Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
"The Enemies of 'Extremism'" by Ayn Rand
In this 1964 radio interview, Ayn Rand responds to questions about the use of the term “extremism” in political discourse. Rand rejects “extremism” as an undefined term used to smear and discredit one’s opponent without evidence, analyzing several instances of the term’s use in presidential politics. Rand discusses why the term “extremism” is really an attack on consistency of principles, how presidential candidate Barry Goldwater could have defended himself against smears leveled at him, and why it is important to evaluate individuals and movements based on their ideas.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Come Dine With Me and assumptions of gayness.
I want to start off this article by stating that I am against bigotry and prejudice towards people based on some sort of assumed collective label one is given by society. I want no one whom reads this to think I am anyway homphobic or even biphobic. I wrote another article similar to this previously about assumptions of orientation on a game show from the UK. This too is about a series that began in the UK, but, was extended worldwide that would be the cooking/reality show Come Dine With Me.
As much as I enjoy the series in most of its incarnations I have noticed something very annoying. The assumption of male contestants sexuality based on stereotypes and pre-existing assumptions about men in general. For some reason if a man is a "pretty boy" he is assumed to be gay. If someone is fashionable he is assumed to be gay. If a man makes the amazingly crazy decision to wear pink to the dinner he is assumed to be gay. In all of these examples each man turned out to be 100% heterosexual and in certain cases to be married with children.
Yet, each of these people were assumed to be gay based on stereotypes about maleness vs femaleness. Each of them handled the accusations of being gay very well. None of them freaked out, but, they did all assert they were straight when asked. The idea that these people was automatically gay based on their ways of expressing their manhood is very annoying. It is also very sad that people must be gay to express themselves in the way they did.
I say every dude that is hetero, but, mistaken to be gay should declare if asked the truth in a compassionate, but, powerful way. They should not be afraid to push back assertively the truth if their truth is questioned. Do not be a douche, but, do not let people disrespect you by not accepting your orientation or preferences. Nor should a straight man be afraid to be a pretty boy or wear pink. Do not let society label you with an identity that is not true for you. Express you manhood your way and rock on.
Confessions of an Ex-Anarcho-Libertarian
It was the year 2012, I lived on University Avenue and I was an anarchocapitalist. It was something I was very proud of at the time because I thought it was the most logical conclusion of the libertarian non-coercion principle. For those whom do not know what anarchocapitalism is it is a wing of the libertarian movement which thinks the ultimate end goal of libertarianism is a stateless society. The reason for needing to get rid of the state is because all states by being monopolies backed by coercion are morally illegitimate. Thus statelessness is the end goal to an AnCap and not just a limited government.
However, before you think I was in favor of something I was not let me explain what I had considered a stateless society or Anarchic-Capitalism to look like. It was not what some people whom use the terminology anarcho-capitalism might use it to mean. My vision of what this world looked like will also explain why I was so easily persuaded by what would be considered the traditional Auberon Herbert "Volumtaryist Creed." The original Voluntaryism was not anarchistic, but, instead was a term for a radical advocate for limited government against all forms of initiating coercion. Limited Government Libertarians and Objectivism in politics are the modern incarnations closest to the original Voluntaryism.
Amarchocapitalism to me did not mean as some use it now a market in law creation based on peoples whims. It did not mean a subjectivist wet dream or chaos creators dream environment. Anarchocapitalism meant to me a world where no state existed, but, in its place was an objective agreed to libertarian legal code. This code would be objective and mandatory to follow with laws that if broken were punishable using retaliatory force. I was essentially for a completely private and stateless world, but, not for a lawless one. What I was for was for was the privatization of everything that moves and everything that does not move (as it was worded by Walter Block). However, it being done under the coordination of a libertarian legal code. It would have laws all private entities would need to follow, but, not enforced by a state enforced by private police, courts and so forth.
However, said private entities would not be able to do whatever they wanted. It would be reigned in by said libertarian legal code. Which would include things like making pollution based externalizations being considered infringements on the individual rights of other people that would be affected by it. Pollution would be treated as an invasion of all of your neighbors property rights and dealt with accordingly. Once again though there would be no state no one entity with a monopoly backed by the use of initiatory coercion. Instead all of the laws would be enforced and agreed upon by all private entities involved. If you did not want to agree or if you broke them you would be dealt with accordingly. However, you would be enforced to act accordingly by all the other entities that did agree with the law code and it would be these other entities that you would need to deal with.
It was this always supporting a Mono-Centric and agreed upon legal code that helped lead me out of anarcho-libertarianism and back into minarchism. It led me to rethink if a world without a government to enforce the legal code on others would be able to make people fall into line with not harming others or their property. After all in a world without such an entity could you really expect the numerous private cops, courts and such to police other same entities on the market? What if not enough entities agreed to the legal code? What if some agreed and others did not at such high amounts it caused civil wars in the streets between policing companies?
Then I discovered Objectivism and that helped me discover minarchism could be completely consistent with the defense of individual rights. In fact, in between that and doing further reading I realized it was the only way to consistently enforce the non-harm of people or property on a large scale. Governments are required for enforcing the very libertarian legal code Murray Rothbard said would need to exist to have a libertarian world. However, I still have an ideal of a free society that has not changed at all. I just have a different vision of what that entails. My views are along the lines of the traditional "Voluntaryists Creed." In fact, all Objectivists in their politics would fall into the creed of that classic document of human liberty. Even if you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on egoism and selfishness on politics her ideal end state is very similar to Auberon Herbert.
In the end I never changed having a political and economical moral code based on non-initiation of harm or coercion. I simply discovered my methods to getting there would not really defend the individual human rights I was an AnCap to spread to the world. The reason I changed my mind is because I am serious about peaceful and voluntary life. Anarchism I found could not create and maintain a free, peaceful and prosperous society for all. However, my current form of radical minarchism if you will is a more realistic and possible path to that end goal of freedom for all peaceful people.
However, before you think I was in favor of something I was not let me explain what I had considered a stateless society or Anarchic-Capitalism to look like. It was not what some people whom use the terminology anarcho-capitalism might use it to mean. My vision of what this world looked like will also explain why I was so easily persuaded by what would be considered the traditional Auberon Herbert "Volumtaryist Creed." The original Voluntaryism was not anarchistic, but, instead was a term for a radical advocate for limited government against all forms of initiating coercion. Limited Government Libertarians and Objectivism in politics are the modern incarnations closest to the original Voluntaryism.
Amarchocapitalism to me did not mean as some use it now a market in law creation based on peoples whims. It did not mean a subjectivist wet dream or chaos creators dream environment. Anarchocapitalism meant to me a world where no state existed, but, in its place was an objective agreed to libertarian legal code. This code would be objective and mandatory to follow with laws that if broken were punishable using retaliatory force. I was essentially for a completely private and stateless world, but, not for a lawless one. What I was for was for was the privatization of everything that moves and everything that does not move (as it was worded by Walter Block). However, it being done under the coordination of a libertarian legal code. It would have laws all private entities would need to follow, but, not enforced by a state enforced by private police, courts and so forth.
However, said private entities would not be able to do whatever they wanted. It would be reigned in by said libertarian legal code. Which would include things like making pollution based externalizations being considered infringements on the individual rights of other people that would be affected by it. Pollution would be treated as an invasion of all of your neighbors property rights and dealt with accordingly. Once again though there would be no state no one entity with a monopoly backed by the use of initiatory coercion. Instead all of the laws would be enforced and agreed upon by all private entities involved. If you did not want to agree or if you broke them you would be dealt with accordingly. However, you would be enforced to act accordingly by all the other entities that did agree with the law code and it would be these other entities that you would need to deal with.
It was this always supporting a Mono-Centric and agreed upon legal code that helped lead me out of anarcho-libertarianism and back into minarchism. It led me to rethink if a world without a government to enforce the legal code on others would be able to make people fall into line with not harming others or their property. After all in a world without such an entity could you really expect the numerous private cops, courts and such to police other same entities on the market? What if not enough entities agreed to the legal code? What if some agreed and others did not at such high amounts it caused civil wars in the streets between policing companies?
Then I discovered Objectivism and that helped me discover minarchism could be completely consistent with the defense of individual rights. In fact, in between that and doing further reading I realized it was the only way to consistently enforce the non-harm of people or property on a large scale. Governments are required for enforcing the very libertarian legal code Murray Rothbard said would need to exist to have a libertarian world. However, I still have an ideal of a free society that has not changed at all. I just have a different vision of what that entails. My views are along the lines of the traditional "Voluntaryists Creed." In fact, all Objectivists in their politics would fall into the creed of that classic document of human liberty. Even if you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on egoism and selfishness on politics her ideal end state is very similar to Auberon Herbert.
In the end I never changed having a political and economical moral code based on non-initiation of harm or coercion. I simply discovered my methods to getting there would not really defend the individual human rights I was an AnCap to spread to the world. The reason I changed my mind is because I am serious about peaceful and voluntary life. Anarchism I found could not create and maintain a free, peaceful and prosperous society for all. However, my current form of radical minarchism if you will is a more realistic and possible path to that end goal of freedom for all peaceful people.
Dancing is not at all non-conforming nor Gender Queer in anyway. Dancing really is a Man's Game!
One of the metrics in the studies on non-conforming or so-called gender queerness in men; AKA gay traits is actually of all things dancing. One of a few metrics that are considered non-conforming in studies to which I facepalm and shake my head. The claim is that dancing is an "effeminate" trait and thus makes one gender queer or homosexual typical/gaydar inducing, This makes no sense to me at all and is counter to all of ones personal experience of men that do dance. The human experience is filled in our history with men whom were not effete whom danced and also sang as well.
One of the biggest names in this history is Gene Kelly whom famously said in his day, "dancing is a man's game." The truth is that men have been dancing since time immemorial and at no time have these men dancing been considered effete or "Queer." In fact, women love a man that can dance with them. Men that dance show how well they move which is often very sensual and ones dancing style can tell a woman a lot about how that man will partner with them in the bedroom. Dancing as Gene Kelly mentioned is also a form of athleticism.
How dancing became associated with men being womanly or associated with gayness, or with being effete is beyond me. The truth is there is nothing more traditionally part of the heterosexual mating game than cutting a rug with your woman. Was Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing being queer and a fag? Or somehow being non-conforming to having a penis and testicles? I do not think so. How about Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Danny Key? Clark Gable in his musicals? Carey Grant in his musicals? Gays do not own dancing in anyway at all. "Queer" is not at all a word that describes men dancing in anyway either.
Dancing is a human thing and it is not an effete thing at all. No man should feel less than for loving to move on the dance floor; nor should they feel less than for loving to sing along with it. This also connects to the odd idea that musical theater is gay, queer and effete for young boys or grown man. Once again dancing is a form of athleticism it just does not use a bat or a ball. It uses the body and a solid dance floor. It uses sometimes props which are associated with the dance this is the dancers own bat and ball. People whom classify this as non-conforming behavior in metrics for studies need to have their head examined.
No young boy whom likes dancing should be labeled as pre-gay children. Nor should they be labeled as gender variant or queer or pre-trans or effete in anyway at all. Nor should boys whom like to be singers be considered effete or pre-gay or anything. These things are not unmanly and these things are not to be attempted to be pushed out of a person. Let people be and let men enjoy singing/dancing to their hearts content.
One of the biggest names in this history is Gene Kelly whom famously said in his day, "dancing is a man's game." The truth is that men have been dancing since time immemorial and at no time have these men dancing been considered effete or "Queer." In fact, women love a man that can dance with them. Men that dance show how well they move which is often very sensual and ones dancing style can tell a woman a lot about how that man will partner with them in the bedroom. Dancing as Gene Kelly mentioned is also a form of athleticism.
How dancing became associated with men being womanly or associated with gayness, or with being effete is beyond me. The truth is there is nothing more traditionally part of the heterosexual mating game than cutting a rug with your woman. Was Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing being queer and a fag? Or somehow being non-conforming to having a penis and testicles? I do not think so. How about Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Danny Key? Clark Gable in his musicals? Carey Grant in his musicals? Gays do not own dancing in anyway at all. "Queer" is not at all a word that describes men dancing in anyway either.
Dancing is a human thing and it is not an effete thing at all. No man should feel less than for loving to move on the dance floor; nor should they feel less than for loving to sing along with it. This also connects to the odd idea that musical theater is gay, queer and effete for young boys or grown man. Once again dancing is a form of athleticism it just does not use a bat or a ball. It uses the body and a solid dance floor. It uses sometimes props which are associated with the dance this is the dancers own bat and ball. People whom classify this as non-conforming behavior in metrics for studies need to have their head examined.
No young boy whom likes dancing should be labeled as pre-gay children. Nor should they be labeled as gender variant or queer or pre-trans or effete in anyway at all. Nor should boys whom like to be singers be considered effete or pre-gay or anything. These things are not unmanly and these things are not to be attempted to be pushed out of a person. Let people be and let men enjoy singing/dancing to their hearts content.
Some food for thought on traditionalism
I wanted to make a defense of some forms of traditionalism. I am not saying every single tradition that exists is good on its face of it. Neither am I saying one can dismiss something because it is a tradition. There are different traditions and some are not good.
For example; the tradition that men are disposable and thus their health physical or mental is not a matter of concern. This is one tradition we can let go of in my opinion.
However, there is a saying about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In an effort to modernize some things from the past.
Traditional masculine roles which are based on physical differences include protection and provision. It is not a social construct that makes so many men heroes saving the day in real life or their dreams. It is a very real desire to be the remains of the soldier, warrior, and the defender of the tribe. Which distills into more modern defense of one's loved ones and not just a "collectivist tribe."
This is also why one gets so many "damsel in distress" story lines and arch-types throughout human history. Men are literally programmed in their wet wear to step in to help women and children. As well as to fight to defend those whom are psychologically put into the "in group," which replaces our ancestors tribes. It is also why so many men will jump on the feminist band wagon and be white knights.
The desire to protect needs to be meted with reason, rationality and evidence of need for protection. As well as whether said individual has the ability to defend themselves. As does the desire to provide for someone else also need this tapering. For men can literally be manipulated into giving and giving using this innate tendency.
Similarly monogamy has biological roots as well. Monogamy is the way for a species to know whom has which children. Not all people are monogamous, but, that does not mean that there is no biological component to those whom are. Particularly with women; monogamy guarantees familial ties to the children. As well as insuring a woman's protection via their man.
This too can be dangerous if you are monogamous in a world of people that simply want cheap thrills. It can mean that one gets attached to someone whom simply wanted a night of fun. So, it is best often times to guard ones emotions in this day and age from being harmed. Pair bonding is a well known phenomenon in our species.
Traditions of femininity based on mothering natures are also based in biology as well. Just like men's masculine nature has natural fathering within it. There is a natural different, but, complimentary nature to both sexes. Of course, there is also human universal in both sexes as well.
The point is that traditionalism and traditions are not the same thing. One can see the value in some traditions without seeing value in all of them.
Although, it must be said that to consider traditionalism to be equal to some evil nefarious force is also as inane as any other collectivist view of people. Traditionalism whether or not I am one is not harmful if it is not forced onto others. The answer lies in the words, free, voluntary and consensual.
Is Selfishness a Virtue? A Debate With Yaron Brook and Gene Epstein.
It comes across very ignorant on Yaron's part to interchange the common usage of Altruism with the philosophical Altruism of Auguste Comte that Ayn Rand was against.
Selfishness in common language is not the same thing as Ayn Rand's definition used in Objectivism. Also, his constent Christian bashing is also uncalled for when the debate is not pertaining to the metaphysical aspect of his philosophy.
At times Yaron and Gene both seem to be talking at different levels from each other. Yaron also makes Ayn Rand look bad when he bad mouthed human compassion and empathy. Something which Ms. Rand never called evil in her philosophy.
In the end I side with Gene that agreeing with Rand's definitions of things is not a requirement to a robust moral defense of Capitalism.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Friday, March 27, 2020
Not ashamed to be a Evangelical Christian Universalist
As I lay here in my bed isolated from social recreation people in my past come to mind. People whom would think I am gone mad. When the shoe is on the other foot I realize how biased against Faith I used too be.
I would like to address my beliefs for readers in some detail. I believe The Bible is the authoritative, inherent, infallible Word of God. However, English is not the languages of the original scripture and misconceptions/miscopies exist. This is why one needs to know the exegesis of the Bible to know what is truly being said by God in his word.
This makes me an Evangelical Christian, but, I am also a Universalist as well as mentioned in previous posts.
I take seriously God's Word that Jesus paid all the price for sin on the cross. Everyone when they pass on from here are purified through Jesus work on the cross and will end up reconciled to God in his kingdom which we call Heaven.
However, some would say there is no evidence for any of my views. I disagree it was the depth of evidence which I overlooked as an atheist that shows me I am right. Call me having gone bonkers I do not care. Jesus Christ is all of ours Lord and Savior even if you call his followers nuts.
I would like to address my beliefs for readers in some detail. I believe The Bible is the authoritative, inherent, infallible Word of God. However, English is not the languages of the original scripture and misconceptions/miscopies exist. This is why one needs to know the exegesis of the Bible to know what is truly being said by God in his word.
This makes me an Evangelical Christian, but, I am also a Universalist as well as mentioned in previous posts.
I take seriously God's Word that Jesus paid all the price for sin on the cross. Everyone when they pass on from here are purified through Jesus work on the cross and will end up reconciled to God in his kingdom which we call Heaven.
However, some would say there is no evidence for any of my views. I disagree it was the depth of evidence which I overlooked as an atheist that shows me I am right. Call me having gone bonkers I do not care. Jesus Christ is all of ours Lord and Savior even if you call his followers nuts.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Monday, March 23, 2020
Sunday, March 22, 2020
Confessions of a Climate Change Realist
Not only that, but, the vast majority of climate alterations is not even human caused. There is much more natural influence on the overall climate as part of Earths climate cycle than humans. Water Vapor is the most important greenhouse gas for alterations in Earths climate along with various sunspot and solar cycles. Man-Made CO2 pales in comparison to the effects of all the natural inputs on the Earths climate sensitivity. In fact, the Earth has been in a cooling phase since around 1998. Where it is either cooled or stayed the same with a complete stop in Global Warming overall. Even the Met Office in the UK had mentioned this at one point.
I not only find no climate catastrophe, but, find very little credible evidence for the climate changing by very much at all since around 2000. Not when you look at all the actual satellites minus the computer models biases. It shows clearly there is no issue and the globe is not changing the way it was thought to be within the broader scheme of things.
Which is a pity really because as we are in fact still in an Inter-glacial Period historically we should be pumping much more CO2 into our cooled down atmosphere to make it warmer than it is now. I say far from dissing the Oil Sands we should be looking for more of them all over the West. Dig, find that black gold and stop feeding the Saudi Arabians that support the likes of ISIS.
CO2 is a necessary element of life and it is NOT a pollutant it is food for this Earth and its organisms. Not only that, but, fossil fuels help make it so we can have all the wonderful things that help us survive. Including helping to run life saving medicines, schools and all of our homes. I love fossil fuels and I also think we should be using more Nuclear Energy too. Wind cannot sustain the infrastructure of a major city. We need actual fuel like fossil fuel and nuclear energy.
The point is the environment lobby really only looks at studies they do themselves or that proves them right. They never look at all the studies or all the research and see what is really out in the science. Only viewing studies to see they agree with you is not scientific and nor is it reasonable. I look at all kinds of sources for my information and go by what I find.
I do not just go by one or two sources. We are in a lot of ways in one of the most clean generations of this Earth and we are not in an apocalypse things are good right now. People are just too blinded with BS information, myths, lies and downright stupidity. To paraphrase John Stossel's old special name.
Relax the world is fine, the world is not ending and it is not as horrid as your worried wort negative thinking wants it too be. We are all too many of us seeing only the bad and often wrong stories. We do not see how we are living even for all the crap in one of the best times to be alive for so many reasons. Lighten up people and enjoy life. We only got one, so, live it while you can and quit worrying that the world is ending. It is not, it is just your primate wetware mind needing a boogeyman to fight.
"Does The Bible Have Errors?" by Dr. Norman Geisler
Whenever you find an error in the Scriptures it is from mistranslation and misinterpretation not because the Scriptures are not the word of God. Copying errors are not Gospel errors or Bible errors, but, human errors. An exegesis of the bible in original languages fixes any inconsistencies found in the many english bible translations that you find at churches or the book store.
Saturday, March 21, 2020
My Sexual Journey in and out of the GB community
When I was 19 I began identifying as bisexual after my experiences being raped by one Ivan Pjanic this was due to two different aspects of the experience. One being my reaction climaxing during unwanted anal and oral penetration. The other that I was curious about what the experience would be like to receive oral pleasure when the topic was brought up by the young man that would become my rapist.
Prior to meeting Ivan Pjanic I never once thought of being with another male in a sexual situation. One day he mentioned that he had some thoughts about us being sexually active and he began getting me to get off while he watched on camera.
It was not until I moved out to BC that I both first experimented with him giving me oral sex and then was raped afterwards. I have gone into details in a previous article series.
I was literally groomed into the LGB community by influence of a cunning, well manipulating grooming of a bicurious sexual predator. When I got back to PEI I met yet another groomer and predator that was known for using, brainwashing and manipulating guys into the G and milking their new identity for all it was worth.
He struck when his prey was at his most vulnerable in my case when my first girlfriend had left me. I was brainwashed by a book as well. A book by the name of "Coming Out to yourself." A book that gets you to repeat to yourself you are gay in mirrors and such mind numbing things. Essentially self brainwashing.
Having swallowed Keegan's kool aid and also having brainwashed myself into thinking my experiences were indicative of being gay I began to affirm and live a gay life.
However, something was negging in the back of my mind and there were numerous times I would imagine myself with a woman despite all the grooming and the continued affirmations of not being into the opposite sex.
So, I went from the G to the B once again, but, overtime my mind and my genitalia were no longer interested in men. My manhood literally was becoming completely flaccid towards men and my sexuality was changing overtime. I was becoming no longer B either. Instead I was becoming totally heterosexual I became straight.
On my 30th Birthday I came out to a select group of trusted people as being neither B or G and not part of said community after all. I came out as Straight and 100% heterosexual. I am one of the many people whom had found themselves being heterosexual as I got into my 30s whom used identify as bisexual or homosexual. Through natural change overtime as we got older.
I am myself proof of the fluidity and flexibility nature of sexual orientation and that change from a GB to a heterosexual does happen and can happen. I am not alone by far most people in all large sized longitudinal studies of same sex attraction lose their attractions for mostly or completely opposite sex attraction by their 30's cross both of the sexes. Without any sort of therapeutic aspect at all or bigotry or self-phobia or anything of the kind.
In my case I was part of the local Rainbow board that put on local events. I even represented LGB people and PEI Pride in the Halifax Pride parade one year. I support now as always individuals right to sexual autonomy and oppose any measures to force or coerce people to change their sexual orientation or preferences.
Prior to meeting Ivan Pjanic I never once thought of being with another male in a sexual situation. One day he mentioned that he had some thoughts about us being sexually active and he began getting me to get off while he watched on camera.
It was not until I moved out to BC that I both first experimented with him giving me oral sex and then was raped afterwards. I have gone into details in a previous article series.
I was literally groomed into the LGB community by influence of a cunning, well manipulating grooming of a bicurious sexual predator. When I got back to PEI I met yet another groomer and predator that was known for using, brainwashing and manipulating guys into the G and milking their new identity for all it was worth.
He struck when his prey was at his most vulnerable in my case when my first girlfriend had left me. I was brainwashed by a book as well. A book by the name of "Coming Out to yourself." A book that gets you to repeat to yourself you are gay in mirrors and such mind numbing things. Essentially self brainwashing.
Having swallowed Keegan's kool aid and also having brainwashed myself into thinking my experiences were indicative of being gay I began to affirm and live a gay life.
However, something was negging in the back of my mind and there were numerous times I would imagine myself with a woman despite all the grooming and the continued affirmations of not being into the opposite sex.
So, I went from the G to the B once again, but, overtime my mind and my genitalia were no longer interested in men. My manhood literally was becoming completely flaccid towards men and my sexuality was changing overtime. I was becoming no longer B either. Instead I was becoming totally heterosexual I became straight.
On my 30th Birthday I came out to a select group of trusted people as being neither B or G and not part of said community after all. I came out as Straight and 100% heterosexual. I am one of the many people whom had found themselves being heterosexual as I got into my 30s whom used identify as bisexual or homosexual. Through natural change overtime as we got older.
I am myself proof of the fluidity and flexibility nature of sexual orientation and that change from a GB to a heterosexual does happen and can happen. I am not alone by far most people in all large sized longitudinal studies of same sex attraction lose their attractions for mostly or completely opposite sex attraction by their 30's cross both of the sexes. Without any sort of therapeutic aspect at all or bigotry or self-phobia or anything of the kind.
In my case I was part of the local Rainbow board that put on local events. I even represented LGB people and PEI Pride in the Halifax Pride parade one year. I support now as always individuals right to sexual autonomy and oppose any measures to force or coerce people to change their sexual orientation or preferences.
Friday, March 20, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)