Sunday, December 29, 2013


According to the Washington Times, a gay advocacy group has strongly objected to a federal advertisement on Obamacare. I have not seen the ad, but it supposedly features four young buff men wearing tight underwear and not much else. I don't understand the purpose of the presentation, nor do I have any objection, but it apparently has raised the ire of the gay advocacy group.. The president of the group claims that the ad campaign promotes “harmful stereotypes that gay men are nothing but sex-crazed lechers". It sounds to me like a gross exaggeration, from the ad description.
I'm not very interested in this particular controversy, but it is illustrative of a development that strongly concerns me. That is, organized efforts by unorthodox lifestyle groups to achieve public acceptance. The purpose of achieving public acceptance is likely based on two desires; ego satisfaction and financial benefits.
I don't deny that there are people born with an innate desire of sexual attractiveness to persons of their own sex, but it is in the minority. There are people born with other mental and physical deficiencies, and they learn to live with them, usually with the help of their families.
Homosexuals are usually quite adept in conforming to our economic society, so that by and large they do not need financial support from their families. The primary basis for public acceptance appears then to be a matter of ego.
We all have deficiencies or lack of talent in some area. For example, I have very poor coordination between my brain and finger movements. It is basically impossible for me to become a piano player or even a tolerable typist. Does that mean that I should join with other persons having a similar malady and then develop a program so that the whole group obtains public acceptance for the fact that we all have this great deficiency? That doesn't make sense to me, and it also doesn't make sense to me that there should be gay advocacy groups.
If a person is apparently an inmately born homosexual, and he or she can find others of similar characteristic so that together they can develop a satisfactory sexual lifestyle, I have no objection. It is a private matter. I don't promote through any organization my heterosexuality. It is a private matter.
In spite of my personal feelings on the subject, apparently the promotional practices of homosexual groups does have an effect on the major heterosexual group. It appears that through these homosexual advocacy groups over the past 10 years, the public has developed greater acceptance for homosexuality. I also don't have any objection to this development, even though I am still opposed to such promotional programs. The reason for my acceptance is that I believe homosexuality is a physical/mental deficiency and previously known persons afflicted with this deficiency have been discriminated against on a personal basis. I believe such discrimination to be wrong and the development of public acceptance of homosexuality is a move in the correct direction, providing we do not elevate persons engaged in homosexual activity to be at a higher level of humanitarian acceptance.
I don't want the public to be sympathetic to my deficiency of brain/hand coordination, nor do I want the public to develop a position that by this deficiency I am somehow better than the average person. It Is a private matter, and I deal with it privately.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Compassion Run Amok

The Washington Times says some "reality" show hosts and Hollywood actors are showing compassion for fat people.
Reality show host Tyra Banks is attempting to console fat people by changing the lexicon. She wants to refer to fat women as “fiercely real”. In effect, she is saying to fat people they should not regard themselves as fat. It is a known fact that overeating and not exercising leads to obesity and is a choice that leads to a multitude of health issues like diabetes and heart disease.
Tyra is saying to fat people that if they do not regard themselves as fat, by using the new terminology, they will be absolved of responsibility for their fatness and thereby encouraged to do nothing to improve their lifestyle and longevity. Common sense would advise that this is a ridiculous approach to problem-solving and does great disservice to the subject audience; fat people. It also leads to the obese are being coddled, while we all pick up the tab with higher health insurance costs to treat them.
Fat people should be called exactly what they are — fat, overweight, obese. This would encourage them to make healthy lifestyle changes.
For whatever reason, some people like to be fat and prefer their present lifestyle, to the difficulty of a program of food control and exercise, even though the latter will reduce their health problems and increase their longevity. So be it. They should have the opportunity to make this decision. It should certainly not be forced upon them by government edict, nor should government in the form of taxpayers support the results of their decision.
A "reality" show should be about reality; not an effort to convince a segment of society to be unrealistic.