What is Normal? … March 23, 2015

Whenever you posit that humanity is in trouble because the number of normal people wholiberal scumbag pull the load of society is diminished there is always that excessively liberal person that crawls out of the woodwork and exclaims “What is normal?” 

Although it would be easy for me to list those people whom I think are abnormal and dangerous to society, there will always be those who think so and so should not be on that list, or that they themselves should be thought of as normal… when it is obvious they are not.

In my opinion, the nuclear family, that is, a family group that consists only of father, mother, nuclear family 2and children, is normal. Any family structured any other way is not normal. You can’t have two fathers and children, or two mothers and children and be designated normal. You just can’t. Protest all you want, you just can’t.

The nuclear family has been the strength of the United States. This was the foundation of our nation. Our nation American flaghas lost strength and world prestige in direct proportion to the deterioration of the nuclear family. When that proportion of the population that is traditional nuclear family declines below a critical level, and I do not pretend to know what that level is, the nation will fall. Structure, in manufacturing, in civil society, will crumble and fall into disarray… chaos and misery will follow. The only reason we remain today is that there are still enough traditional families teaching their children in the right way to go.

You see evidence all around you of the increasing decay of society. An increased desire and druggie cartoonan increased use of “recreational” drugs. More interest in the dark areas of humanity like pornography, loose sex, and perversions. More and more people who depend upon public handouts rather than a day’s work.

You see men and women no longer sure of who they are, so they try to be transvestites_05something they are not. Men try to transform themselves into women, women, into men. It is a stomach turning thing to behold. Yet, the moment you cry out against it there are those people, already influenced by it, that staunchly stand up and shout “who the hell are you to tell us how we have to be”, so the acceleration into decadence continues.

I am an atheist. I have not dispensed with morality. My morality was here demonlong before my excursions into Christianity. My morals remain now, even after my discarding of faith. My simple hope now is this, and perhaps it is a greedy hope, and that is, that civilization lasts at least long enough so that I will live to old age and die before society becomes so sickening that even a demon would convulse upon seeing it.

This entry was posted in Morality, Reason and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to What is Normal? … March 23, 2015

  1. jasonjshaw says:

    I would say “normal” is quite relative.

    As for your gender-related comments – the trouble there lay in that society has specific perceptions in a hard-line gender duality. There are certain expectations of these defined genders, many of them are built on cultural viewpoints that are of limited substance. This is likely why those who don’t feel they fit a specific definition feel the need to overemphasize aspects of the opposing gender.

    Ideally, people should be able to be secure in the body they are in and make choices of how they wish to partner up and how they wish to present themselves at their own discretion – as long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of others, of course. We should be looking at each not as man and woman, but as individual humans who are all an equal part of humanity.

    Of course, when you get to common family structures, there is a “normal” that is defined by biological limitations and, to a lesser extent, personal connections. The biological limitations are for the most part unavoidable. The connections, though often quite significant, are not necessarily a given. One only has to look to nature to see that different versions of “normal” can arise beyond biology – likely with evolution playing the key role.

  2. drenn1077 says:

    I suspected that many would consider “normal” gender relative, just as many consider morality relative.

    I am not many, I am me, and to me normal is relative only to me. Therefore any argument that this is normal or that is normal is irrelevant.
    The nuclear family as I described is what I have always viewed as normal. Anything else is not normal. In my opinion if enough people vary from the model of normal that I have presented then civilization will have insufficient support numbers and will collapse. There will after that be so many different variations pulling in so many different directions that no meaningful progress will be possible. No additional food production, no improved infrastructures, nothing that had up to that point allowed the continued growth of or even maintenance of the present population. In short: chaos.
    I have never been politically correct. I do not see gay or lesbian couples as normal. In the eyes of evolution, which selects by survival, homosexual behavior, though it may exist, is not normal. No offspring is possible from two male animals in nature, or two females. Only in the artificial world of humans is this possible… but that does not make it normal. Science has made many things possible, many good things and many bad things. Among those bad things has been the atom bomb. In the future one of the bad things I predict that will come from science will be perversions of procreation. Both male and female may become irrelevant. I cannot see from my present perspective any good at all coming from that.

  3. jasonjshaw says:

    On the contrary, less breeding pairs of humans could prevent us from breeding ourselves into oblivion. What was once the normalcy of having many children I would find to be far more dangerous to our species than of having different family variations being more common. Also, greater acceptance of it will leave more people available to take care of the neglected, and more people available in general to maintain society better with less focus on an abundance of children. The children that are had could greatly benefit from being surrounded by potentially more caring people and could lead societies in a very positive direction.

    I certainly come from the same line of thinking as you do, growing up I had very little contact with anyone in non-nuclear families, at least that I was aware of. I’ve come to understand though that it’s not the structure of the family that tells the tale so much as it is the caring of those who make up the family, whether blood-related or not.

    I would agree with you about science manipulating procreation being troublesome if it is taken to the point that we evolve away from the natural ability to make it happen safely. I have my doubts it would go that far, but it is a good thing to have awareness of.

  4. drenn1077 says:

    Fewer breeding pairs, less diversity, less ability to survive. That is evolution, and that is why many species are in trouble today is that breeding pairs have diminished.

    → More caring people, but not family. Sounds very much like the world envisioned by some where children are raised by the state, rather than loving parents.

    →The structure of the family is important in my opinion. In the past the mother provided a foundation for the family. Now, not so much. I do not consider that an improvement, but it was a result of WWII, when so many women entered the workforce and did not want to return back home. Though I cannot blame them, still it made the country weaker, in my opinion, than stronger.

    →Some Boston Terriers cannot be born without a caesarean. The dogs were bred this way by humans. Some of the heads of the dogs get stuck in the birth canal. It may be possible for scientists to create a superior human, but it may not be a natural birth.

    Hopefully I will not live to see the day when humanity finally caves, but I see it coming. The population bomb is a juggernaut. Those procreating are in countries that cannot afford to take such growth. 7 Billion is too many, by 2050 it may be 9 billion, perhaps sooner than that.

  5. Anonymous says:

    yes perversion wants no labels

  6. drenn1077 says:

    In my humble opinion, for society to function there has to be some taboos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s