Wednesday, June 28, 2006

"Curing" Homosexuality

CNN reports:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A man's sexual orientation appears to be determined in the womb, a new study suggests. ...

Bogaert found that the link between having older brothers and homosexuality was present only if the siblings were biologically related -- this relationship was seen between biological brothers who were not raised together. The amount of time that a man was reared with older brothers had no association with sexual orientation.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal 'memory' for male gestations or births," Bogaert writes in his report in PNAS Early Edition.

A woman's body may see a male fetus as "foreign," Bogaert explains, and her immune response to subsequent male fetuses may grow progressively stronger.

"If this immune theory were correct, then the link between the mother's immune reaction and the child's future sexual orientation would probably be some effect of maternal anti-male antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain," he suggests.

Question is - if homosexuality is caused, at least to some extent, by an abnormality in fetal development then theoretically that abnormality can be accounted for and prevented or adjusted for by technological or medical intervention. In fact, if it is so mechanistic then homosexuality, theoretically, can be avoided with proper medical surveillance and care. It can be "cured."

Yet, if it can be "cured," does that mean that medically homosexuality can be considered as a physiological illness - the same as if we could avoid having children with other congenital physiological maladies. Or should homosexuality be viewed as natural variation like blue or brown eyes and ensuring that the child is heterosexual is on the same level as ensuring the child has blue eyes - though this study clearly indicates that homosexuality has a non-genetic component. If the latter, then most people would consider it unjustified tampering with the natural process. If the former, then most people would take it for granted that children should not be born with congenital maladies if it can be avoided.

The real question is - suppose the technology already existed that made this all possible and it was reliable and it wasn't overly expensive, would you ensure that your child be a heterosexual or would you let the dice fall as they may?

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

The fraternal birth-order effect (the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be homosexual) only "accounts for a maximum of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men," appears to have no effect on homosexuality in women, and has long been attributed to maternal physiological effects. This study may confirm the maternal effect (perhaps adding to jewish mothers' guilt over having gay sons), but does not imply that homosexuality in essense can be cured, only that small subgroup of homosexuality can be prevented. The idea that homosexuality can be "cured" is an extremely dangerous one which I'm sure has caused a great deal of anguish to closeted and outed homosexual orthodox jews.

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

First off it is a hypothetical. Second, even if it accounts for a subgroup of cases of homosexuality - if it is seen as a congenital malady and can be preventable then it would be on par with preventing 1/7 of other congenital maladies - still a laudable effort, no?

The point is, would you let the dice roll or would you want to help them fall a certain way?

Sure, you could deal with a gay son, but if you could control the outcome would you prefer a straight one?

woodrow said...

Straight of course, because

1) higher likelihood of Jewish grandchildren

2) general higher level of happiness all around, since child would be less likely to be condemned by all kinds of people and thus happier himself.

Points (1) and (2) would be true even if I wasn't in a frum community. If I wound up (due to marriage or my own religious evolution) living in a more frum community, point (2) becomes even more powerful.

dbs said...

Thinking as a parent, woodrow pretty much has it right. Being gay is not the easiest thing in the world, and we all want our kids to have as smooth a life as possible. You wouldn't want your kids to have six fingers either - there is a lot of personal growth which comes with being different from the crowd, but also a lot of pain.

I should point out the obvious - and less hypothetical - point. People ARE gay, you can't cure it or bioengineer it out. So let's start curing ourselves of this terrible prejudice. THAT is something which can be done.

Oh, and here's a thought - doesn't it follow that there are more gays in the orthodox population than in the secular population? After all, there are far more multi-brother families.

Orthoprax said...

Woodrow, DBS,

"You wouldn't want your kids to have six fingers either"

Precisely - because you're looking at it as a birth defect. Yet if it is a birth defect why is it wrong not to want your child to have it? You shouldn't need to apologize to want a normal kid. And it's not just because society has deemed something normal or abnormal, you yourself want a child that fits within a general standard.

"People ARE gay, you can't cure it or bioengineer it out."

I'm not so sure about that.

"So let's start curing ourselves of this terrible prejudice. THAT is something which can be done."

What's the prejudice? That it's weird? It is weird. I'm not going to parse words here, it's gross. At least in my eyes. Does that mean though that they should be treated any differently than heterosexuals? No. Of course not. People do all sorts of gross things. I just feel a little sorry for them that they are attracted to do these weird things.

"Oh, and here's a thought - doesn't it follow that there are more gays in the orthodox population than in the secular population? After all, there are far more multi-brother families."

You may have a point there. Maybe we should do a study.

dbs said...

Orthoprax,

Being gay is a normal, but minority, sexual preference. It presents challenges, and I would probably try - if I had the choice - to spare my kids these challenges. Going through puberty and dating is hard enough without having to deal with coming to terms with your sexual preference.

I don't want to overgeneralize from your statement, but you grew up in a community which considers homosexuality to be very deviant. It's just not. It is very hard to reset the emotional conditioning which you recieve.

Really the only cure for these sentiments is to get to know people who haven't been messed up with these ideas. You would find that they are just as idealistic and moral as the k'doshim who we have been brought up to idealize.

It won't help just to have me tell you this, but if you knew more gays, then you would probably consider it less 'weird'.

Orthoprax said...

DBS,

I honestly have no problem with the fact that people are homosexual. I don't think it is immoral. I just think it's gross.

If a bunch of foot fetishists get together and masterbate to a foot movie that could likewise be called a 'normal, but minority, sexual preference.' But I think it's just weird.

Can you imagine foot fetish pride parades? Maybe the leather bondage people can get together with the Sado-Masochists and sue for protected status.

As long as these practices are consensual I have no problem with them. It's a free country. Do whatever weird things you want to do with each other. But just because they're nice people doesn't mean that I have to somehow not be grossed out by the things they do. Their rights are not curtailed by my honest judgement of how I perceive their activities.

Nice Jewish Guy said...

I didn't want to get into semantics, but I don't think homosexuality is a "normal,[... ] sexual preference". It is certainly not normative; what I would say is that it is a variant, minority sexual preference.

And just to say it, I am not bigoted about homosexualtiy at all-- I am even in support of gay civil union-- in fact, I have a deeper understanding of it than you think. But I do think it is..well, gross, and yes, abnormal. Someone having one green eye and one brown eye would be abnormal, too, if we make the genetic variant comparison, as I have.

Eli said...

First off, to your reply to my initial comment (sorry, didn't mean to post anonymously), while you did say it was a hypothetical, your initial post did imply that you were using this study as evidence for the preventability for homosexuality. Nor does the study imply that preventing the maternal anti-bodies from attacking the fetus would "cure" or prevent homosexuality, but removes one of many potential causes of homosexuality. Yes, from a purely evolutionary standpoint if it is caused by maternal anti-bodies than that would be a congenital maladaptive malady, but we don’t believe in evolution anyway, right? And in our technological age, homosexual are just as able as heterosexuals to pass on their genes, so from that standpoint, there is no imperative to consider homosexuality abnormal.

Secondly, making specious comparisons to 'foot fetishists' contradicts your argument that it is somewhat biological (maternal or genetic), since sexual fetishism is most likely caused by behavioral imprinting or conditioning. and even if homosexuality has a behavioral component, it is still different than fetishism, which is a sexual tic (and yeah, pretty gross). 



Thirdly, Nice Jewish Boy, growing up Charedi in Brooklyn, I also thought homosexuality was "abnormal" and "gross." But while I certainly remain somewhat uncomfortable by it, I think that is a fault in me, in the society I grew up in, and they yeshivas I attended. There has been homosexuality, if not in its current form then at least in some form, since time immemorial--why else would whoever wrote Vayikra (whole 'nother can of worms) be so virulently against it? In some ancient Greek and Roman societies and even in Shakespearean sonnets, the thought of heterosexual love was considered abnormal. But as we can't totally escape our upbringing (think the author of this blog knows that pretty well), while I hope that when I have children I will be unprejudiced enough not to care if they are homosexual or not, I don't know what I would do.

Orthoprax said...

Eli,

"your initial post did imply that you were using this study as evidence for the preventability for homosexuality."

Yes, in theory. If the causes are mechanistic then preventive actions can be made.

"Nor does the study imply that preventing the maternal anti-bodies from attacking the fetus would "cure" or prevent homosexuality, but removes one of many potential causes of homosexuality."

This is just one factor. If the science behind homosexuality is fully understood I do believe that there could be technological intervention that could prevent most, if not all, cases. Do you disagree?

"but we don’t believe in evolution anyway, right?"

Hum? You or me?

"Secondly, making specious comparisons to 'foot fetishists' contradicts your argument that it is somewhat biological (maternal or genetic), since sexual fetishism is most likely caused by behavioral imprinting or conditioning."

They're different arguments. One was for the mechanistic congenital aspects of homosexuality. The other was for the idea of weirdness. The second argument does not impinge at all on the other.

"There has been homosexuality, if not in its current form then at least in some form, since time immemorial"

So? The same could be said of pedophilia. The Greeks were really into that. Hey, pedophilia might very well be a congenital condition too. That doesn't mean it needs to be given the status of normal sexual expression.

Anonymous said...

Come on, you very well know that the problem with pedophilia is that a minor is involved. Sexual acts between two minors is just as bad but there simply is no one to blame.
Homosexuality is not Normal. It is an absolutely correct definition, it is after all not the norm. But so is being very short or very fat, do they gross you out too? How about Jews? You'd agree that statistcly they are not the norm. What about those creepy looking Hasidic Jews, surely they gross us all out.
Hmm. so what's your intellectual advice on how to handle all these gross Gypsies?

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

The point about pedophilia was not about whom it was directed towards but whether it is congenital or not. I highly suspect that it contains a congenital component, yet that fact doesn't suddenly make it acceptable by modern day Western standards of sexual expression. Its "naturalness" is irrelevant.

Even the whole idea of what a minor is and when he or she can engage in sexual relations and with whom is a purely modern day definition, as far as you're using the terms. Marriage at the very early teens was normal back in the day, yet today we consider those same years to be part of childhood. Did people's biology change in those intervening years? No. Society has.

Strictly speaking, can you explain to me the harm done to a child if he or she engages in sexual relations with a trusted adult? Hell, in Greek times pedastery was just part of the boy's sexual education.

"Hmm. so what's your intellectual advice on how to handle all these gross Gypsies?"

The point is not how I'd "handle" people. I believe that all people are equal before the law and should be treated as such. Anyone can do anything that they'd like with each other as long as they don't impinge on mine or others' rights.

That being said, there is a difference between folks who are abnormally short or tall or hold abnormal sexual preferences with those who merely hold abnormal social identities. Being Jewish is not a congenital disorder.

If your child was going to grow up to be extremely short or tall without intervention, and there existed technology to ensure that they could grow up to be of normal height, would you not take advantage of that technology if you had the opportunity? Giving children who are doomed to be midgets growth hormone as they age is considered normal medical procedure nowadays. Is there something wrong with that?

I think of myself as a pretty tolerant guy. I think midgets and the mentally retarded and homosexuals etc. are all by and large good people. I also sympathize with their conditions. I feel bad for them.

What I'm doing here is opening the floor to assess whether those natural variations in human existence should be treated on the same plane as other neutral human variations - like hair color, or whether they should be seen as congenital disorders that should be fixed (if and) when technology makes that feasible.

Is it simply a matter of taste?

Anonymous said...

Do fat people gross you out? If so, do you understand that it's important to try to stop that behavior? (i.e. the grossing out thing) Wouldn't you try to teach your little child to be tolerant and not be grossed out from thing that he's not used to?

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, the sexual act in itself can be considered a pretty gross act. As is the act of 'using the facilities'.
Yet the sex act can and should be elevated to a much 'higher' level by infusing something more to it than some gross body parts pushing and probing into each other.
It can be a beautifull act of deep love between two people regardless of gender.
Truth to be said that to me even the act of sex as simple lust and pleasure is as beautiful as anything else and we shouldn't even need this 'elevation' thing.

Grossnes is all about one's perception on how things belong, which should be reined in by the strong tool of objective logic.

Anonymous said...

Why should homosexuality be considered a disorder?

Anonymous said...

"If your child was going to grow up to be extremely short or tall without intervention, and there existed technology to ensure that they could grow up to be of normal height, would you not take advantage of that technology if you had the opportunity? Giving children who are doomed to be midgets growth hormone as they age is considered normal medical procedure nowadays. Is there something wrong with that?"

I'm sure we'd all concede that short and tall are completelly relative. Which makes your question bring out our issue in strong relief.

There is absolutely nothing objectively gross with short or fat it is just not the norm. the same goes to sexual orientiation.

The only distinction is that sex between man and woman guarantees a future for the species.

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

Did I hit a nerve or something? You're jumping all over the place.

The grossness of the act is my personal opinion only and really is not relevant as far as whether homosexuality ought to be promoted as "normal" or relegated to outside the bounds of normal sexual relations.

If fatness was a congenital disorder, I would be in favor of intervention that would keep people thin. You wouldn't? There's not much good about being fat.

"Why should homosexuality be considered a disorder?"

Well, for one, the equipment doesn't usually fit the desired usage.

"There is absolutely nothing objectively gross with short or fat it is just not the norm. the same goes to sexual orientiation."

I'm not sure there's such a thing as "objectively gross." That whole line of reasoning is meaningless.

"The only distinction is that sex between man and woman guarantees a future for the species."

Would the average homosexual, had they the chance, prefer a typical male/female pairing with all the advantages and simplifications that come with it? If so, then why should we force the burden of homosexuality on further hapless souls?

Anonymous said...

"I'm not sure there's such a thing as "objectively gross." That whole line of reasoning is meaningless."

Hold it, first you're "not sure" and very quickly it is definitely "meaningless", What gives?

In any case, are you saying that grossing out is what it is, there are no (objective) guidelines [nor should there be] for the 'grossing out' factor.

That gives me a hard time explaining to my dear KKK friend here why Nigge's or Kikes shouldn't gross him out. Or maybe you're ok with that. If so then I'm sure you'd also be ok if your son shares the views of this lovable KKK guy. After all there are NO objective guidelines as to what should gross one out.

Rather than talking about me going all over the place, along with insinuating some deviant and totally gross sexual orientation on my part (I mean, how could you), I would beg you yourself to stay put and respond to the issue.

Is it right and sensible to be grossed out by subjective aribtrary guidelines. Or maybe we should start looking at things logically which will make us stop being grossed out with things that we will see are silly irrational biased concepts.

Eli said...

I don't want to impinge on anonymous' and Ortho's back and forth. Just wanted to answer Ortho's critiques of my last comments:

I brought up the ancient nature of homosexuality in order to illustrate that definitions of "normal," "gross," and sexuality are social constructs that have varied with time, not to argue that its having existed in the past is grounds for supporting it now. I think tolerance for homosexuality (or for anyone who is different) would hardly constitute Minhag Aveisainu. But your, or my, idea of the "grossness" of homosexuality is based on upbringing, societal norms, etc., and is not an innate reaction to their act. The idea that their "equipment doesn't fit"--so what? Our equipment fits insomuch for procreation--is sex without the ability to procreate gross? Where do you draw that line?

I mentioned evolution as a joke, to facetiously bring up another Orthodox battle du jour, but i'll bring it up again--why is homosexuality in 2006 a disorder? The ability to procreate through somewhat artificial means (surrogates, IVF, etc.) indicates that homosexuality is no longer an evolutionary maladaptation, just like being a sickle cell gene carrier is no longer a benefit, fort hose who no longer live in malarial swamps. The fact that society isn’t tolerant on homosexuality and therefore most homosexuals would want to be heterosexual probably doesn’t apply, at least in much of the contemporary West. The fact that it is different does not make it a disorder.

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

You're being absurdly antagonistic. I'm allowed to give my honest opinion and say that I consider certain acts to be disgusting. I'm probably not going to win public office with that (at least not in New York) but it still remains the fact.

"Is it right and sensible to be grossed out by subjective aribtrary guidelines."

I have the right to be disgusted. You have the right to do whatever you want to do and I'm allowed to be disgusted by it.

And again, I contend again that my personal internal reactions to the subject are irrelevant. I'm not mandating public policy based on my sense of disgust.


Eli,

"The idea that their "equipment doesn't fit"--so what?"

So it means that they're 'making do' with equipment that would work better in another arrangement.

"The fact that society isn’t tolerant on homosexuality and therefore most homosexuals would want to be heterosexual probably doesn’t apply, at least in much of the contemporary West."

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about general manner of living. For one, if you want children it's a hell of a lot simpler and cheaper if you desire heterosexual relations as opposed to homosexual. Why burden a person with that extra hassle?

As I said before, rather than homosexuality being something "wrong" that should be punished I see it more as a problem that could, theoretically, be avoided. Even without any issues regarding discriminationin society, do you think that unborn people (hypothetical) would choose to be homosexual if they knew ahead of time what life would be like?

Anonymous said...

Ok sorry if you took it the wrong way, I was just trying to be funny in a jousting sort of way.

BUT, I honestly don't see where i was antagonistic in this last comment. I honestly think that you yourself don't realize when you are a bit rude. When you say that this whole line of reason is 'meaningless' i would say that it is somewhat of an insult. Think of someone having a conversation with you and telling you that your whole line of thinking is meaningless. And then you try to make light of it and you say 'waaiiit a minute' do you 'think' it's meaningless or are you sure. Do you think you were absurdly antagonistic here.
Or maybe the guy doesnt stop there, he tells you that you are 'all over the place' looks like i touched a raw nerve. Again you use some humor and throw it back at him by saying that he is the one who should stay put. I wouldnt think that you would be considered absurdly antagonistic.

The above is an absurdly antagonistic way of apologising huh? I really respect your work a lot, I thought you are playing the macho game and I like to play along.

In any case, I still think that you would teach your kid not to be grossed out by Hasidic Jews or when seeing a Black guy married to a White woman. If you will see a parent being perfectly happy with a kid being grossed out by African people i think you will actaully be grossed out by that parent.

My point is, that the simple act of being disgusted can be a highly unethical act.

How about hate, are you entitled to hate whomever you want as long as you dont act out on it? Wouldn't that be agains some ethical guidelines?

Forget about entitlement, it's just between you and yourself. It's not only about the other person and his rights it's about me myself doing, living and thinking whats right, sensible and ethical. (and me being antagonistic is not part of it, sorry again)

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

"Ok sorry if you took it the wrong way, I was just trying to be funny in a jousting sort of way."

Ok, so let's forget it. I didn't mean to be dismissive or otherwise insulting.

"My point is, that the simple act of being disgusted can be a highly unethical act."

How so? When is one allowed to be ethically disgusted then? Can something be ethically wrong if nobody is harmed?

Or is it just an effort to not offend people? My perception of their act may offend them, yet their act effectively offends me. Who has the primacy of offense?

"How about hate, are you entitled to hate whomever you want as long as you dont act out on it? Wouldn't that be agains some ethical guidelines?"

Which one? I think the basic ethical guideline is to "love your brother as yourself" or another variation on the golden rule theme. The actual loving isn't as important as is the acting as if you do, but it's a solid foundation off of which acts derive. I don't judge thoughts.

MoeJoe770 said...

Hey thought you guys might find this interesting
Cool Jewish Tshirts
Tell ya friends!

Anonymous said...

Ortho,
I could start philosphising about the rationale of ethics, if it is just utilitiarian or if it is right because it's right.
Then I would continue by saying that at first glance if reason A is true then it doesn't matter what I'm thinking as long as my actions are ethical, whereas if reason B is true then if it's not correct to do X it is also not correct to feel like doing X.

Then I would maybe argue that even according to reason A we should discourage ourselves from feeling in ways that are diameterically opposed to what our actions should be. Otherewise we will inevetibly succumb to our feelings and do things accordingly.

But rather than doing all that, I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat the question I asked you in the previous posts. Would you be fine with your child having feelings of haterd to niggers, spics, and maybe even kikes?

The above is all about your position that ethics has no say on thougts, feelings and emotions, and that it's only about action.

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

"Would you be fine with your child having feelings of haterd to niggers, spics, and maybe even kikes?"

No. I wouldn't be. Because it is a baseless unjust hatred that has caused so much immorality in past times (and through the present). They're not inherently wrong though.

But this is different from views of disgust. I think a lot of acts are disgusting. This includes homosexual acts, eating live insects, drinking urine, and those guys that surgically cut their tongues to look like snakes' and so on. It even includes the very idea of my parents engaging in sexual relations. There's a 'gross factor' ringing in my mind whenever I think of stuff like that.

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing acts as disgusting. I think most people would not want to know of anything regarding their parents' sexual relations, but that doesn't mean that they want to outlaw the same based on their perceptions.

Disgust does not inevitably lead to hatred nor does it necessarily lead to discrimination or to further immorality.

Anonymous said...

"They're not inherently wrong though"
So you choose Reason A as the basis of Ethics (I happen to think that Reason B is the basis) and you agree that we shouldn't give our thoughts or feelings free rein.
One down.

about disgust.
Here's The Question, again.
Your child sees a hasidic jew with a long beard, wool suit with long jacket, (this in the hottest summer day) and he just feels revulsion to this whole culture. He voices it to you. Would you try to cool down his revulsion as much as possible?
Your child just gets disgusted by the palms of black people, it's black and pink ugh. Or maybe he gets disgusted about their wide noses would you try to dissuade him in any way?

Orthoprax said...

"So you choose Reason A as the basis of Ethics (I happen to think that Reason B is the basis)"

That is a discussion for another day.

"Your child just gets disgusted by the palms of black people, it's black and pink ugh. Or maybe he gets disgusted about their wide noses would you try to dissuade him in any way?"

The problem with these provided items of possible disgust is that nobody holds them. Nobody just has a visceral feeling of disgust when they see the palms of black people. If someone says that they do, then in all likelihood they are covering for bigotry or racism.

Anonymous said...

"Discussion for another time" True, my point was only that in the end you do agree that one can't allow free rien for his thoghts.

"covering for bigotry"
But if you'd know for sure that your child is not covering for bigotry, he's genuinely disgusted by black people, and/or by fat ladies would you try to disasuade him?

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

I'd dissuade him from publicizing his disgust since the heavy PC atmosphere would easily misconstrue his intent.

The point is that I don't think his feeling of disgust is wrong, I'd just be wary of societal response to his publication of it. People would take him to be a racist.

Anonymous said...

"The point is that I don't think his feeling of disgust is wrong"

If you're allowing your child to feel like this, then i'm sure you allow every child in the world to think so too. You'll surely allow all adults to think so too.
What do you think would happen if every white person wouldl have 'feelings of disgust' about black people and/or about fat ladies?Isn't it inevitable that the black and fat people will not be treated right?
(Remember, you agreed that if my thoughts or feelings will lead me to act out in harming others then it is wrong to have those thoughts)

Orthoprax said...

No, it is not inevitable.

Take, for example, those weirdos who cut their tongue in half to look like a lizard's. I think almost everyone is grossed out by people like that. Are they treated wrongly by society?

Anonymous said...

Not inevitable?? Ok, almost inevitable.
Do you really think that a person that everyone feels that he is a disgusting individual will have friends? Don't you think that humanity has proven time and again that when someone is thought to be a disgusting individual or disgusting group that it will leed to isolation and persecution?

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

We're not talking about disgusting individuals or groups. We're talking about specific disgusting actions or disgusting characteristics.

The next thing you're going to be arguing is that it's morally wrong to strongly disagree with someone. Because hasn't history proven time and time again that humanity persecutes those who they strongly disagree with?

Just because immorality can be brought through these thoughts doesn't mean the thoughts themselves are inherently immoral. The object is to note the disgust but to not act immorally based on it.

Jim said...

Very interesting blog. Are you looking Hoodia Diet Pills? I tried the Hoodia Weightloss pills. Here are some to try Pure Hoodia Diet Pills, Hoodia diet pills with Phentramine

Jim said...

Whats up!! Anybody know where I can find any good Posters

Anonymous said...

Looking for information and found it at this great site... » » »

Anonymous said...

Very nice site! Anxiety buspirone nervousness Asian golden dragon down blouse Albuquerque cash check advance Roanoke mountain camping blackberry 7230 wireless Army dental plans Suzuki g5e R9200 video card drivers grundy rain jackets Body builder fucking movie woman American senior life insurance company Propecia and refill http://www.allergies-1.info Req currency trading video lesbo gratis Microsoft golive training indesign training premiere acquiredlearning.com car alarm systems2c car security system2c enforcer Download stop popup blocker Business cards for unemployed