Why is the LGBTQ+ Hated?

 

Background of the LGBTQ

Almost every kind of civilization throughout history, except a few, has always looked at those who are LGBTQ with contempt, suspicion, and hate.  These very sentiments, among most human groups, have been felt most strongly by religions, especially the Abrahamic religions. One of these religions, known as Islam, will punish those who are LGBTQ by stoning them, hanging them, or throwing them off high buildings to kill them.  

Even the socially conservative communities both today and during human history have had unfriendly opinions about those who were not heterosexual and such unfriendly outlooks toward the LGBTQ still exist in many countries today such as Russia, The Middle East, and Africa.

But all of this anti-LBGTQ behavior and sentiment among these regions of the world as well as historical communities will certainly compel us to wonder why such attitudes towards the LGBTQ have existed or continue to exist despite the progress that has been made, mostly in the Western world, to eliminate such hate from the minds of people to make humanity more “open and accepting” of other people.  The answers to these very questions are what we intend to find in this paper.

The  LGBTQ Perspective.  

The Western world often views itself proudly as the bastion of social progress where anyone from any race, religion, ethnic group, and sexuality is welcome as a fellow member of society.  This massive amalgamation of humans from different backgrounds, from a Western viewpoint, is never considered harmful, dangerous, or even threatening because those who hold these views have one thing in common.  They are all individualistic which means that they will view other people as mere individuals whose background on the aforementioned identities of said human simply do not matter.    

While this very disregard for a person’s identity or background is not necessarily harmful on an individual level since all individualistic people are mostly those who have mutual respect for such individuality and which can also lead to an inclination to criminal behavior, sometimes the individuality of some people is what defines their background.  This is exactly what those who are LGBTQ are and the reasons behind this are quite simple.  Sexuality itself is known for ton have two aspects among humans as well as any other life form on Earth.  Those two aspects ios the reproduction of life through sexual means and the personal pleasure that comes with the very act of sexual reproduction.  

Among those who are heterosexual; both aspects of human sexuality are present meaning that heterosexuals can engage in sexual activity for the purpose of human reproduction and pleasure while those who are of alternate sexuality, except bisexuals to some extent, can only engage in sexual acuity for the purposes of pleasure.  This means that sexual acts that occur among the LBGT can only be interpersonal acts of pleasure and because of the lack of reproduction, these said sexual acts can never amount to a proper relationship that can eventually form a family and thus remains as merely acts of interpersonal pleasure.  This isn't to say that those who are LGBTQ are incapable of raising children as I am sure that they can feel the same kind of love for children as any heterosexual would but the inherent individuality that comes from the sexuality of those who are LGBTQ can lead to drastically different circumstances for themselves and their children.

The individuality that comes from non-heterosexual, and to some extent bisexual, sexual identities directly means that whenever an LGBTQ relationship is created, usually between those of the same sex, the relationship is one that, like a heterosexual one, is built on mutual sexual gratification and eventually empathy, But since the sexuality of LGBTQ people is based only on pleasure; the relationships that have been created by LGBTQ individuals will break apart when one partner feels sexually dissatisfied or sexually drawn to someone else of the same sexuality they will make a serious and decisive effort to leave their current partner to find new people to engage with sexually and the same can also occur with the other partner as well.   

But when it comes to having children; such breakups between LGBTQ people must not happen so often because both partners should certainly feel love for their child and will do anything they can to raise them into proper members of society?  While this previous statement is certainly right it does not show the whole picture.  This individuality can also lead some LGBTQ people to draw teenagers, and sometimes even children, toward them to manipulate them into engaging in sexual activity with them and subsequently draw them into the LGBTQ sphere of influence to “grow” the LGBT community so that there are more younger people to engage within for more interpersonal gratification,    

However, a child is raised by an LGBT couple,, the upbringing of said child is one where they are raising an individual person who is not a member of any kind of group, especially the LGBT group since sexuality doesn't develop until puberty, the child will therefore grow into an individualistic person who will be drawn into personal pleasures of their own as well as develop deep-rooted self-interests which can put them at odds with societal or group interests.

But such individuality s not a problem within the highly individualistic West where behavior is geared more towards mutual safety for every person within society although a high sense of individuality can certainly put others in danger that cross said individual “the wrong way”.  The children of LGBT couples are more likely to fall into this high sense of individuality, which can also lead to criminal or abusive behavior with others, because of their upbringing by individualistic people.  

The individuality that is present among LGBT couples also can lead to a high likelihood of abuse and interpersonal crimes because of a lack of group unity among LGBTQ people who can only form a community of people who only seek mutual sexual gratification which once again ultimately comes from their own sexuality.  

The Opposing Perspective

All these acts of individuality that can occur among LGBTQ people and their children can obviously still occur among those who are heterosexual as well because heterosexuals can also grow sexually dissatisfied with their sexual partner and raise their children as individuals and abuse their partners as well.  But the difference between heterosexual individuality and LGBT individuality is that heterosexuals are individualistic by choice whereas LGBTQ individuality is not by choice but by the constitution of their sexuality.  The individuality that occurs among those who are heterosexuals can have their individuality potentially mitigated or suppressed by the actions of a human group whose members have unified into one entity; something which the LGBTQ cannot do for the aforementioned reason of their own individuality that comes with their sexual identity

The fact that this inclination toward individuality is etched in the very sexuality; such individuals are therefore quite incompatible with human groups that are not based on loose interpersonal unions so other individual humans, as well as other LGBTQ people, are socially compatible with those who are LGBTQ while those who are part of a human group with unified individuals are not socially compatible with said people because of the inherent individuality that defines those who are LGBTQ.  This single reason is why people, who have been part of some kind f a group for most of history, have always oppressed and hated those who were LGBT as anything that is individualistic is bound to break up and subsequently destroy the unity of said human groups by spreading individuality through social or sexual influence brought about by LGBTQ people towards a human group.    

These very circumstances between a group, composed of unified individuals, and those who are sexually individualistic is the very reason why being LGBTQ is illegal and punishable by death by countries whose governments and people have a strong sense of group unity among them which, due to the individualistic influences of the West, constantly needs to be enforced which is certainly not the case in the Western world.  

So, those who are LGBTQ can live among those who promote and are individualistic while those who are more oriented around a human group will view LGBTQ people as problematic.  The statement “it is okay to be gay” really means that as an individual with no allegiance to any human group past and present I find your sexual orientation to not be problematic towards me as your sexuality is something that you keep to yourself.  The other view of “it is not okay to be gay” is pushed by those who wish to keep the LGBTQ out of their own communities because the individualistic nature of the LGBTQ will draw them to push that same individuality among us and even draw our own members towards their own hands to influence and use them for sexual pleasure.  

These are the ultimate viewpoints that unbridled individuals and human group members have respectively toward the LGBTQ.  But regardless of whatever viewpoint that anyone may hold towards these people, they are still individual humans with individual interests just like those who are heterosexual and while it is understandable why human groups may hate them for their own reasons while individuals with no group allegiance will instead love or tolerate them; those who are LGBTQ are still people who just happen to be of an alternate sexual orientation and identity.     

     

Why Multiculturalism Always Fails

 Multiculturalism in General 

Many people believe in universal group unity where all humans under the right social conditions can live in peace and harmony with no occurrence of violence hatred or suffering.  All human divisions, they believe, are caused by irrational hate and malice that is generated by ordnance and so the only way forward for humanity is the amalgamation and unity of all humans in one place which will eventually lead to a sense of universal love among all humans where world peace will finally be achieved.  

The very project of human amalgamation is what's also known as multiculturalism which is a grand experiment that takes in youthful individuals from any part of the globe and makes them settle in one place, such as a country, where they are expected to use the new opportunities of their new country to improve their own living conditions and integrate into society along with every other new arrival with the final result being a country where all divisions between them4eselves and those who live among them have become nonexistent.  

This very dream of universal human integration is something that someone with a lack of understanding of human nature would conclude as they know why humans ha divided themselves in the first place as well as why humans are constantly fighting, exploiting, and hating each other.  This very lack of understanding of human nature is also why many people don't realize that multiculturalism is an inevitable failure that was caused by human nature itself.    

Homogenous vs Heterogenous

Why does crime exist despite the existence of human groups which are meant to fulfill the needs and desires of every individual in their midst?  While differences in morality are certainly one of the reasons for the existence of crime; another reason is the fact that human groups, to properly be solid cohesive entities all aspects of human groups, such as language, culture, social values, and even ethnicity need to be the same or similar.  This cohesiveness among human groups, in fact, has been achieved before during early human history when local humans, after having settled and adapted to their new environments, began forming similar languages, cultures, religions, and varieties in bodily function and appearance due to natural selection.  These new human groups would have initially been quite cooperative and friendly with each other when they settled, worked, and shared resources with each other.  

This cohesiveness can even be possible even when a human group is highly populous and spread out over large cities and towns where they are the sole inhabitants of said places of habitation.  The main aspects of a group that actually maintains group cohesion would be 1)Culture, 2) Ethnicity, 3) Religion or Communal Morals, and 4) Language.  The reason these very aspects of human groups seem to hold the group together is that these aspects apply to large regions of people that are spread out over wide areas which explains why large swaths of the world have people who have similar languages, religions, and cultures to get along with each other whenever they meet such as two Spanish speakers who come from two different Latin American countries or when two Muslims from Africa and Asia meet.  

Also, when it comes to ethnicity or race, which is really just similar varieties of people that fall into quantitative categories, the existence of a common appearance among a group reinforces and aesthetically represents the group’s homogeny as well.    

But when human groups that have different cultural, linguistic,, religious, or ethnic backgrounds meet each other one of two things can happen.  Either these two groups, if there is some resource or benefit that both groups want from each other, will cooperate with each other for mutual group benefit or they will start conflicting with each other because either group wants resources and land that the other group wants and vice versa for the benefit of either group at the cost of the other.  This very inevitable kind of conflict between human groups is why human groups separate themselves through borders between them.  But when human groups break these borders in an attempt to unify both groups; this very conflict will arise again.  

However, human conflict, through breaking borders, plays out very differently from usual human conflict which is often expressed through war.  This conflict expresses itself when an individual or a smaller group from the main group they came from arrives and finds themselves unable to attain the resources and land they came for through conventional means that have been set up by the other group which was designed only to benefit the aforementioned so the initial group will either turn to crime both organized or unorganized to undermine the already set up systems of laws, customs, values, and civil activity.

This undermining of the current system, with enough social pressure from both empathizers and members of the undermining system, will allow said group to finally gain resources and land for themselves and finally function as a people.  However, because human groups are always looking to grow and gain more resources for their group’s benefit; they will continue to undermine the system that gave them their initial benefits until that system has been toppled and replaced by their own systems that are meant to benefit them and the cycle will repeat should another group come in.  

The fact that human groups are always looking to benefit themselves, even at the cost of other groups, is why a heterogeneous group that is formed from migration towards a certain part of the world is bound to not get along with each other and when they are made to live under one government or country frequent disagreement and different group goals will always cause crime, discontent, and civil chaos to occur until one group out of the many emerges victorious and dominates the rest of the groups.  But if this doesn't happen then the crimes and other forms of conflict between human groups will remain.  

So, overall heterogeneous groups will often fight with each other due to conflicting group interests as well as individual interests because there is a lack of ethnic, linguistic, cultural, or religious unity among heterogeneous groups and this conflict between groups is often why human groups stagnate in their own development of their own people something which homogenous groups lack.  

Race & Ethnicity

Homogenous groups, primarily form around common culture, languages, history, and sometimes religion,; many will agree that all these things, except religion in some cases, forms whats known as an ethnic group. Every country that exists or has existed has always been built around a certain ethnic group, except for empires, such as the Spanish, Chinese, Egyptian, etc.  Numerous ethnic groups around the world are at least centered around one attribute of an ethnic group such as Latin America which predominantly speaks Spanish or the nations of the Middle East and North Africa which predominately speak Arabic except for Iran and Afghanistan which speaks Parsi and other related Persian languages.  

But the human race, contrary to commonly-held beliefs, is not the same as ethnicity because races of humans are defined as a group of people with similar traits while ethnic groups are based on what is essentially the mental and social products of a group of people.  Race on the other hand is based on the physical differences of said people.  It is also worth noting that unlike race, which is genetically inherited due to the occurrence of said varieties, any human being, that has no predominate loyalty to another group,  can become part of an ethnic group by learning the language, adopting the culture, and embracing the history of their adoptive ethnic group.  Nevertheless, it does seem that ethnic groups and races seem to exist together in certain parts of the world.  In general, ethnicity or ethnic group is the result of the mental production and social interaction of a group of people while race is the physical constitution of said people compared to other groups.           

Conclusion

So basically, the reason why multiculturalism is an inevitable failure is due to the inevitable conflicts that will occur among human groups and unlike individuals because of conflicting interests or goals that are meant to benefit said groups and individuals.  When human groups are homogenous, there is mostly a lack of differences among people in terms of their goals and identity which is why said people can work with each other towards a common goal whereas the opposite is true for a heterogeneous group or a bunch of unlike human groups who live near each other.  So, if people believe that cultural enrichment and a lack of conflict are going to result from multiculturalism; then they certainly don't understand human nature and all of its aspects in an unbias way.         

What is the Human Race?

Convictions on Race

The topic of race is something of a taboo for most people given the amount of discrimination, hate, and societal suffering the concept of race has caused for most people.  You can say it is a universal oppressor of people and groups.  But this very concept of race is also something that is not well understood due to the massive amount of social stigmatism it has even to the point that some assert that race itself does not exist.  Others form theories or concepts on racial discrimination and its hidden occurrence within our current society.  Some go as far as to associate mundane objects or non-racial concepts as hinting at racial discrimination.  Therefore, I will be attempting to analyze the concept of race to find the truth about race and why people think it is not real.  

Foundations of Life

Every single entity that exists within this Universe has two compositional aspects.  These aspects are the constitution of the said entity and the quantitative representation of said constitution.  Rocks, water, forms of energy, and especially living things have both the said constitutive and quantitative composition which defines their very existence.  Within these two composing aspects of life, there is one aspect, which is the constitutive part of an animal, that can't be changed while the other quantitative aspect of said animal can be changed.  

The unchanged constitution of an animal of course is due to its DNA which is existing DNA that was copied and passed down from a progenitor living thing or organism which is the parent of said animal.  The DNA itself holds all the information needed to compose an organism but not all organisms are genetically identical on a quantitative, and not a constitutive, level.  These aforementioned quantitative differences are known as variations.

Even though these truths are blatantly obvious; these very truths are espoused within the so-called Theory of Evolution which states that animals can adapt to certain environmental and ecological conditions through a process called natural selection which selects certain variations of animals that are adaptable to said environments and conditions resulting in that particular variation of animal to be able to pass these variations or “new” traits on to their offspring, when their DNA is copied through reproduction, thereby creating a “new” species of animal.  The same process also applies to plants through the same process along with another similar process called artificial selection which is a process where certain variations of plants are selected by humans who farm them to extract the most edible parts of said plants for human consumption.

This same process is also applicable to humans as well and considering that humans are spread out in nearly every corner of the globe a large amount of variation is expected among the human world population.   But this is where the definition of race among humans becomes complicated and disputed.  I mentioned earlier how there is an assertion that the human race doesn't truly exist and so I will elaborate further on what this actually means.  

Is Race a Social Construct?

As humans have developed many variations among themselves as they spread throughout the world; a large part of the human world population has lived next to each other in multiple connected countries for centuries except in The Americas until a few hundred years ago.  This interconnected state of living meant that human populations within neighboring nations would often mingle with each other resulting in a mix of variations among most of the human world population.  These human variations will form in certain biomes or environments around the world and when humans migrated and conquered each other throughout human history; human variations, therefore, exist in more of a wide range of spectrums than as clear division.  In fact, all variations exist in a spectrum from the most vestigial traits to the most functional trait that is due to yet again quantitative differences. 

 It was for this reason that the idea of a race of humans was an unheard concept among the various human populations of the world until Europeans arrived and categorized all these spectrums of various human groups into races.  This was done for Europeans to justify their hierarchical position over said people when Europeans began colonizing and controlling large parts of the world.  The fact that human variations exist in a spectrum is the main assertion that is given to show that human races don't really exist which makes sense given the historic and current state of humanity.  

However, the fact that human variations exist in a spectrum does not necessarily mean that there aren't any variations that are highly distinctive, in a quantitative manner, within the said spectrum.  It is also worth noting that population density around the world isn't the same as some areas can hold as many as billions of people, like India or China, while others can hold up to only a few hundred thousand humans, like Scandinavia or the Baltic States, so human intermingling between people is not as frequently in certain areas while it is widespread in other areas.  So human variations within a spectrum only exist in an area of frequent intermingling between people while variations of a more distinctive nature exist in less populated areas with little human contact.  So is race entirely a social construct?  

Racial Classification 

The distinctive variations that are found within the spectrum of human variation can be classed into certain quantitative categories.  The best example of this would be the cephalic index which is the ratio of the axial length of the head, from front to back, and the width of the head from side to side.  If the axial length of the head is longer than the width of the head then someone can be classified as dolichocephalic or long-headed.  But if the width of a head is longer than the axial length of the head then that person can be classed as brachiocephalic or short-headed and if the axial length and width of the head are equal then they will be classed as mesocephalic or medium-headed.  The cephalic index was created by a 19th-Century Swedish professor named Anders Retzius as shown below.  

This example and many like it show that a variation is considered highly distinctive when there is a great difference in a quantitative representation such as the aforementioned long and short heads.  Another example of distinctive variations would be the difference between tall or short people or the difference between people with a protruding or a vertically flat upper jaw.  So any quantitative differences that are great in number will be grounds for distinction among humans which is how the human races, which were created by European anthropologists and anatomists, came about.

But is this basis of human difference scientifically valid?  We need to consider that the process of natural selection which creates “new” species of animals is a process that chooses quantitative differences of a distinct character because for an animal to adapt and survive in a certain biome or environment; there needs to be a quantitative distinction because the norm of variation among a group of animals is not able to adapt to an environment and any variations similar to the aforementioned variations will also not be able to adapt as well.

  So a distinctive variation, that is not quantitatively close to the previous variation, which can enhance an existing trait or enable a vestigial function in an animal can offer a “new” trait that is capable of adapting to a new environment and given that environments and biomes are themselves are quite distinct, such as deserts, forests, and mountains, having distinctive variations to adapt to these environments makes sense. 

So when humans with distinctive varieties are classified as races; it mirrors the distinction that is made between species of animals for adaptation.  Therefore, human races themselves are obviously the result of a group of humans who are successfully adapted to certain environments around the world.  So ultimately human races, despite the spectral nature of human variation, do exist in certain parts of the world since time immemorial.

Racial Supremacy?

When human races were being classified by European anthropologists and anatomists, the original intention of such classification was for scientific purposes only.  But there was an element to this classification that unintentionally brought the field of human racial classification under ridicule and opposition.  This element uses human racial differences to justify racial supremacy.  

While most human variations are just quantitative differences that arose as a result of adaptation; there were some quantitative differences, such as cranium size, brain size, and depth of convolutions within a brain which were concluded to show that certain human races were mentally undeveloped or inferior, almost to the level of an animal, which was used to prove that European imperialism over certain people, with said variations, was a necessary and blissful gift that would uplift them to their level of civilization so long as they remained under imperial control.  The struggles that the Europeans apparently had with said people in giving them their idea of civilization is what the Europeans would call “The White Man’s Burden”. 

This sense of mental inferiority for certain people by Europeans is also what was used to keep said people within a segregated state away from Europeans as well as not providing them with any political or social rights that would bring said people to the level of Europeans within their societies.  This claim of inferiority among certain human races is quite hard to explain.  We know that highly distinctive human variations result in human races and some of these distinctive varieties can occur anywhere within the human body, including the brain. 

 In fact, the explanation given by racial supremacists for the differences between the brain size of certain human races is that humans were entered into environments that were not abundant in food and freshwater and adapted to these environments by growing larger brains that would help them come up with ways to survive without any physical advantage like an animal while those humans who lived in areas with access to plenty to food and water didn't need such large brains as a result.  

This explanation, while it makes sense, is something that is a misused fact about human variations and races.  While some humans may not have large brains or high cranial capacity because of natural variations and environmental adaptation; this does not necessarily mean that they are doomed to their seemingly inferior status because human variations can always change throughout generations within the right environment that would select larger brain variations as a result.  

But it is worth noting that because variation exists in s spectrum through widespread human intermingling; human brain size varies by quite a lot and this high amount of variation means that a wide range of mental functions can exist among most humans so one can properly divide human brain sizes into a large superior brain or a small inferior brain.  So while there is a degree of so-called racial supremacy in a mental sense due to brain and cranial variations; such differences that mark this supremacy are not permanent or even solidly existent which makes this idea of racial supremacy an unscientific claim.  

The "White" Exception

Now that we know that human variations encompass all of humanity which differentiate them into distinctive variation groups that are classed as races; it is evident then that all variations of humans are constitutionally or genetically the same and so when it comes to these quantitative differences among humans; we can conclude with certainty that all humans with various traits all came from a common progenitor or ancestor.

But then you have humans with unusual traits that exist in the north of Europe who have a kind of coloration that is exceptionally different from the coloration of most humans.  These differences have nothing to do with the color of the skin, hair, or eyes, but rather the biological systems that create such color within the eyes, skin, and hair.  In fact, the existence of these non-black colors does not make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint because humans that have brown hair, eyes & skin are able to & have adapted to all kinds of environments from scorching deserts to cold forests.  In fact, the existence of light brown hair and very light skin is proof of this adaptation of brown coloration towards colder climates such as the Inuits and Mountain Dwellers. So then why do people with non-black coloration or blue eyes and light yellow hair exist despite there being no evolutionary reason for them to do so?  

The answer to this very question is that blue eyes and light-yellow hair are not variations of human coloration.  Common brown human coloration is produced within the hair, eyes, and skin through specialized cells called melanocytes which create organelles called melanosomes which are deposited into neighboring cells in large numbers, through the dendrites of melanocytes, where the amount and concentration of melanosomes within the pigmented cells determine the degree of brown coloration within the body, especially the skin.  When these melanocytes are absent from skin and hair cells; it leaves the skin and hair into a white translucent color while the eyes are bright red due to the presence of blood vessel exposure within the iris.  Here is a diagram of dark pigmentation for reference.

 

But when it comes to the mechanism of coloration for blue eyes; the following passage by the Journal of Physical Chemistry describes the different non-variable mechanism that produces blue irides. ”The most characteristic and most readily observed properties of the so-called 'Tyndall blues^^ (of third media) are 1. Minute particles, <0.6m, of different refractive indexes from the surrounding medium. 2. Scattered light is blue; transmitted light is yellowish. 3. Scattered light is more or less polarized; vibration in-plane normal to the direction of the incident beam. Other properties, such as changes in swelling, permeation, pressure, etc. are applicable only when the particles are pores or cavities. The aim of this investigation was to demonstrate either that a blue pigment was present, or that the blue was of the typical Tyndall type, analogous to the blue of the sky, smoke, skimmed milk, blue feathers, etc. Human material was not available but the same methods may be applied to it as were employed in this study.

Mr. Irvine H. Page kindly furnished us with specimens and aided in the dissection. Several eyes of two weeks old kittens were studied. These were of a clear blue, rather better than the blue eyes of most people. (It should be mentioned that very few blue eyes are really better than a blue-gray. The blues do not compare in brilliance or purity with those of the other blue media mentioned above). The material was examined within four hours of death, was not treated with any preservative, and physiological saline solution was used as a mounting medium.

Observations with transmitted light were carried out with daylight, while the scattered light was observed with a dark-field illuminator, and also by sending a horizontal beam of light through the preparation in the field of the microscope, a concentrated-filament lamp and bulls-eye condenser being employed.  Polarization was observed by placing a cap Nicol prism over the ocular of the microscope and revolving this to the position of the minimum intensity of the light scattered by the preparation. A selenite plate ("1st. order red'’) gives a red to green color change when placed below the Nicol in the above system.

The horizontal beam across the field of the microscope was employed for this observation. Care was taken to distinguish between effects due to the irregularities of the external surface and those due to the polarizing action within the tissue itself. The iris was separated into the stroma layer, and the black pigment layer (uvea). The stroma, by transmitted light, was turbid yellow—of the same hue as that of other turbid media; the color was not localized <l in pigment granules. Against a dark ground, the stroma scatters whitish-blue light and with a 3 mm objective, a haze of tiny points of blue light was observed. The scattered light was partially polarized, and the vibrations were in the plane normal to the direction of the illuminating beam. No evidence of a blue pigment was noted; the yellow appearance by

transmitted light would preclude the possibility of such a pigment being present...

The pigment of the uvea is not purple but dark brownish-black (melanin) and serves as a background for the turbid stroma. In like manner, the choroid serves as a dark background for the sclera though the latter is frequently so thick and so opaque that the dark background is really not necessary and the sclera appears almost white.

The retina presents a bluish-gray appearance, and shows the properties of a Tyndall blue medium, though to a less degree than the stroma or sclera. This is no doubt due to the scattering of light by the various minute structures of the retinal nerve endings. The ‘‘visual purple” is another thing. It is a true pigment, has been isolated and studied chemically, and it fades rapidly in the light...It would also be interesting if someone with an abundance of exf>erimental material would compare different shades of blue eyes and blu<e eyes of persons of different ages, to establish a more definite relationship between the size and number of the particles of the turbid layers and the color of the eye, A study of the increase in whiteness and opacity of the sclera with age might also be interesting.

This structural basis of the blue of eyes fits the observed fact that the blues g<uu‘rally IxTome lighter and grayer with age, for a slight increase in the size of the tiny particles would accomplish this. The development of a yellow to brown pigment in the turbid stroma would of course give shades ranging from green to hazel or brown.

The conclusion of this paper confirms those of Bancroft s article- and is as follow’^s:

1. In blue eyes there is no pigment in front of the uvea, which is brownish-black (melanin).

2. The blue color is the color of turbid media (Tyndall blue) and is localized in the stroma.

3. The uvea serves as a dark background and permits the maximum appearance of blue from the turbid stroma.

4. Pigmentation in the stroma may combine with blue to give green, hazel, or brown eyes.

5. Increase in the size of the particles of the turbid layer would account for the lessened clearness of the blue with age.

6. The sclera consists of a thick layer of dense whitish Tjmdall blue, backed by the black choroid”. (Mason, C. W. (1924). Blue Eyes. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 28, 500-501.   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.229329/page/n5/mode/2up)

So blue eyes are colored by the presence of a turbid media which is a heterogeneous medium that contains particles in fine suspension within the medium that each collectively reflects back blue light as light is transmitted through the eye as a transmitted yellow color which gets absorbed by the uvea or the pigmented back layer of the iris which actually makes the brightness of the reflected blue light more apparent.  If there is an excess of collagen in the iris the color from the light reflection will produce a blue-gray or gray eye color as well.  

So blue & gray eyes are really light-reflective eyes and not pigmented eyes although pigment can mix with these kinds of eyes to create an eye color like green, hazel, and semi-bright brown color, which is based on the reflection of blue light and strong brown pigment.  This mechanism of eye color is therefore certainly not due to the production and deposit of melanosomes by melanocytes within the iris, which produces dark brown eyes, making blue eyes a non-variable trait of eye coloration.  But what about yellow hair?  Brown and yellow hair are pigments that are produced and distributed by melanocytes into neighboring cells.  

However, brown hair is produced from an amino acid called tyrosine while yellow, which also comes from tyrosine, is produced when it is combined with a different amino acid called cysteine.  Here is a diagram of melanin synthesis of black/brown and yellow pigment.  

 

The amino acid tyrosine is composed of the elements Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen as indicated by the diagram.  However, the amino acid cysteine is composed of all these previous elements plus one more element called Sulfur as also indicated by the diagram.  Sulfur is an element that is bright yellow in its solid pure form which is the reason why cysteine, when combined with the gaseous and colorless elements of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, and Hydrogen forms bright yellow hair.  Brown/black hair meanwhile goes through a process of melanin synthesis without cysteine which makes black/brown pigment.  So black and yellow hair have fundamentally different chemical compositions when they are produced which makes the difference between black and yellow a non-variable one as well. 

So ultimately, these non-black forms of coloration are a genetic exception to the highly various human world population and because these traits are non-variable; mixing these non-black color traits with black color traits will result in both forms of coloration being present within the DNA of someone and expressed in various ways such as someone having brown hair and blue eyes or someone having light yellowish-black hair and green eyes and when these traits mix together the black coloration traits are always dominant because the black color, which is a heavily dark pigment and a light absorber,  always overtakes the non-black coloration traits in general.  Ultimately, non-black forms of coloration among humans in a non-variable trait that is the exception from the same kind of black pigmentation and genetic constitution that most humans have all over the world. 

Race in General 

So we now know that humans more or less exist within a quantitive setting while being genetically the same in constitution except for those with non-black forms of coloration as well as those who are mixed with both forms of coloration.  But despite all of these differences among humans; non of these variational differences that make up humanity make one kind of human better than the other and vice versa.  All humans have the same capacity for intelligence and the same capacity for physical strength despite the existence of these adaptation variations.

So there are really only three kinds of human races that exist which are the Black (Pigmented) Race, The Colorful (Light Reflection & Sulfur-Based Non-Black Pigmentation) Race, and a Mixed Race (A combination of Black and Non-Black Coloration from the other two races.  The Black Pigmented Race is the most genetically dominant and the most common of the three races which numerous variations of people who form distinctive appearances such as the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid varieties.  

The second most common race is the Mixed Race which only inhabits most of Europe, The Americas, Oceania, and parts of Asia and Africa and is mainly of the Caucasoid variety with some people being of the Mongoloid & Negrtoid variety as well.  This race is genetically mixed with both kinds of coloration which may not always be genetically expressed, especially when it comes to the genetic expression of the non-black forms of coloration. 

Lastly, the least common race of the three is the colorful race which is only of the Caucasoid and other similar variety of humans that only inhabits the northwestern parts of Europe and is the most genetically weak in its expression of coloration when compared with the more dominant Black-coloration races.  The reason behind this is the potency and strength of Black coloration which, when mixed with non-black coloration, tends to blacken the more lightly colored yellow hair and reduces the brightness and color of blue eyes when there is a lot of black pigment in the eye which creates an overall appearance of someone having dark eyes with minimal or no brightness of light from the iris.             

However, human differences in variation and constitution are no grounds for valuing one human over another because human variations themselves can always change and differences in human coloration are just differences in coloration which provide their own advantages to whoever has them.  So one kind of person who is really smart or strong can become less intelligent and physically weak over time by living in certain environments while less intelligent and weak people can become strong through certain environments as well.     

Works Cited

Mason, C. W. (1924). Blue Eyes. American Journal of Physical Chemistry, 28, 500-501.   https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.229329/page/n5/mode/2up)

Eumelanin-Pheomelanin Synthesis Diagram: Melanins' biosynthetic pathways. | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)

Skin Pigmentation Diagram: Pigmentation | Anatomy and Physiology | | Course Hero

Why are People Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

    

 

The Abortion Debate

This week, it was found out through a draft leak that the Supreme Court intends on overturning the verdict on Rowe v. Wade which enabled the right of a woman to be able to decide whether they wish to have an abortion or not without governmental interference.  This very right is considered a landmark decision by the Supreme Court and a “progressive” step toward women's rights while some consider this decision an act against God’s will.  But all opinions aside the real question we should be asking is why both sides have their current opinion regarding this issue of abortion which the case of Roe v. Wade argued was constitutional.

This question is important because between the clashes between those who are pro-life and pro-choice; there is no understanding of either side's opinion on an interpersonal level which leads to biases on both sides regarding this issue.  Said understanding could help generate an agreeable resolution to this issue once and for all.  So, with that, we will be investigating both sides of this fiery debate on abortion.  

Pro-Choice

Those who are pro-choice are typical of the “liberal” demographic.  These people think that women should solely be allowed to get an abortion if they so wish and that society or the government should not interfere with this decision because this very decision is only for a woman to make with her body.  In fact, any instance of pregnancy should be eligible for an abortion with preferably no restriction on any instance of pregnancy from sexual assault to unintended pregnancy.  

Of course, there is the financial factor that often inhibits a woman from having an abortion as abortions are a medical procedure that is usually expensive unless it is covered by medical insurance in some cases.  But, it is the very ability to freely choose to have an abortion under the law that matters to those who are pro-choice.  The ultimate objective for those who are pro-choice is the presence of the right for a woman to abort a child.    

But the greater meaning of this conviction of pro-choice has to do with several aspects of modern human society.  The main aspect of society that is supported and found among pro-choice advocates is pure unrestrictive individuality for not only women but for also for those who have formed a loose individual association with them.  This individuality is one where, besides the aforementioned associations with women, the presence of another human being with personal needs within an individual woman’s life will inhibit the very individuality or freedom that said woman values for herself.  

So, upon the occurrence of pregnancy for individualistic women; the first thing they will think about is how to get an abortion.  If they are personally fortunate enough to afford it then they will certainly go for it but if they can't afford it, according to state law, they will either need to carry the pregnancy to term to have an abortion much later on if they can then afford it. 

 However, if pregnancy is carried to term a woman may often decide to raise the child anyway due to feelings of empathy they will develop for the child. But such empathy is greatly limited by the predominate individuality of women which can often result in conflict between the care for a child and the individuality that women value so much which will result in one of the other being chosen by a woman another reason which a woman may wish to have an abortion nearly too avoid these feelings and retain their individualistic lives.       

But it is important to note that this very individuality, ironically, could also cause an unwanted pregnancy because such instances of pregnancy will occur when women freely mingle with others they will engage in interpersonal relations with certain people.  So, it seems then that individualistic women wish to have the personal benefits of freedom but also avoid the consequences of such freedom or individuality which demonstrates a lack of social irresponsibility on the woman's part. 

However, the responsibility of any kind isn’t really expected by those who are individualistic as responsibility involves care for others which is not what individuality advocates, especially for women when it comes to their right to have an abortion.  In fact, individual women only wish to be socially responsible for themselves and not for others because of the understandable burden it gives them on an individual level.   ,  

But despite this, many pro-choicers will respect the individuality of women anyway since pro-choices are often individualistic themselves.  Ultimately; the standpoint of pro-choicers is the very right to abortion which just represents the desire for unrestrictive individuality as well as the negatory social responsibility that comes with it.  

Of course pregnancy as a result of sexual assault is an entirely different issue but still relates to the individuality of people more specifically men and sometimes women. Where men will act on their own gratifying desires towards women with little social regard for them and personal violation is certainly not acceptable for any person individualistic or not.   

Pro-Life

Those who are pro-life are the exact opposite of pro-choicers.  Those who are pro-life are against abortion of any kind except for some instances where a woman's life is in danger.  These people are usually community-oriented with an emphasis on religious or socially conservative communities.  Such communities tend to always be concerned with group integrity and well-being and a big part of that involves the production of children.  

This very concern for the well-being of children goes so far as to disregard the circumstance behind a child’s conception besides the most medically extreme of circumstances.  This very disregard stems from certain expectations from individuals both within and outside conservative communities.  That expectation is the aforementioned social responsibility that the individualistic pro-choicers avoid.  

This social responsibility is one where a person is expected to be more restrictive or selective with to make sure they are engaging with the right people which are the people that share the same conservative ideals as them within their community.  Such similarity in value is expected to result in a relationship that is respectful of the aforementioned conservative values which may result in a socially legitimate pregnancy. 

So, there is an expectation of communal commitment by everybody.    The very act of individuality that is found among pro-choicers is repulsive and forbidden among said communities.  Said communities, as I mentioned earlier, are highly religious and religion itself holds child-bearing is more important than an individual's own interests as well.  It is known that communities of people can only stay together if they share common values, beliefs, or composition.    

But the main idea behind the communal and religious values that avert most abortion is the content that all living things, including a fetus, deserve to have a life as it is God’s will.  IN general, those who are pro-life mostly object to abortion on communal and religious grounds while disregarding the individualistic factor among women.  

Conclusion

Those who are pro-choice are generally individualistic while those who are pro-life are community-oriented.  These polar opposite sides of individuality and community are not necessarily compatible with each other given the conflicting objectives of both sides within society.  However, if both sides could understand each other on an ideological level; such an understanding is ultimately not bound to last.  

Communities reject individualism due to the dangers it poses to their integrity while individualistic people reject community due to not wanting to be put under a certain set of rules or authority or a certain set of beliefs that they are told are the “right” kind of values.  This debate on abortion then is primarily about individualistic rights vs communal and religious integrity of human groups.   

So, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade being currently considered; we now know why both sides of this debate have their opinions and how their opinions originated both from within themselves and those around them.  But at the end of the day; the right of a woman to be able to have an abortion is up to them or their communities and whatever decision is made; it has no consequence within the greater universe that we live in.                        

               

What Is True Love?

Attempting to Define Love.

Human selfishness, which is due to their conditional existence as unnecessary entities of the Universe, means that we as humans will do whatever we want or can to benefit our own existence.  But then we have this concept of love.  Besides the famous song by Haddaway; I can be sure that the vast majority of people can not properly define love because most people tend to associate love with sexual intimacy.  That current conviction is mostly due to movies and societal norms of individuality which I will be breaking down to answer the question “What is Love”

How Do We Love?

How do people fall in love in the conventional sense?  The answer to that question is obvious: people fall in love by meeting each other in some sort of social gathering such as tavern/bar, classes, public events, etc.  Of course, simply meeting someone doesn't cause them to love you.  Certain conditions must be fulfilled based on the very functions of the two sexes.  For women, the mental and physical functions they have are the same as men except when they are child-rearing.  When that happens a woman becomes highly inclined to emotions of an interpersonal nature which can cloud, have certain cravings, and are physically vulnerable due to the presence of a fragile fetus along with the vital nutrients being supplied to the fetus to keep it alive. 

So this very reduced physical and emotional state of a woman when child[-rearing means that they cannot fend for themselves from potential dangers that are always lurking due to the constant conflicts that occur between living things; so they need someone who isn't physically and emotionally inhibited who can therefore make rational decisions and be physically strong enough to protect women from said dangers.  This very someone is an accompanying male.  So for women to fall in love with a man in the conventional sense; a man needs to have a presence of physical strength along with a high sense of mental aptitude and the ability to present an aura of social control which all meant to ensure that a man is capable of protecting woman when they are physically and emotionally vulnerable.  

Women on the other hand only need to be physically attractive to make a man “fall in love” with them.  This physical attraction can be expressed through the use of self-liberating forms of dress which consequently can attract some unwanted attention for women from what they deem as unattractive men.  Nevertheless, physical attraction is the only requirement for women for attracting men.  The reason for this is simply that certain parts of the woman's body that go into bearing a child are the same parts that men are attracted to such as the breast, hips, genital area, and in some cases the buttocks.

So these are the conditions for “falling in love” or sexual attraction for men and women and when this attraction between the sexes is met; then the very act of “falling in love” happens.  But we reality this “love” is a temporary one because when people of an individualistic character go to meet others for sexual intimacy; they will tend to engage any kind of people in intercourse because of the heightening self-pleasure that comes with doing so.  So what does falling in love really mean?

The Origin of Love

Human society is composed of individuals who have united into one group for the sake of mutual benefit.  This means that everyone within a formed human group has a role that is meant to keep the group together.  The role of men and women within the said group is one where their cooperation, is caused by their mutual sexual attractions to each other. In childbearing.  While such cooperation in child-rearing does occur among individual men and women; the cooperation is often negated by the individualism between men and women which is constantly self-enforced and often causes the child to act on their own individualism as a result. 

 This very social structure among people is most certainly destructive for human groups.  This very individualism along with a lack of group integrity can easily result in high divorce rates among coupled men and women as well as indulgences, like alcohol consumption or soft drug use, for lone individuals in general.

So interpersonal cooperation between men and women primarily prioritizes the raising of children for the sake of group integrity where children are brought up with certain morals meant to benefit the group rather than the individual.  These morals drove men and women to work together and disregard their own individuality in the process.  But upon doing so the cooperation among men and women in child-rearing allowed some degree of affection to grow not only for the children produced but also among the ones who raised the children as well.  This affection would soon develop into empathy among the aforementioned and this empathy, combined with the basis of mutual benefit among all members is how the group remains a cohesive whole and how women and men start to love each other.  

This is in stark contrast to the way love is conventionally portrayed as the union of two individuals who will eventually figure out how to love each other with time.  But such a conviction is frankly irrational because while men and women may come together for mutual intimacy and ultimately a state of cohabitation; they are still individuals who are unbridled from any greater purpose of unity other than interpersonal benefit and when individuality inevitably becomes more prominent by either individual, mostly due to personal problems from the individuality of the other partner or a partner on their own individuality in a social setting, such as abuse or adultery, the interpersonal union will eventually be broken up resulting in the aforementioned unbridled individuals usually continuing to live their own lives.  

Conclusion

So it seems that men and women are interpersonally unified through sexual intimacy through the protective role of men and the procreative role of women within a group of people.  But true love between men and women comes from the cooperation of child-rearing to benefit the group.  More specifically,  the love that men and women feel for each other originates from interpersonal affection which then becomes empathy which then combines with mutual benefit to create a cohesive human family and by extension group. 

This certainly makes a lot of sense and can certainly explain why human groups have had the same social structures for millennia until today when inequality reigns supreme over the lives of most people.  Some may try to balance group integrity and individualism but many are highly inclined to be solely individualistic with little regard for group integrity.  Either way, individuality, and group integrity have also been shown to be incompatible with each other when the group depends on human reproduction to exist.     

Overall true love comes from a group having a common goal which brings people into closer interpersonal unions due to the common goal they have all agreed to achieve together,