Figures though, apparently my local Leftist wants to talk about his Gays© again instead of writing that critique of the rule of Hugo Chavez. (Nothing to critize, nothing at all?) Usually he's a against "the rich" but not this time I suppose:
I found this statement interesting: “Founded in 1973, Olivia advertises on its Web site that it markets to more than 50 million customers around the world.”I suspect that you are too bogged down in your own mental incompetence to understand this but no one simply chooses their sexual desires, nor most any other desire they may happen to have in any given moment or situation. What people generally do is find themselves in situations or whole cultures which shape their desires and appetites, thus Eskimo's will eat raw fish eyes while the average American considers that repulsive. Did they wake up one day and think, "I will now choose to like eating raw fish eyes." No. Yet are any number of cultural choices still made that shape, legitimize or even cause desires and feelings? Yes. And sometimes people choose to shape their own desires, which is why there are any number of lesbians that I could cite who choose to fuse their sexuality to that form. Some of the older ones note that they made that choice because that is what they considered authentic feminism to be. Sexuality is relative to culture. I could go on explaining will, culture, desires and what the evidence indicates but it matters little. I would note one thing before turning back to the article at hand, it is quite ironic that those who tend to have gender identity disorders come to the point of insisting that sex/gender is an act of will, (e.g. the transexual community) a choice, yet sexual desires are supposedly genetically determined. Sex is not genetically determined, but the sexual desires based on it are? You should be able to see how stupid and ignorant that is at first glance, given that sexuality and sexual desires are directed towards and by the biological reality of sex that the sexually disoriented claim is a choice. What they say is a choice is not, while what they argue is not a choice is. To these, the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth...and so on.
Would that be 50 million Lesbians around the world or to put in the language of the American Taliban, “Would that be 50 million heterosexual women waking up each morning choosing to be lesbians for the day?” Speaking of the American Taliban, perhapsMynym over at Into Good and Evil could explain all that international contrary-to-nature choice-making in the multiple tens of millions, assuming he is not too bogged down trying to sort out exactly which Biblical patriarchs were personally acquainted with dinosaurs. (Link)
But at any rate, note the article, given that Gays© tend to make lifestyle choices in which they come to be what marketers refer to as "dual-income, no kids" (DINKS), they tend to be a wealthy class. Given their tendency to a high level of education and so on it is a very lucrative market, thus the cruises, the high fashion, the Lesbian Chic©, etc. Yet originally the Supreme Court was quite careful as to who could qualify for suspect class status based on invidious discrimination as evidenced in poverty, etc. That was so that the Judiciary would not begin pulling laws out of thin air as it sometimes does, and so on.
But now given the Gay© perversion of civil rights law based on whoever feels like defining themselves as "sexual minorities" based on their own sexual desires, apparently any self-defined class with wealth and power combined with the capacity to portray itself well in the easily manipulated Old Press can abuse the law to attain special treatment with respect to its lifestyle choices, values, sexual ethics, etc. Gays© will not be the last group to try to control people's discriminations with respect to its lifestyle and values once the precedent is set.
Notice that the "discrimination" laws passed are generally not used because there was little discrimination in the first place if the wealth of Gays© as a class is any measure. Instead such laws are treated as legitimization for homosexuality or used against organizations like the Boy Scouts to try to change its sexual ethics, the requirement to be "morally straight." That is because the laws are more about controlling other people's discriminations with respect to sexual ethics and values than actually dealing with any prevalent invidious discrimination.
I suppose the mentally incompetent Leftists are easily taken in by it all.
[Related posts: Gay©]