protection from it's biological family (whose blood tie has always been their natural bond) to nurture them into adulthood with the appropriate behaviour for them to thrive.
For most children the family becomes a barrier to the hazards and pitfalls of a everyday life in the modern world, subsequently teaching the child suitable behaviour in which to engage in society so it can thrive. Of course not all children do thrive, and many succumb to what society deems, criminal, anti-social or deviant behaviour. This logically being a result of a failure to learn appropriate behaviour from it's individual environment (i.e. what the child encounters when learning from it's 5 innate senses to form it's attitude), whether because of corrupt social environment, or possibly biological reasons that may effect a child's development (e.g. early brain injury).
AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
If all that is true, and I personally believe it is (after all, I can see no reason to doubt it) then it becomes quite clear that any stimulus in a child's environment, that offends or abuses one or more of it's senses, would naturally have an effect the child's development. Therefore when something in the child's environment offends the child's senses, (e.g. anything the child would instinctively see as conflicting with what it had already learnt from it's environment.) the child would be then nurtured with an adjustment to it's earlier concept of it's surroundings, thus learning along the way that life is not as predictable as in might have initially thought, which in turn would serve to create an overall attitude in which to view the world it lives in.
Each child's attitude is therefore created by it's own individual environment. Certain behaviours have been suggested as being genetically determined, but there are those who dispute this theory quite strongly, and I suppose until scientist can prove their assumptions with regards to genetics and behaviour, the world must remain sceptical, and if not then at least entirely objective about such claims, after all, rational thinking has been responsible for societies rapid evolution. Patently, there are those who interrupt the flow of the common sense logic (that society instinctively learns as it grows) with their perverted or irrational thinking, but even then history teaches us the errors of such thinking, and thankfully those who have developed with an appropriate attitude will seek to learn from those mistakes and use reasoning and to bring about a better society. Hence we learn to make adjustments to our environment so that society can thrive in a world where common sense prevails. Yet people do this even though they may not even be responsible for those mistakes themselves, thus showing the ability to adapt, in order to become stronger and stronger with each passing moment of every single day - in much the same way a child evolves into an adult.
In 2004 some of us are privileged to have the technology and facilities to educate and inform ourselves far more efficiently than ever before. In that sense the Internet has become our teacher to a large extent, and is consequently entrusted with the responsibility of the future of mankind. There is no point in me telling you to use it wisely, because, if you got this far, common sense tells me you must be an optimist like myself, and by nature (or, as I have pointed out - 'nurture') you will of course already see that statements as common sense logic.
So, if you hadn't already guessed by now the issue I want to raise with you all is about the social environment, particularly that of our children - the essence of which is discussed in the explanation given above which show us that a child's surroundings are invariably responsible for it's behaviour (except for biological reasons that may effect a child's development - e.g. early brain injury). This is based on the theory "the mind has no unique structure and that its entire organization comes from the environment via socialization and learning". Or to put it more poetically; A child is like a star, the light it produces does not come magically from within, it is simply is a reflection of the light shone upon it. Having said that, the issue I want to raise with you is just as much about 'common sense' and it's consequences. So I suppose you could say the overall issue I want to raise with you concerns the teaching, development, and nurturing of our children, which, as I will attempt to demonstrate, is ultimately responsible the future of society.
CHANGING WORLDS
In this day and age, behaviours that were once deemed offensive, such as any form of "sexual deviance", are often treated with far more tolerance than ever before. Take homosexuality for example, it may be true that homosexuals were more or less accepted in society in the pre-Christian / Greek / Roman times, but even then, it was never seen as an alternative to the biological family. Today, however, gay rights activist are campaigning for just that, and a gay family unit is emerging before our very eyes in the worlds media. Ironically, even though marriage has been a declining trend in the last few decades, homosexuals still want the right to get married, and if they so choose, by gay vicars and priests no less (regardless of the obvious fact the church has always traditionally opposed homosexuality), then, once married, gay people want the equal right to be able to pop down to the politically correct adoption agency to complete their new politically correct homosexual family unit. All in the name of equal rights and progress.
In a world that seeks to rid itself of unfounded prejudice and bigotry, society has been told by it's masters that those who oppose homosexuality are suffering from a mental illness called 'Homophobia'. With this in mind, homosexuals claim they want gay education taught to school children in an attempt to stamp out any remainder of homophobia within society. Governments so far appear willing to sanction these monumental changes within society. Even societies with homophobic Presidents seem strangely willing. Perhaps they are simply powerless to prevent such changes? Although using good old 'common sense' I personally fail to see how that could really be the case, especially with a President who is so well know for ignoring the mass of opinion.
To plagiarize another likeminded individual: The institution of the biological family is not merely an arbitrary social construct tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; it is civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction. Hence, should the collective will of the people in a democracy have a say in the possible nurturing of homosexuality in children?
THE TRUTH WILL OUT
Camille Paglia, a lesbian activist has had the courage to boldly state what most homosexuals refuse to admit: 'Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm.' "Whether homosexual behaviour is normal and genetic is a significant issue under debate in American culture today. Congress is stampeding to pass 'hate crime' and 'non-discrimination' laws providing special rights for homosexuals; school textbook writers are producing pro-homosexual materials for elementary school children; Hollywood is openly promoting homosexuality and cross-dressing; and liberal church leaders are blessing homosexual 'unions'—all under the false premise that homosexuality is a positive, normal, and genetically-based lifestyle....From the faulty premise that homosexuals are born that way flow a number of other equally flawed assumptions. Two of these are: That society must encourage and protect individuals who think they were born gay; and that those who oppose homosexual behaviour are mentally unstable (homophobic) and are trying to force homosexuals to deny their genetic destinies".
Logically, if homosexuality results from environmental conditions, children that are subjected to a normalisation of homosexual behaviour will be more likely to turn out gay than children raised in a traditionally heterosexual environment. Surely as common sense individuals we must take a step back and ask ourselves some questions, such as; On what premise are our governments allowing such monumental changes to take place within our societies ? Have we been presented with ground breaking science, or at least sound argument or logical reason that allows us to change our perspective on homosexuality so radically? As surprising as it may seem, the excerpt below clearly shows us that this is NOT the case.
(from) "THE GAY GENE: GOING, GOING … GONE" by Yvette C. Schneider, Family Research Council:
*** "Many misconceptions exist about the supposedly inborn nature of complex behaviors such as homosexuality. Most of these are due to media reports that present scientific studies in selective sound bites.
In reality, no scientific studies show an inborn cause for any such complex behaviors. In this day of shirking responsibility and blaming anything but ourselves for our actions (e.g., I spilled coffee and burned myself, but it was the restaurant’s fault for serving hot coffee), claims that someone is genetically or chemically structured to engage in dangerous or antisocial activities find increasing appeal...
When the question of the origin of homosexuality arises, homosexual activists tend to resort to the often-heard refrain "I was born gay." There are even T-shirts sold at homosexual functions and bookstores that say, "Hey Mom, Thanks for the Genes." The idea that homosexuality is a predetermined condition that originates in the womb also has been increasingly embraced by society as a whole. A February 2000 Harris Poll of 1,010 randomly selected adults found that the number of people who believe "sexual orientation" "is more dependent on the genes you are born with" has increased 6 percent since 1995. Thirty-five percent of the people polled believe that homosexuality is "genetic," versus 29 percent who held that opinion in 1995. Fifty-two percent believe that "what you learn and experience" causes homosexuality, as opposed to 65 percent who believed that in 1995...
In the March 1993 edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry (AGP), Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined past and current claims and concluded that "there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. The appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data."...
Science published an article in 1994 that included the following statement:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. ‘Unfortunately,’ says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, ‘it’s hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ‘All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."...
There is increasing debate among homosexual activists as to whether or not they should even be advocating the idea that homosexuality is genetic. It was once thought to be politically expedient to say, "I can’t help my attractions. I was born this way." Stein told the Advocate.
Many gay people want to use this research to promote gay rights. If gay people are ‘born that way,’ then discrimination against them must be wrong. … A gay or lesbian person’s public identity, sexual behaviors, romantic relationships, or decisions to raise children are all choices. No theory suggests that these choices are genetic.
Not only is the scientific research that tries to prove an inborn nature to homosexuality questionable, but the researchers also fail to take into account the existence of thousands of former homosexuals. If homosexuality were biologically determined, it would seem impossible for homosexuals to become heterosexual...
Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.
Yvette C. Schneider, a former lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council." ***
------
end
MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL
From reading that I can't help think that the if the idea that individuals are born gay is as false is it so obviously appears to be, surely it only serves to lock homosexuals into some sort of psychophobic nightmare where they are metaphorically pulled apart by any thoughts that question whether they were in fact born gay, or indeed whether they can change their sexuality. Naturally, any such thoughts would instinctively be forced to become suppressed because of widely held assumptions such as the notion that suggests for homosexuals to think anything other than the misguided belief that they are born gay would paradoxically mean they are self-haters, or they are denying themselves their genetic destinies. Thus, the much hyped theory that homosexuals are born gay is recklessly misleading, and could therefore be said to be counter-productive for who think they are innate homosexuals - as it may even lead further delusions about themselves and subsequently the world they live in.
Shouldn't we be at least asking ourselves how as ever it got to the point where those who do not support the assumed and much hyped theory that homosexuality is innate are said to be suffering from a mental illness (homophobia), when there is simply no evidence to support that much hyped theory? Surely such emotive and assumptions accusations are to be viewed with scepticism without any kind of proof to back up them up. You would at least think there would be a clear logical explanation to reason our senses with - without this surely any such claims are to be seen as completely unfounded, and perhaps entirely peculiar under the circumstances.
IDENTIFYING TO COMPARE
Adult sibling who commit incest are also a minority group who are prejudice against, and just like homosexuality, there is no conclusive evidence to support the nature or the nurture theory on why they do what they do (i.e. whether incest it is innate or the result of social conditioning). Should we therefore accept incest as an alternative lifestyle which should be promoted and protected in the same way homosexuality is? Should we have an Incest Museum in London paid for by the tax payer? Should we be teaching our kids education on incestuous relationships? If not, why not? Surely to accept one and not the other would be sexual discrimination.
It appears that merely because scientist were trying to prove homosexuality was innate, that was enough for gay activist to get ahead of themselves. So, using the same logic, shouldn't we be accepting other forms of "sexual deviance", such as incest along side homosexuality and transsexuals just as equally? Surely if we accept the unsubstantiated argument that alleges that homosexuals are born gay, we are morally obliged to accept the same for incest as well, as anything else would be paradoxical and hypocritical sexual discrimination based on the law of the land, instead of the same (flawed) reason and (paradoxical) logic used to make homosexuality acceptable?
For an interesting perspective on incest I strongly recommend you read the following:
An Anarchist Perspective on Incest
by Sarah Valery 9:04pm Sun Apr 25 '04 (Modified on 9:58am Tue Apr 27 '04) article#9986
Why Incest should be decriminalised and promoted in our "society"
Incest is sexual activity between close family members. It is a taboo in most "societies" and a criminal offence by being an impediment to marriage in most countries, as well as being opposed by most modern religions.
But the exact definition of what is a "close family member" varies widely: some jurisdictions consider only those related by birth, others also those related by adoption or marriage; some prohibit relations only with nuclear family members and ancestors or descendants, while others prohibit relations with aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, and cousins as well.
Anthropologists, foolishly, have found that all "societies" place restrictions on who one may marry (for those that belive in marriage). Although "marriage" should not be confused with sex, many societies in the past only permitted sexual relations within the bounds of marriage — hence, their rules regarding marriage were the same as their rules regarding sex.
In some other societies, where sexual relations were permitted outside marriage, persons prohibited to marry were also prohibited to have sex. The most closely related biological kin — parents, children, brothers and sisters — are wrongly but almost universally included.
Most societies also specify rules that encourage and sometimes FORCE marriage within groups, frequently ethnic and religious ones. Even in modern Western societies, individuals consistently express preferences for mates from similar social class and educational backgrounds and attempts to violate this endogamic principle can cause dramatic resistance from the associates of the violators, despite the society's pervasive emphasis on love and individual choice.
In most of the Western world incest generally refers to forbidden sexual relations within the family. However, even here, definitions of family vary. Within the United States, marriage between (first) cousins is illegal in some states, but not in others, and sociologists have classified marriage laws in the United States into two categories.
There is also the much rarer phenomenon of consensual incestuous relations between adults, such as between an adult brother and sister. This is illegal in most places, but these laws are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people (provided the couple have no children) and so should not be criminalized.
Incest may be a form of inbreeding and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. However, Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. First, in many societies partners with whom marriage is forbidden and partners with whom marriage is preferred are equally related in genetic terms; the inbreeding argument would not explain the incest taboo in these societies.
The "inbreeding" argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population. Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals.
As an Anarchist, I strongly support Incest being decriminalised.
I further support it to be promoted and encouraged in schools as part of an alternative to the failed and discredited capitalist falsehood of "marriage" and the grinding hardship and oppression that forced-heterosexuality has created for so many individuals.
The narrow-mindedness and fanaticism of a small section of this world has created many dangerous and unhealthy attitudes.
Incest is NOT taboo.
Incest is something to be cherished, promoted and celebrated.
In Anarchy,
Sarah Valery
http://www.brisbane.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=9986&group=webcast -------
end
Of course, you will realise that I am not proposing normalising incest, I am just using it to point out the glaring paradox.
THE BIG QUESTION
With this in mind I put the question; "Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults", to a UK gay rights group "OutRage!". Unfortunately sensing where I was leading with my question they refused to even answer (and so did other gay people who were following the discussion), even though I repeatedly asked the same question. I even offered them multiple choice answers in this following post to try and get some answers quicker by showing my reasoning:
Q: Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving monogamous relationship?
"No" ---- "Because to accept homosexuality and not incest would be sexual discrimination...?" Are you sure...? I don't think society would not tolerate that. Think again!
"Yes" ---- Well of course!
Then why would you expect heterosexuals not to prejudice against homosexuals when, just like homosexuality, there is no conclusive evidence to support the nature or the nurture theory on whether incest it is innate or the result of social conditioning. After all, they are also in a minority group and are prejudice against by society. What if incest is innate and homosexuality isn't? We don't know for sure, do we? And on the surface, incest certainly seems more likely to be genetic, seeing as it obviously occurs in families..!
Surely the truth is, with the jury being out equally on both homosexuality and incest, to accept one into your culture and not the other would be hypocritical sexual discrimination based on the law of the land, instead of the same (flawed) reason and (paradoxical) argument given for accepting homosexuality? Using the same logic as gay rights activists, aren't the LGBT morally obligated to add the letter 'I' to it's acronym to protect and promote incest as well as lesbians gays, bisexuals and transsexuals, in order to avoid hypocrisy?
If you are morally happy to prejudice against incest, perhaps heterosexuals don't have to accept homosexuality either. Maybe the idea of a Gay Museum to a lot of people is just as offensive as would be an Incest Museum to most people. Perhaps therefore we shouldn't even consider teaching other peoples kids education on homosexuality after all ? Think about it objectively. Why would heterosexuals accept the teaching of homosexuality, and not incest. (unless they were being bullied into it using the paradox that is 'political correctness gone mad'.)
Hence, people do evidently have just as much moral right to object to homosexuality as they do incest.
And bizarre as it may seem, using the same fuzzy logic of gay rights activists, those who commit incest have precisely the same moral right (but not legal right - which actually means they are discriminated against more than gays!!) to parade down a high street near you, flaunting their alternative sexuality as "normal", whilst campaigning for kids to be educated on the normality of incestuous relationships, and using all sorts of subversive methods to achieve their objectives along the way, which not only deliberately antagonize, but show a total disregard for anyone else's beliefs and opinions.
How do you feel about that.....?
-------
end
DENIAL
Perhaps not that surprisingly I still have not had any reply, even though I posted the question to Peter Tachell and Brett Lock from "OutRage!" in a comment attached to an article called "Queering Palestinian Solidarity Activism" written by Yoshie Furuhashi (08.06.04). Although I never got a answer, Peter Tachell has responded to Yoshie Furuhashi. In his response Tachell wrote: "freedom for Palestine must be freedom for everyone". I immediately took my opportunity to ask the following question:
"Does that mean abandoning the fear of incest as well as homosexuality, "to create a truly liberated nation based on human rights for all" ? Because, to quote Brett Lock: "By what moral compass do you determine that one example of persecution is "less of an issue" than another ?". "
Again, even though I used Peter Tatchell's own words to clearly contradict his colleagues Brett Lock wrote (and vice versa), I have had no reply to this question - they simply refuse to answer. I think that silence speaks far louder that maybe they realise. Feel free to judge for yourselves:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/292987.html CONDENSING LOGIC
I suppose when you really get down to it there seems to be two types of people in the world, those who see nothing morally wrong in the idea of having sex with a family member --- and those who do! Which begs the question, why are some people so ready to accept the idea of having sex with a family member? Could it just be attitude? I don't see why not. There are many cultures that permitted the practice of incest, including the Polynesians. Is it so ridiculous to think it could it be because the idea has somehow been normalised to them, through some sort of socialisation process? If so why would homosexuality be any different? Could it just simply be because they are "special"...?
One must presume that because incest is a criminal offence and therefore patently discriminated against, OutRage will be challenging the law, to prevent further discrimination. Anything else would contradict itself (as I predicted), and would therefore be highly hypocritical, and if reputation is anything to go by, highly unlikely. The general public should at least be aware that with the support of OutRage, those who commit incest have precisely the same moral right to parade down a high street near you, flaunting their alternative sexuality as "normal", whilst campaigning for kids to be educated on the normality of incestuous relationships, and using all sorts of subversive methods to achieve their objectives along the way, which not only deliberately antagonize, but show a total disregard for anyone else's beliefs and opinions...
WHAT TO DO?
After reading this I hope you will agree that it is time for people to ask themselves if they really want to live in a world that normalises homosexuality to our children? And if you are, you still happy to live that world that would be deemed openly hypocritical unless it accepts incest as well as lesbians, gays bi-sexual and transsexuals as all having equal right to heterosexuals? If we do, we could be opening the door to a world where the vulnerability of our children would be put in severe jeopardy. Child abuse is defined as any act of omission or commission that endangers or impairs a child's physical / psychological / emotional health and development. Children are everyone's responsibility. If and adult discovers a child is being abused or at risk of this happening, he or she should do all they can to stop the abuse. Children have the right to a safe and nurturing environment. If you don't want to live in a world that shows such utter contempt for it's children (and lets face who would), I recomend you raise this issue with as many as you can, post this groups and people you know, write to as many politicians, journalist, social thinkers and other influential individuals as possible, and the ask the question:
"Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving monogamous relationship? (fill in with bits from above - compare with lesbians, gays bi-sexual and transsexuals) Then add; If you find you are not able to answer the question, please could you pass it on the relevant people so that it can be answered clearly and fully." But remember, the whole point is not so much to get a satisfactory answer from writing one letter - it is to raise the awareness of this issue by simply asking the question, over and over again. WE need to get this issue out in the open before we inadvertently open the door to what could very well lead to a hidden epidemic of child sex abuse - because as I'm sure you are probably be aware there would be a very grey area between incest and child sex abuse. For example, can a 60 year old dad *ever* ethically have sex with his 16 year old daughter - at what point did they start courting..?
I honestly don't think some people who support OutRage! realise they are supporting incest as well as homosexuality. People have a right to know precisely what it is they are supporting. If incest is legalised using precisely the same flawed reason and paradoxical argument that has been used for homosexuality we may not be able to stop a great many abuses from happening within our society, because logically if incest was legal it could open the door to an epidemic of child sex abuse. Would such a society nurture children into adulthood with the appropriate behaviour for them to thrive - or would many succumb to what society deems, criminal, anti-social or deviant behaviour?
Is this what you want for the future of our society? Because only you can stop it happening.
DO THE RIGHT THING - START FIGHTING BACK !
Sincerely,
Paul Lynch
PS - I decided to use my real name because someone called "Al" (whose job it appears is to pervert..) seems to have already worked out who I am, and subsequently I thought better let everyone know seeing as "Al" obviously does - just in case you read about me in the obituaries that is... Well, that might sound far-fetched, but surely it's a screwed up world when the "liars, deviants and cheats"(sic) seem to be the only ones winning. Having said that, and having grown up in an environment where your either a "faggot or a fighter" (sic) I have learnt (from a young age..) that empty threats make the most noise, and subsequently I see them nothing more that brainless intimidation techniques to try and stop me putting something like this together. No doubt, if I had been brought up in a different environment I wouldn't have..!
Paul Lynch
Comments
Display the following 2 comments