BP,

you have it the wrong way around.
I have the courage of saying it like it is, based on the "real" world.
You, and those like you, lack that courage and typically demand that, like the queers, the majority change THEIR mind to accommodate a very selfish and petulant few.
No one has ever given a truly clear and insightful reason as to why we have to tolerate such beings.
Trying to virtue shame people into submission with low brow and un-related examples in an attempt to win a point is not acceptable as it is merely a subjective argument, therefore irrelevant.
Trying to introduce Nazis into your argument only makes you desperate.
Firstly, you don't know what life would have been like had we lost the war, but I can tell you this, judging by all the gauges, Japan and Germany are among the best economies and people in the world.
Well educated, disciplined and respectful.
How the queers would have come out of it, I care less, but they would not have been allowed to threaten and coerce the weak and neutered of the public to allow such things as SSM.
And before you come back with any response that they are accepted, stop and think, they didn't win the war!
As for "racial hygiene", you should get out more, but you are quite right, this was done at the behest of the Jewish Elite, to rid themselves of imperfect Jews, as they believed, and still do, that the Jews are the true rulers of the world, and any imperfect Jews only demeaned and weakened their resolve and standing in the world.
So get rid of the riff-raff and the the un-chosen ones.
Anyway, I digress, this is but one theory written about the Nazi's and trying to understand their thinking.
Banjo, you, like your fellow neuters, are too invested in social justice to stand back and look at something objectively, without emotion.
Taking your reasoning, we should accept, thieves, rapists, miscreants in general, because "that's the way they were born", or
"they're a product of nature".

Dear NNS,

You say;

“Go ahead and finish reading it before finding excuses to dismiss it and not read it.”

I have read it and so much of it is absolute tripe. Parts of it read like a Christian pamphlet rather than a scientific report it touts itself as.

“For example, the father tosses his son up in the air. At first the boy is a little frightened, but then realizes that he is safe and this is fun and wants the activity repeated again and again. The mother may object “Be careful.” But the father ignores her. It is in moments like this that the boy takes the first steps on his journey to manhood. His relationship with his father becomes the foundation on which he builds his masculine confidence.”

So what happens to all the little girls the father tosses into the air? How does that build theri masculine confidence?

Also it throws the STD and Psychiatric disorders grenade into the text at seemingly random spots. Look at this stand alone paragraph;

“In order to be a truly healthy and mature priest—a man is ontologically changed and configured to Christ by the sacrament of Holy Orders and is also spouse to the Church and a spiritual father to everyone—it is necessary to achieve a strong interior life and affective maturity, that is, a healthy personality. Numerous well-designed studies published in peer-reviewed journals have found that men with SSA are more likely to suffer from numerous psychiatric disorders and STDs.”

What the hell?

I invite you to show me where there is a “discussion about how society's attitudes toward gay people have impacted their mental health and substance abuse levels.” because I sure didn't see anything more than a passing, very oblique mention “later in the report”.

AltRave,

My god, you have some repulsive ideas. I feel like giving OLO away for a while.

Joe

SR and NNS,

who are we talking about, that are subject to substance abuse?
I am assuming it's not society, so it must be the queers.
SR, I am perplexed as to why you might question this comment.
Plus, it's not like it's an impossibility that they would have mental health or substance abuse issues.
Heck I think it's a given, living a life of continually wondering what people are saying or thinking about you, and not in a nice way.
The SSM thing did them no favours either, only to further exacerbate an already highly divisive and controversial group of mis-fits.
If they have to resort to drugs and end up with mental issues, it sometimes means that the person/s in question have concerns and therefore doubts, which adds to the belief that they are not normal.
Normal people do not have doubts about who or what they are.
Normal people might have doubts about more mundane things, such as whether this coloured shirt would look better than that one, or whether they have enough food for their guests, you know what I mean.
No if they have doubts about their sexuality and their acceptance in society, they are at least justified about that.
In your last paragraph, you answer your own question, unknowingly.
You state there is no mention of something, yet you later say in the same sentence, that you DID see "passing very oblique mention, later in the report"".
So there was a mention, is it because you felt it was inconvenient to highlight it? or because it might weaken you argument.
Anyway, irrespective of "our" views or opinions, at least we can see some signs of doubt in their minds, which is a good thing, as it shows that they too are not completely au fait with there stance or what they are.
Which adds weight to the arguments against them.
And this indictment comes from within, not from society.

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm not sure where you were when this bloke was slinging off about 'abos' or calling noncompliant women 'maggots' but I certainly agree what has been written is utterly toxic.

But rather than leaving there is a path open to all of us when confronted with this level of toxicity, hit the little red recommend for deletion button.

It is as easy as a quick click and type a reason why. Why not have a crack?

SR,

YOU of all people do not get to decide, censor or control what people say on OLO.
Your views are just as toxic, it's just that I speak Australian, whereas you speak PC.
Instead of running off to "mummy" why don't you challenge my comments like a man and prove me wrong.
I'm man enough to take it, as I said "I say it like it is".

Loudmouth,

I'm sorry if you found my comments offensive.
May I know which ones in particular, as they are all based on historical articles garnered over the decades, and so I refer back to them at the appropriate moment as required.
I realise in life, there are a lot of distasteful things, both said and done.
But when they are said after the fact, in a discussion, it cannot be seen as threatening as it was said or done by someone else, and only being repeated by myself, in the interest of having a truthful and honest conversation and exchange of facts and opinions.
Whatever it is I have said of concern, please note I am not the author but the messenger.
I do believe that had you chosen the topic related to a certain ethnic group as a research project as you did with your fifteen thousand page work on the early Aussies, you too would discover some very sultry facts, which would leave you shocked and possibly dis-appointed.
So please accept my apology for any discomfort I may have caused, it was obviously not my intention.
I truly believe my writings to be factual, truthful and honest and I know they will differ in opinion to others, but I can assure you if I were to condemn or vilify anyone, I would make it very clear.
This is not such a case here.