I’m a Homo Saipan too

Gays enjoy the freedom of association with many heterosexuals, who also desire an association with gays. Some heterosexuals are uncomfortable around homosexuals and choose not to associate with them, as is their right. Some homosexuals are uncomfortable, to a lesser extent, been associated with heterosexuals, and limit their association with heterosexuals. This is inherent in our universal freedom of association.

Approval. Freedom of thought enables any person to think what they wish. There are many heterosexuals who will never approve of the homosexual lifestyle. That is their unqualified right to do so. It not make them good or bad, right or wrong, it’s just the exercise of individual freedom of thought.

During my four-year experimentation on the homeless people in Laguna Beach, California, I came to know many homeless individuals very well. Many of whom, have severe problems such as drug abuse, alcoholism, and mental disorders.

One individual, Gabriel, was a local Laguna Beach resident. He lived in local section 8 housing, is gay, and has AIDS and diabetes. He is a couple of years older than I. We both have lived over the same time span. We could discuss things going back 60 years, and it became an enjoyable thing to do. He is gay and I am Christian. He is not a sexual predator. He does not hit on minors. He is neither an alcoholic or a drug abuser. I enjoyed many times discussing politics, especially during the Trump Harris political season. Over a couple of years, Gabriel became my dear friend. He had difficulty making ends meats. Every week, I would deliver to Gabriel, at his apartment, a box of food to help him as a dear friend.

I chose to associate with Gabriel, exercising my freedom of association. However, I would never approve of his lifestyle or his homosexuality, exercising my freedom of thought. Gabriel knew that I did not approve of his lifestyle, but it did not stop us from being good friends.

When heterosexuals bash gays and call them names, they are wrong, by not respecting their fellow countrymen. When homosexuals force association and thought upon heterosexuals, they are likewise wrong.

The homosexual community disrespected the heterosexual community by insisting upon association and normalization, particularly in the family law courts. The homosexual community does not fully appreciate the damage that they have done to their cause by insisting upon the public right of gay marriage.

The state has no legitimate state interest in promoting the lifestyle of individuals who cannot possibly procreate the next generation of taxpayers. The family law courts exist primarily to prevent children from becoming public charges.

I fear that the insistence upon gay marriages in the heterosexual family law courts will give rise to animosity and hatred of homosexuals. I would advise that gay marriage laws be repealed to promote domestic tranquility.

We, as a nation, no longer bust down the doors of homosexuals committing sodomy as a crime. As a nation, we have come to tolerate and civilly interact with the homosexual community. The heterosexual community culturally evolved to give homosexuals tolerance and civility. But what the heterosexual community got in returned was disrespect from the homosexual community, forcing their lifestyle into their association and thought of heterosexuals by insisting upon state sponsored gay marriages. This was a big mistake.

The civil law courts are set up to enforce contracts. Any two homosexuals can enter into a contract that could be named a marriage contract, where two homosexuals agree to share income, expenses, property, and mutual support. Such contracts are enforceable. Homosexuals did not need to invade the family law courts, and inject their lifestyles into the domain of the heterosexual family law courts. So great is the desire by homosexuals to gain acceptance and association, that they are not entitled to, by heterosexual community, that they overreached and disrespected the heterosexual community, leading to contempt and hatred of the homosexual community, thereby diminishing domestic tranquility.

Professor Jordan B Peterson is a clinical psychologist and a professor in Canada. He is a world renowned author and lecturer. He describes agreeability as a defining difference between men and women.

Both sexes have a normal distribution of agreeability. The normal curve for women has a higher Q function than men and shifted towards agreeability. That is to say that the normal distribution for men is flatter than for women and shifted towards disagreeability. Three Sigma males are extremely disagreeable on one end and extremely agreeable on the other end.

The two normal curves of agreeability between men and women is also displaced, so that a random selection of a man and a woman would provide a 60% chance that the woman is more agreeable than the man, and that the man is more disagreeable than woman. There are men with three Sigma extreme disagreeability that exceed nearly all women. This is why there are many more men in prison than women.

Some men at three Sigma of agreeability tend to be gay men. Some women with three Sigma disagreeability tend to be masculine and lesbian.

The three Sigma agreeability of men tend to produce gay men, and the three Sigma disagreeability of women tend to produce lesbians. Agreeability and disagreeability can be substantially affected by cultural exposures.

Agreeability and disagreeability is culturally affected and not fixed as an immutable characteristic and not absolutely defining an immutable characteristic. The Supreme Court error when ruling that lesbian and homosexual people have immutable characteristics so as to warrant constitutional protection for sexual preferences and orientation, as the agreeability is not fixed in any individual, but in a tendency, a probability.

This sexual orientation ruling was wrong as was the  Roe v. Wade ruling was wrong.  Both decisions were a consequence of progressive activism applying pressure upon the court. Conservatives should challenge the ruling in the supreme court and have the decision over ruled.

In the interaction between straight and gay individuals, there is a four point approach.. The four points are tolerance, civility, association and approval.

Tolerance is the prohibition against violence such as gay bashing.

Civility is common courtesy due all persons, such as good morning, how are you, and, have a good day.

Association is a freedom of association, where individuals select with whom they associate. Approval is freedom of thought. A Christian man, for example, may have association with a gay man, as merely friends, even though the Christian man will never approve of the gay lifestyle. It is the freedom of thought that the progressive fascists find objectionable because they cannot control the freedom of thought of others. The next best thing the progressive fascists could do was invade the province of the family law courts to normalize homosexual lifestyles. Hence, the invasion of the family law courts.

The invasion of the family law court with gay marriages was an attempt by the gay community to seek general approval of their lifestyles, having nothing to do with children. The heterosexual family is the bedrock strength of any society and should not be corrupted with exposure to alternative life styles. Nor should children be indoctrinated with alternative life styles under parental exclusive right to orient their children who need protection from exposure to the gay community.

Any couple can agree by civil contract to live together and share all between themselves, and seek adjudication In the civil law courts. There was no need or justification to invade the province of the family law courts. The invasion was unwarranted, and was done for the purpose of gaining general approval by the population at large. The state has no legitimate interest in promoting the lifestyles of individuals who do not procreate the next generation of taxpayers. Conservatives should challenge gay marriages in state courts to have them repealed.

The ruling of preferences is a bastardization of the US Constitution by political judges making stuff up defiling their oaths to protect and defend the constitution. It starts of course in the confirmation hearings that are not about qualifications but about political ideologies. The hearings have become a disgusting three ring circus. The democrat progressive fascists and the republican pretentious conservatives are to blame, for injecting political ideology into the confirmation process.