The gay agenda and why it bothers me: An analogy

Originally posted by murch
Its like narnia in here at the mo. Go people, go to the closet door and open it.
As a note to any parent out there who stridently advocate that there children shouldn't be exposed to this blah blah blah.
There is no surer way to encourage a young adult to experiment with something than to tell them its bad or wrong.
Lost count of the number of gay mates that have big butch fathers who wonder where they went wrong.

I think you are missing a point. Straight kids do not 'experiment' and decide they want to be gay. I'm told there may be issues of gender confusion when kids are at a certain age. Don't know about that from personal experience. But if you 'decide 'to be gay...well, that ship has already sailed. I'd say the only decision is whether or not to hide it from the aforementioned knuckledraggers.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I am sort of anxiously awaiting one of us horrible gay supporters being outed. I wonder which one of us will be the angry lesbian and which will be the gay man... I get dibs on angry lesbian.

The gay agenda and why it bothers me: An analogy

I'm skeptical that there is a supposed 'gay agenda'.
Isn't everything the author has a hard time with just part of life?
Homosexual people being themselves ... That's an 'agenda'??

reply to post by Trolloks


And that is the point I have been trying to make. Society/media/politics DON'T think of them the same way as "everyone" else, and if every gay shrank to the back like your friends then society/media/politics NEVER WILL think of them the same way as "everyone" else.

Those people causing the scene aren't doing it for no reason. They are drawing attention to themselves until they aren't being murdered/driven to suicide/are able to marry. Once those problems are corrected, trust me, gay's will be as boring as everyone else.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Actually, Buster said it was,

No, he didn't. He didn't say that being straight was knuckle-dragging. Being "anti-gay" is.

and his post was the one I replied to, not you.... this is what happens when you do not read to whom was being replied and what they stated before thinking you know what you are speaking about.

I knew exactly what you were responding to. I was making a point that you have still failed to get. And that point is: Just because someone defends gay rights, doesn't mean they're gay. Being straight is not knuckle-dragging. This adamant anti-gay position is. Many of us disagreeing with you are straight.

Actually, when you hit children around puberty telling them it is normal to be homosexual they question their sexuality and are more likely to experiment with a homosexual experience or two to find out why they are 'not normal' for being straight.

Do you have a source on that statistic?

No, but rather than spread the message that homosexuality should not be discriminated against they are trying to teach it is the normal state of man which it is not, and they are trying to teach that being straight is somehow abnormal.....

Really? Can you demonstrate to me people trying to teach that being straight is abnormal? Can you back up what you're saying?

And what do these words "normal" and "abnormal" mean in this context?

How about just teach love your neighbor and to each his own for a change?

Exactly! I'm glad to see you're coming around. Love your neighbor (even if he's gay), and to each his or her own (even if that means a parade). I absolutely agree!

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Yeah well, the whole 'normal - not normal' thing is a load of bo**ox too.

Historically there have always been gay people, as there have been people who don't like them but in a lot of early societies it wasn't a big deal, in some highly developed ancient cultures homosexuality was accepted amongst even the nobility. It really is the mono-theistic religions who have a problem with gayness these days and in earlier times, it's usually only religious people who decry it as not normal for the usual reasons of either propagation or simply because God banned it.

It's well known that homosexuality occurs in a wide variety of animals in nature, so, who says it's not 'normal', oh I forgot if you are religious you are above nature? Is that how it goes?

Originally posted by Trolloks
reply to post by resoe26

 

Are you aware that ancient greece was the most democratic society in history? That our system is politicaly bassed on their system? (we have lost the way, no doubt, and gone into something different, but democracy came from ancient greece).

Freedom, democracy, equil right and what not all came from ancient greece.....And you would of hated it for one aspect, sexuality was completly open.

Your right. I guess we are leaning towards that time no?
What about the Roman Empire?
Sodom

reply to post by FailedProphet


I never knew porcupines where gay....... seriously though, after centuries of having religious anti gay crap shoved down the populace throats, it's a refreshing change to see people becoming more open and tolerant.
So you think that because there's more openness on the media that there's some kind of agenda..... a conspiracy? to what avail...... worldwide gay domination?
and why do you allow yourself to be manipulated by media anyway..... just turn off you T.V

It's funny how we teach our children to live by the same standards as adults do, that love should be what's important.... not the sex......... yet, 2 of the same sex together......... the important factor flies out the door..... go figure

Well if there is a gay agenda, good.... it will keep a lid on those bigoted religious zealots

and to all you gay people out there........ be fruitful and multiply

Originally posted by resoe26


Normal is not two men having butt sex.. or two women humping on another. The only source I know of reproduction is man and woman. Do you know of any others? Therefore homosexuality is not normal. What are the reproductive organs for? Just pleasure no matter where or with whom? So beastiality is ok then too?
Reproductive organs..... REPRODUCTIVE. Two men can't reproduce, nor can two women.

Consenting adults, dude. It's none of your business what kind of sex people are having, as long as it's consenting adults. I know some heterosexuals that like to have some freaky kinds of sex that DON'T involve reproducing at all. We don't tell these heterosexuals they can't be married because of their freaky sex, do we?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Yeah well, the whole 'normal - not normal' thing is a load of bo**ox too.

Historically there have always been gay people, as there have been people who don't like them but in a lot of early societies it wasn't a big deal, in some highly developed ancient cultures homosexuality was accepted amongst even the nobility. It really is the mono-theistic religions who have a problem with gayness these days and in earlier times, it's usually only religious people who decry it as not normal for the usual reasons of either propagation or simply because God banned it.

It's well known that homosexuality occurs in a wide variety of animals in nature, so, who says it's not 'normal', oh I forgot if you are religious you are above nature? Is that how it goes?

Listen up guy, I have nothing against the people of queer, I just don't like their decisions. I think that decision is wrong. That is my own personal opinion and I stick by it.
That does not mean I hate them. My wife's uncle is homosexual, and he is a nice fella. I have had friends that were homosexual in high school.
Don't agree with their actions, but still like them. Hear what I'm saying?

reply to post by resoe26


I don't have anything against people like you, i just think that people like you ar wrong.

You're belifes are not natrual, they are not in nature, thus they are wrong.

You do not need religion to reproduce.

I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near a religious institution, because it teachings show that being who you are is wrong, and that the only way to b right and natrual is by believing the teachings, which i find it wrong.


Can you see the parrallel? You are just raising your child to be ignorant of others.

And for the record, i would love our society to be more like ancient greece. They had the greatest philosophers in history for a reason, they could dedicate all their time to the important questions of what it is to be human and what is life, other than sexuality and what not.

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Yeah well, the whole 'normal - not normal' thing is a load of bo**ox too.

Historically there have always been gay people, as there have been people who don't like them but in a lot of early societies it wasn't a big deal, in some highly developed ancient cultures homosexuality was accepted amongst even the nobility. It really is the mono-theistic religions who have a problem with gayness these days and in earlier times, it's usually only religious people who decry it as not normal for the usual reasons of either propagation or simply because God banned it.

It's well known that homosexuality occurs in a wide variety of animals in nature, so, who says it's not 'normal', oh I forgot if you are religious you are above nature? Is that how it goes?

Listen up guy, I have nothing against the people of queer, I just don't like their decisions. I think that decision is wrong. That is my own personal opinion and I stick by it.
That does not mean I hate them. My wife's uncle is homosexual, and he is a nice fella. I have had friends that were homosexual in high school.
Don't agree with their actions, but still like them. Hear what I'm saying?

Yeah? Well I wasn't addressing you actually.

I could care less what you think to be honest. You have your opinions, I have mine, best of luck fella.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


What i was saying is that the media and politics don't know how to deal with these social issues, and always blow them out of peportion, resulting in seperating people and labeling them due to their sexuality, instead of just calling someone man or woman, they call them homosexual/hetrosexual man/woman, when all that homosexuals wanted in the first place was to be seen as human, not different because of their sexuality.

If someone wants to make a big deal out of it, fine, but they should make a big deal out of it because they think they have to in order to be treated equil, they should be treated equil because they are human like everyone else. This is another point that i have been trying to bring forward, however i think there must of been a misunderstanding at some point.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Do me a favor, tell me which civilizations fell as a result of demographics and then compare that to the list of societies/civilazations who viewed homosexuality as an acceptable part of that society?

I bet you will find some serious coorelations in the two lists... because they are identical.

Normal; the male and the female of the species has sexual intercourse as the only means of procreation/propagation of that species, and in our particular species this means the interaction must be between the male and the female of the society.


While it is an enjoyable thing too, enjoyment is not the main reason to have a male and a female of the species interact in a sexual manner. The enjoyment aspect just means that the species will continue to do it, rather than say screw this!

Normal is what the majority of any society is, in a canabalistic society being a canabal is normal and being a vegetarian is not.

If homosexuality becomes the norm in our society you can soon expect the failure of demographics. It began about the same time homosexualty became accepted as normal and a modern urbanization of the society began.

I will never understand why people feel the need to bring reproduction into these discussions. Obviously, the entire world population in not now, nor ever will be, gay. There are a whole lot of people reproducing on a daily basis. That argument simply doesn't fly, sorry. As a person in a committed hetero relationship, I have no intention of reproducing. Amazingly, you can be in a loving relationship without needing or wanting to have children. There are many hetero people who feel the same. Do you harbor the same feeling towards us?

And no, it is not my duty to reproduce. Perhaps when there isn't one unwanted or thrown away child anywhere in the world, I might reconsider. But I'm pretty sure I'll be long dead by then.

Originally posted by Trolloks
reply to post by resoe26

 

I don't have anything against people like you, i just think that people like you ar wrong.

You're belifes are not natrual, they are not in nature, thus they are wrong.

You do not need religion to reproduce.

I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near a religious institution, because it teachings show that being who you are is wrong, and that the only way to b right and natrual is by believing the teachings, which i find it wrong.


Can you see the parrallel? You are just raising your child to be ignorant of others.

My belief that man and women should be together is not natural?????
(I know you don't need religion to reporduce)
Just look around at all the folks now in days. The Bible has dust on it in these days soldier.

Raising my child to be ignorant of others?
No, I'm raising my child in MY culture. From MY country. I have that right. Do as you will with your children you clown.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

HAHAHAHA, Yeah right!!!

Sure, all those extinct societies......gone.....because of gays!!

You're full of it.

Do both of us a favor and grow up.

reply to post by Domo1


Yeah.. I went there.

I'll be monitoring this thread for fruedian slips from this point on.
Special interest paid towards the OP.

Originally posted by TiggersTheMan
I will never understand why people feel the need to bring reproduction into these discussions. Obviously, the entire world population in not now, nor ever will be, gay. There are a whole lot of people reproducing on a daily basis. That argument simply doesn't fly, sorry. As a person in a committed hetero relationship, I have no intention of reproducing. Amazingly, you can be in a loving relationship without needing or wanting to have children. There are many hetero people who feel the same. Do you harbor the same feeling towards us?

And no, it is not my duty to reproduce. Perhaps when there isn't one unwanted or thrown away child anywhere in the world, I might reconsider. But I'm pretty sure I'll be long dead by then.

What he said!

Word.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I am being serious, the demographic declines in all the civilazations which had an open acceptance of homosexuality. While other factors were also contributory, I do not see why that one is simply being overlooked due to a desire to have an ignorance of facts.

Why dont you grow up? Facts do tend to speak for themselves.