I don't like using the term "straight" for non-homosexual people but I'll use it anyway since we are not supposed to make a technical meaning of these terms.
It just happened that I was reading a news article while waiting for my ordered breakfast at a restaurant near my house in Canada. It was about a high school teen in America convicted of shooting a homosexual schoolmate in the head and killing him.
According to the report, the family of the dead school mate "could not forgive" the shooter. At first glance I thought it a case of an extreme homophobic ready to express his anti-gay beliefs with violence. But there was more to it as I read on.
The shooter claimed that the gay made sexual proposals and advances to him. This is the only defense claim that was mentioned in the news report other than the shooter's lawyer claiming his client was sorry for the crime.
As I mentioned in another posting of mine, I am no advocate of violence other than for defensive purposes. I also don't sympathize with people who provoke violence as much with those who were directly or indirectly compelled into committing it.
In the case of the convicted defendant, it does appear as if he was pressured into reacting violently if what he claims is true. Who would be stupid enough to surrender his/her freedom just to hurt somebody because of their sexual orientation?
I'm quite certain the person killed had been sexually harassing the defendant. Imagine if it was a case of a woman claiming she killed a man sexually harassing her. She would probably have sympathy. Imagine if the defendant was a minor, claiming the one he/she killed was a pedophile trying to make sexual advances towards him/her.
In such cases, the defendant would probably be recognized as the victim. But because the incident involved a straight killing a homosexual, all sympathies goes to the persecuted minority as usual. If it's true, it clearly shows North American society switching from discriminating against minorities to giving them exclusive rights over the majority.
According to the report, the gay was allowed by law to express his sexual orientation by dressing up as a woman. This could be an indication that he felt a little overconfident about his rights and decided to make sexual advances towards the would-be shooter. But that's not for me to decide.
If the accused makes a defensive statement, the courts by law must launch a probe into the claims that the gay made sexual proposals and advances towards the shooter.
Sure people can react by claiming the shooter should have sought help instead of committing violence and to a great extent I agree. He did go too far by killing him. But let's be honest. How would you feel telling others if somebody sexually harassed you? And especially in a society where the average straight person would not like to be mistaken for a homosexual.
Again, people would also consider it self-defense if it was a man sexually harassing a woman. But because it was a gay, North American society has suddenly jumps to defend a discriminated minority. If I were that individual, I wouldn't have used such excessive force. I might have warned him with physical assault if he didn't stop. And I would have carried out my warning if he did indeed not stop.
I think that would have stopped him and have been the best solution instead of bringing in a gun and shooting him. But who knows, could it be the shooter was smaller or bullied by this gay? On the mention of bullying and shootings, I'd like to point out many cases of victims bringing guns to school and shooting up the bullies. Many commit suicide right after the incident.
And often they leave suicide notes explaining who and what lead them into doing it. Such acts are often followed by sympathy. But because the individual who was shot dead was homosexual, he was automatically the victim and gets all the sympathy without any probe into what lead the shooter to commit such an act.
I believe the shooter should be placed on probation and on curfew including a ban from possessing weapons or any dangerous objects that could be used as weapons until an official inquiry into the incident is completed. But as I explained, that won't happen because the killed was a homosexual and automatically becomes privileged.
Readers who've read my other posts will know I oppose all forms of discrimination- including reverse discrimination. I don't like people being mistreated simply because they are of a different color, religion, race, sexual orientation etc. At the same time I don't like the fact that people are forced to hire others on the basis of racial/religious/sexual diversity instead of the basis of qualification. This is a clear sign of Western society opting from being discriminatory to reverse discriminatory.
But it doesn't really end with this case. For many years I've been hearing people advocating the belief that homosexuality is genetic and as normal as straight sexual orientation.
I don't see any scientific evidence for it nor am I surprised that anything contradicting this theory will in the future be banned as "homophobic."
I'm willing to guarantee there are plenty of "gay rights" campaigners pushing for such a ridiculous move.
I personally believe that this theory is scientifically incorrect and homosexuality is more psychological than genetic. But Western society wants to adopt it as collective belief just to appease those belonging to the persecuted minority and their supporters.
I'm not going to get much into genetics and psychology since it's not the point of discussion. The point is more about Western society trying to elevate theory to fact because of political pressures and enforce that belief on the masses- much like fascism.
The reason why I don't believe homosexuality is genetic is because the scientific study of mating shows clear reasons for most species coming in two sexes instead of one. An interaction of two opposite genders even if non-sexual shows chemical reactions in the bodies. Even when species such as frogs self-reproduce, they switch genders back and forth to do this.
Attraction to the opposite sex is inside the genetic coding and has results. Same sex attraction has more of a psychological background. Many cases can attest to this. The famous Afghan tradition of Bacha Bazi is a good example of that.
Bacha Bazi results from ultra-conservative traditions which prohibit contact between unrelated and unmarried individuals from the opposite sex, resulting in people to lust of people of the same sex. There's nothing genetic about this. It's all psychological.
Take pedophilia for example. Imagine the outcry if we were made to believe it's genetic. I can confidently state even if not 100% confidently, that it is as "genetic" as homosexuality. And I place the same scientific arguments that our genetics are not programmed to mate with the sexually premature. It results from a lack of opportunity to mate with a suitable partner of the opposite gender and same age grouping.
Even if pedophilia occurs in animals or other species, it usually has reasons behind it that are non-genetic. Likewise, the acceptance of any scientific finding that homosexuality is not genetic will unlikely approved of simply because people see it as an attempt to discredit homosexuals.
This is where Western society fails to draw the line between homosexual rights and hard science due to political correctness, but will definitely try to find psychological reasons to discredit pedophilia.
But weather genetic or not is not the point of discussion. Homosexuals and their supporters are now pushing further from gay/lesbian rights to the point of reverse discrimination if any of my above statements are found to be correct.
Reverse discrimination did not end with religion or race as in the case of Jews from being a persecuted minority to being able to silence almost all political opposition by pulling out the discrimination cry. It didn't end with blacks (by blacks I mean people of sub-Saharan African linage in this case) reverse discriminating against other races on the basis of their forefathers being enslaved.
Now it's the homosexuals turn to reverse discriminate against those who are "straight" (again, not too fond of the word, but readers know what I mean), and that's what I oppose. This case may become a classic example of that.
