AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

I’M COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET !

posted 7/7/2013 12:49:56 PM |
1 kudogive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
  J1958

I’m so weary of having my motives second-guessed, I’m going to finally explain them. This way, at least the insults will be on topic.

My agenda is really quite plain, IF you examine my position on a broad array of issues. In a few words: I am absolutely devoted to the future and survival of Mankind. The shape of all other issues must be determined by the way in which they impact this imperative. That is the well from which all my philosophy springs.

To wit: Projected forward a 1,000 years, I see nothing but harm to humanity in the current move to popularize homosexuality.

To wit: I support global government, because the challenges facing us are so large they cannot be met as a species while we are busy making war on each other.

To wit: I support American expansionism and the conscription of all territories won in war to the status of states, because “The United States of Earth” is the most reasonable path to global government.

To wit: I support the exploration of space and spending whatever money is necessary to conduct the activity, because the current uptrend in population downsizing will not last long and, over the next 1,000 years, we will face extinction if we do not provide for expanded living space.

To wit: I support Atheism because I expect religious factions to inherit nuclear capability over the next 1,000 years and nothing foments war like belief in deities. Laying earthly cares off on a “god” is the surest path to nuclear war. (I might feel differently on this issue if there were any evidence to support the notion of a god)

To wit: I support stem cell research because, eventually, we are going to need the ability to grow webbed-feet or wings or whatever in order to survive on other planets.

No human activity takes place in a vacuum. All issues must find their resolution within a tapestry of contingencies and an ultimate goal for humanity must be established and agreed upon in order to intelligently resolve the smallest issue. That goal MUST be SURVIVAL.

Becoming mired in a single issue without considering its impact on the big picture, is the province of fools and, perhaps, the habit of our single most formidable foe – ourselves.

Perhaps unfortunately, there is no party or club or name for what I believe, and it’s a mistake to throw me in a pond where one of my beliefs matches those of the other fish, because I have other beliefs that would make the fish around me cringe.

I deliver my opinions with a bit of a hard edge by design. I don’t want to “sweet talk” anyone into agreeing with me. I want the weight of the ideas to persuade…but…it’s tough in a room where the most important issue is the pond the writer swam in from and what we think of the other fish in that pond.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by J1958:
DREAMS OF THE EVERY-DAY RETIREE
WASTED DAYS AND WASTED SITES
HELPING GEEZERS STAY HIP
literary --THIRD TIME’S THE CHARM
AMERICAN ANTHEM 2 0 1 6
Essay – Does POT = PEACE?
Opinion – WHAT I LEARNED IN THE 5TH GRADE ABOUT PATRIOTISM
informational -- The New News
WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR DISRESPECT?
more satire - WHAT? YOU WANT TO USE YOUR STRAP-ON?
satire - TEN THINGS COMING IN THE NEXT 50-YEARS
WHY THE LONE RANGER CAN’T CATCH A BREAK
I’M COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET !
EGYPT; A Lesson in Sociology
I HAVE BEEN WRONG ON GAY MARRIAGE AND MUST CONFESS IT
PRIMER ON USE OF THE BRAIN
IT'S TIME SOMEONE MENTIONED...
BE GLAD YOU'RE ALREADY HERE !
THE ALL NEW ALL LIBERAL OSCARS
satire - A World Without Women


Comments:

post a comment!

sugarnspice005

Jul 8 @ 12:11PM  
To wit: I support global government, because the challenges facing us are so large they cannot be met as a species while we are busy making war on each other.

To wit: I support American expansionism and the conscription of all territories won in war to the status of states, because “The United States of Earth” is the most reasonable path to global government.

One global government? United States of Earth? Really? So.....what if the Chinese may want this Global Government to be what they are? Or, better yet, what if the Saudis want Global rule? What makes your idea better than theirs? In fact, the terrorists...that is already their goal, to make their form of Islam the only religion. Bet you don't like that idea do you? I know I don't. I happen to enjoy the freedom to choose whether I want to embrace any religion or not. And I'll guarantee you that those other nations do NOT want another government telling them how they must live.

I am not religious person by any means, but I would say you are seriously outnumbered on the idea of atheism. People embrace their religious beliefs very strongly, and will not give that up without a fight. As the wars over the years have proven time and time again. And yes, I will agree, majority of wars have occurred due to religion.

To have an entire planet populace have the same beliefs, thoughts, etc is to want a planet of Stepford Wives/Husbands who are robotic at best. What's next? Telling them how many children they are allowed to have? One boy, one girl? Should they be blonde, brunette? Can't have freckles?

I'm all for space exploration. But let's not be so arrogant as to think Earth is the only planet in that vast unexplored frontier with life on it. I cannot say for any certainty there is other life out there just like the next person cannot say for any certainty there isn't other life out there.

btw....there is no "harm" coming to the human populace because of gays. There are far more heterosexuals out there in the world than there are gays. So don't worry, the human race is far from being in danger by gays. The danger comes more from our own arrogance in thinking we can rule and control one another and tell others they have to live by what we think is right. Hence...conflict. Always. It's human nature.
TwistAndShout

Jul 8 @ 12:47PM  
We'll have to get a lot better at pacifying countries won in war to make your one-world government-by-conscription work. Not just better than the US efforts have been in the past. We'll have to do better than nearly every western power has managed to do since WWII.

We have the American examples of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We walked away from each (Afghanistan is currently being drawn down) after we got tired of the drain on US blood and treasure, and declared them to be sufficiently pacified. In reality, Iraq has become a Shiite dominated Islamist state with friendly ties to Iran. Afghanistan is a tribal society, has never been fully governable on a unified basis and probably never will be. Vietnam is a communist state that we trade heavily with and manufactures sneakers for us cheaply. You might argue that it was our most successful venture of the three, and it was an outright loss.

Similarly, the French walked away from Algeria and Vietnam, the Soviets walked away from Afghanistan, and the Israeli army ended its occupation of southern Lebanon and Gaza.

Lack of will? Perhaps, but the pattern is that in this kind of an asymmetrical occupation, the local resistance digs in, pulls back, inflicts pain where it can, and just generally outlasts the occupier. Multiply Iraq and Afghanistan by 10 and tell me how long we can afford to "expand by conscription" or would even benefit much from doing so.

Congratulations on coming out, though. And I think you have a fan. I've noticed that even when you have no comments, there's at least one kudo. I hope whoever it is comes out of the closet as well.
J1958

Jul 8 @ 1:40PM  
Sugar and Twist...thank you both for studied comments almost completely free of personal insults. I love a good-hearted debate.

Please notice I DO NOT support forcing these notions on other people. I'm merely trying to explain why I come down where I do on a broad array of issues, so that the room might stop sticking me into a pigeon-hole where I don't belong every time I open my mouth.

I have one objective in all my thinking -- peace on earth and a prosperous future for Mankind. I consider ideas that do not assist this agenda invented by self-intoxicated, shallow thinkers who seem to want to suck up all the oxygen in the room while they're here and leave none for future generations.

I believe the US demonstrates 50 nation-states as far flung as the Atlantic to Hawaii and Alaska, populated by over 300-million people, can live together under a single flag and prosper in an environment driven by personal liberties. Why can the entire world not do so?

The examples you offer such as Afghanistan are too little too late. We should have put Japan and Germany on the path to statehood at the close of WWII. If we had done that, these other examples might never have developed. There should be a price to be paid for foreign aid. If you want us to feed you, you must sit at our table.

Can humanity turn away from deities? Of course it can. The movement is afoot even as we speak and it grows stronger day-by-day. We turned away from slavery. We no longer treat women as property. The species is capable of gigantic change in the cause of survival as well as social conscience.

All I'm asking here is that you not lump me into a pond with a bunch of people I don't even like, let alone agree with, just because we happen to share a single notion.
sugarnspice005

Jul 8 @ 2:11PM  
Oh I get what you're saying.

But the thing is, how do you convince an entire world that one idea is the "right one"?

As I pointed out, the terrorists, they feel their interpretation of Islam is the only true interpretation and all others is wrong. And they feel that is the only true way of life for the globe. Now me, personally, I do not agree with them. I happen to enjoy my freedoms, such as they are. And do not have any plans on giving them up. So, I look at my own attitude on that, and then I put myself in the place of another culture, and maybe they don't want those freedoms I enjoy. Maybe they feel their way is the only way. And they do not want my ideals forced onto them.

As for religion, yeah, I don't share that same view. I just don't see an entire population giving up on their idea of God, Allah, and whatever else there is out there. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. People embrace their religious beliefs jealously, and do not give them up. Rarely do they ever.

Human beings are a selfish creature. They have their habits they refuse to give up. And that will always cause conflict. Unfortunately.
J1958

Jul 8 @ 2:51PM  
Human beings are a selfish creature. They have their habits they refuse to give up.

Of course, you are correct in the whole post. But here is what fuels my thinking:

The one constant in the universe is CHANGE. If we do not influence change with purpose and a clear plan, the result will be an accident by definition of the word -- unintended consequence.

The words, "It's never been done before" have stood between men of vision and the enrichment of humanity since the beginning of human time.

Isn't it better to decide how the world should be, organize a plan to reach that goal and solicit those around us to support it, than throw up our hands and say, "It can't be done." There is so much possibility between us and the end of time.

"Conflict" is in our nature. But there is no reason the conflict must be between our group of human beings and some other group of human beings. The stars hold challenges a-plenty for the adventurous appetite of Mankind.

We've come a long way since we captured fire. But we are still living through the infancy of the human time. Our most spectacular contribution to the life-process will not begin until we have learned to work together as a single species toward a common goal. And that is what shapes my thinking on all issues of smaller consequence -- how they may impact the grander destiny I wish for us.
sugarnspice005

Jul 8 @ 4:22PM  
Yes, change is a constant.

Goals are great to have. I believe in "never say never". I also look at the bigger picture.

Let me ask this:

If say, Vladimir Putin had the same idea, only he wants this global government run his way...do you agree with him?

Or:

The Saudi Prince decides this one world government be run his way. Do you agree with him?

What I'm saying is that the two above examples are not going to "agree" to a one world government unless it's their way. Which brings about the conflict, which is a constant with people. Everyone wants it all "their way", at the expense of not respecting that others may not want it.

Much like religion. The person who worships will believe theirs is the only "true" religion, and all others are false. And they jealously guard those beliefs. And in this country, that is their right.

How about polygamy? What if a group of like minded people decided that is what everyone should embrace? Could you embrace that?

You already have made clear you don't support the gay lifestyle. Well, what if like minded individuals decide that is the only lifestyle globally? And the only way to continue the human race is through test tubes or in vitro pregnancy?

There are things in this world I do not care for, stoning people to death for adultery, making women wear those awful looking burkas, attempting to eliminate an entire group of people just because one doesn't agree with their religion or the color of their skin. Then there are people who embrace that kind of thing. Who is right? Who is wrong? Which world do you prefer?

Will there ever be a one government rule on this planet? Who knows? But it will not happen in our lifetime.
theSkwirl

Jul 8 @ 8:52PM  
Again, I must submit, there is no movement to "popularize" homosexuality. There is a movement to allow those who are already homosexual to have the same rights as everyone else.

Please do some real research on what's actually going on. We don't want to make more homosexuals, we can't anyway. Homosexuality is something you are born to, or not. It's not 'normalized' or a movement. It's what it is. Sexual desire and love for someone of the same sex. It's a chemical reaction. Only straight people can have gay babies.
J1958

Jul 8 @ 11:51PM  
Sugar…there probably never was a country with as many different opinions as the USA. We campaign hard for seats in the lawmaking bodies and the administration. And when the winner is announced…we live with it until the next election. I don’t see much difference between putting up with Barrack Obama and putting up with Vladimir Putin.

But I also want to ask…if you think my plan is unworkable, will you suggest an alternative you like better? You don’t really want to continue making war on other countries until we’re all using nukes…do you?

Your question, however, is well put. It was in thinking about all that that I reached the belief that the US should enter a period of expansionism. If the Russians or the Chinese win the world before we do, we’re just going to have to live with it. But there’s no reason we should sit by and allow that to happen.

I say let the United States of America become The United States of Earth…bring every nation we can in as a state. Then, let the Putins and the Saudi Princes sign on like everyone else or find a place to hide.

As to differences in cultures demanding differences in religion and marriages I, again, submit the US as a model. You can smoke weed in California, but not in Georgia. Gamble in some states – not in others. Different regions are entitled to their own traditions and laws in the American model. Why can’t they vary from country to country when all countries become American states?
J1958

Jul 9 @ 12:49AM  
…there is no movement to "popularize" homosexuality. Please do some real research on what's actually going on.

That positively leaves me speechless. I don’t need to do any research to tell you 20-years ago there were no openly gay soldiers. There were no openly gay NFL players. There were no openly gay comedians. There were no gay Boy Scouts. There were no sit-coms on TV about the gay lifestyle. There were no gay TV talk show hosts on major networks. There was no gay CNN anchorman.

Forty-years ago openly gay people were shunned and ridiculed.

How can you possibly believe there is no movement afoot to popularize homosexuality? I think the research would be better conducted by people living in your neighborhood than mine.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 1:13AM  
Only straight people can have gay babies.

There's another breath taker. I believe a gay man and a gay woman can make a gay baby as easily as a straight man and a straight woman.

Since the announcement that there is NO "gay gene", the movement to popularize homosexuality has found a whole new bag of bogus bullshit to explain how the behavior simply cannot be resisted. Unerased "Epi-marks" passed from mother to son and from father to daughter are now thought to be responsible.

Frankly, I don't see why it matters. If my father was a serial killer, that doesn't mean it should be socially acceptable for me to follow in his footsteps. How gay people get to be gay shouldn't be the issue. The cogent question is what kind of behavior is acceptable and legally sanctioned in a healthy civilization, and that should be the question regardless of WHY you want to do whatever you want to do.
TwistAndShout

Jul 9 @ 6:42AM  
Forty-years ago openly gay people were shunned and ridiculed.

How can you possibly believe there is no movement afoot to popularize homosexuality? I think the research would be better conducted by people living in your neighborhood than mine.

Let me answer that with your own quote:

The species is capable of gigantic change in the cause of survival as well as social conscience.

What you are seeing now is not a popularization of homosexuality. It's a realization that gay people exist and have a right to live their life in a way that makes them free and happy.

While nobody ever woke up to find out their brother, son, or uncle is black, people do wake up and find out that people they love are gay. THAT'S what's driving the change in attitude toward homosexuality faster than nearly any other issue I've observed in my lifetime.

And for the life of me, I can't see why you find that so disturbing.


sugarnspice005

Jul 9 @ 10:20AM  
If my father was a serial killer, that doesn't mean it should be socially acceptable for me to follow in his footsteps. How gay people get to be gay shouldn't be the issue


There is a HUGE difference between a society fearing for their lives with a serial killer on the loose and people just wanting to live their life in peace with their partner. I would be more afraid of being dead than of two consenting adults being in a relationship.

J1958

Jul 9 @ 12:58PM  
What you are seeing now is not a popularization of homosexuality. It's a realization that gay people exist and have a right to live their life in a way that makes them free and happy.

You have to save the circumlocution for minds more easily befuddled than mine. You are repeating what I have said, substituting language that means precisely the same thing. Your delicate characterization is, merely, the justification being used to popularize the enterprise of homosexuality. It remains, nevertheless, an activity being mainstreamed through media, Hollywood and lobbyists at an alarming speed.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 1:23PM  
There is a HUGE difference between a society fearing for their lives with a serial killer on the loose and people just wanting to live their life in peace with their partner. I would be more afraid of being dead than of two consenting adults being in a relationship

I acknowledge the difference. However, the point remains intact -- encouraging behavior that is contrary to the welfare of the species should not be excused or enabled simply because of an inherited characteristic.

Moreover, I have no quarrel with "two consenting adults being in a relationship." My quarrel is with changes in law that would promote such relationships.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB02
I’M COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET !