The gay agenda and why it bothers me: An analogy

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by resoe26
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

What in the hell is hyperbole?
How come you folks always write in some lame computer code?

I shall attempt again to educate you...

Hyperbole - Excess, exaggeration, throwing beyond, equivalent to hyper- hyper- + bolḗ throw.

You are attempting to take exaggerated claims, and apply them where they do not belong.

This is ATS, our motto is "Deny Ignorance". That means all ignorance... mine, yours, and everyone's.

DID YOU READ THE PINCHE THREAD!?
we already went over this guy.
english is not my first language.
read the thread

reply to post by Stormdancer777


What muddies the water is most people think in extremes. According to Kinsey there is a gradient. Most people are one one side of the other. Some are in the middle. I have read some accounts from Bi-s which say their attractions swap. For a prolonged period they are into men, then it swaps and they are 'in the mood' for women, then randomly changes back.

Most people don't seem to take Bi-'s into account. I think that is the grouping that gives image to 'change' so to speak. Given that out of all the conversion therapies to 'cure' gays have failed.

There is one guy who claims he is gay but choses to be with a woman. That is fine if she is OK with it, he acknowledges his eyes wonder, but wants the relationship he has.

This shows he didn't change, he is simply... Chosing his lifestyle.

The distinction there is subtle. You don't chose to be gay or straight, you chose to accept it or not, you chose to be happy, or not.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Did you make a conscious choice to like women with big butts and small waists?

A thing I have mentioned before in the forum, when my daughter was in school she had many gay girl friends, now many of them are married with children, now that makes me wonder, of course some say they must be bisexual, which I agree could be the case, but it always seemed odd to me.

Originally posted by resoe26

DID YOU READ THE PINCHE THREAD!?
we already went over this guy.
english is not my first language.
read the thread

I read that...that is why I said I would assist in educating you. There is no shame in becoming more knowledgable in our world.

If anyone can help me to do so please do.

reply to post by kaylaluv



I know what you mean.
I'm still stating... once more... like earlier in the post....
This is just MY opinion.

but ya.. big butts.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think you are misinterpreting my bedroom pactices remark as meaning other than I intended. As a straight man I only understand homosexuality at its base level. I always just assumed the only difference between gays and straights was what went on behind closed doors. I mean, when I see a gay couple I don't think anything about it really, I don't see a gay couple. I just see a couple, the fact they happen to be gay is just extra energy I'm not jusually willing to expend noticing that fact.

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by resoe26

DID YOU READ THE PINCHE THREAD!?
we already went over this guy.
english is not my first language.
read the thread

I read that...that is why I said I would assist in educating you. There is no shame in becoming more knowledgable in our world.

If anyone can help me to do so please do.

alright brother, I was taking it the wrong way.
Thanks though for the heads up!!!!

reply to post by resoe26


Honestly not a problem. I try not to come across as too much of an a**h***.

Easier for me on the internet than in the phyiscal world. I think it has to do with having time to type and reread my statements.

Are many here familiar with the Kinsey scale?

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist

I think many people who feel very uncomfortable with gays may not be gay themselves as is often suggested but rather may be a 1 or 2 on the scale (which is a much more common sexual orientation than many realize). They hate that part of themselves and project that hatred onto others who openly express it. Maybe in some convoluted way they think that being around gays will amplify that part of themselves, or that by stamping out gay people that part of themselves will diminish. Or perhaps they fear gays as they display full acceptance and joy with this part of themselves that they fear the prospect of ever having to come to terms with.

reply to post by FailedProphet

Great post, OP. I have been silent on the subject because I was coming to terms with it for a number of years. I was not taught anything about it at all, so the discovery of its existence guaranteed I would have to go through the various stages of self-discovery before I could come to acceptance.

In terms of the greater agenda though, I agree. I'm of the 'live and let live' mindset, but I have noticed a shift too. For instance, how would Americans feel if instead of watching a 4th of July parade they were treated to a gay pride parade instead? Well this happened in Toronto on July 1st, pushing the boundaries even more until one set of values totally overrides another. I do not admire parades of sexual display on any day, and on a day when patriotism usually finds its expression, I find it a little strange no matter what side of the sexual fence people find themselves on. That's just me. I have always valued modesty and a certain amount of self-restraint.

reply to post by Trolloks




A good OP starred and flagged


And an excellent post Trollocks starred


When i meet anyone i am in no way interested in their sexuality at all...that is unless...

maybe i may have a 'personnel' interest in them.

The same goes for religion i don't want anyone else's beliefs shoved down my throat

whilst i have no intention of burdening anyone with mine!

LIVE AND LET LIVE

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by FailedProphet

 

Great post, OP. I have been silent on the subject because I was coming to terms with it for a number of years. I was not taught anything about it at all, so the discovery of its existence guaranteed I would have to go through the various stages of self-discovery before I could come to acceptance.

In terms of the greater agenda though, I agree. I'm of the 'live and let live' mindset, but I have noticed a shift too. For instance, how would Americans feel if instead of watching a 4th of July parade they were treated to a gay pride parade instead? Well this happened in Toronto on July 1st, pushing the boundaries even more until one set of values totally overrides another. I do not admire parades of sexual display on any day, and on a day when patriotism usually finds its expression, I find it a little strange no matter what side of the sexual fence people find themselves on. That's just me. I have always valued modesty and a certain amount of self-restraint.

Were you FORCED to watch the gay pride parade? Was a 4th of July parade not allowed by law?

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

What muddies the water is most people think in extremes. According to Kinsey there is a gradient. Most people are one one side of the other. Some are in the middle. I have read some accounts from Bi-s which say their attractions swap. For a prolonged period they are into men, then it swaps and they are 'in the mood' for women, then randomly changes back.

It's a bit of a side track ...

Kinsey's concept of gradients etc ... certainly isn't the worst part of his research but Kinsey is a bit of whacko. Most of his research subjects were taken from prisons and various other skewed places to give more salacious results. Also there was a tangent where he was borderline endorsing child sex.

Kinsey is one of those people who shouldn't really be quoted on this subject any more but for some reason it keeps coming up.

Edit: on a side note to the OP ...

I think it's someone else's agenda that is being fulfilled that you feel 'manipulated' anytime porcupines or homosexuality is mentioned. Instead of just watching a television series and noting that two of the characters are gay, you feel as if something is being promoted or thrust upon you?

I'm not really sure that is anything to do with the 'gay agenda' so to speak. Some people make stands I suppose, and there have been stands in all battles for rights and acceptance. Even happened at the oscars when we had the 'black oscars' (Denzel and Halle Berry)

I'm not saying things don't *ever* get shoved down a person's throat ... I'm just saying that it's also in some people's agendas to make it seem as if that's the case.

Originally posted by sopheruk
hey im not gay myself but when somebody starts a sentence with `i dont hate gay people but`...

or `i dont hate jews but`..

then i just know whats going to come is a load of garbage hidden behind a thin veil of `but i did say i dont hate them`!

Spot on!

reply to post by polarwarrior


I have always heard that part (or perhaps interpreted it) as not nesc being full closet cases, but having 'latent tendancies', basically random attractions that when noticed make them extremely self conscious.

I am developing the opinion that those who propose an "agenda" are those people, they are terrified they are gay just because they realized they checked a dude out.

Back on point though-Confirmation Bias is heavy with this issue. It is rare that it startles me-an open gay man-when I see something presented positively on television and ISN'T a paid for channel.

Normally on the news I see scumbag politicians and sleazy parents screaming about how evil I am that I would dare want to have the benefits of marriage-which are over a thousand mind you. Instead of settling for an 'equal' domestic partnership that has less than 300 of those benefits, and is legal for companies to ignore.

Beyond that, either the state or the church has no business in the matter. It is either a religious contract which should be available to be given by any religion-or it is a state issue which religion should hold no valid opinion in.

As is-it is a second class citizen stigma, even today. I can't even rub my partners shoulder when it is sore without hostile stares-and I am not talking about cuddling here. Whereas straight couples can borderline have sex in public and nobody seems to notice.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Can a person still love the person but not agree with their being gay?

How can you "not agree" with someone being gay? That's like not agreeing with me being straight. People say this a lot. "I don't agree with them being gay." I don't know what that means. Sorry.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I also think some people (especially women) do experiment with same-gender sex. Just like people experiment with non-conventional sexual practices through their lives... Most likely, if there's experimentation, the person isn't 100% straight. I think we all fit somewhere along the continuum. I have had both sexual and emotional connections with other women, but the vast majority of my relationships have been with men. I married a man. To me, it didn't matter so much what gender he was. I fell in love with him. If he had been a woman, I would probably still be with him (her) waiting for the law to allow us to get married. As it is, he and I celebrated our 20th anniversary this year. I don't care to be labelled but I support equal rights for all.

reply to post by Pinke


It is a logical fallacy to exclude valid data simply because one objects to the presenter for moral reasons.
More over, as I understand, most his study subjects were college students and people off the street. I had not seen any reference to prisons.

Edit to add:
Interesting bit of relevant. I didn't go to the kinseyinstitute due to being at work. The following is from the wiki:

Jones wrote that Kinsey's sexual activity influenced his work, that he over-represented prisoners and prostitutes, classified some single people as "married",[25] and that he included a disproportionate number of homosexual men, particularly from Indiana, in his sample, which may have distorted his studies.[13][14] It has also been pointed out he omitted African Americans in his research.[26] Bullough explains that the data was later re-processed, excluding prisoners and data derived from an exclusively gay sample, and the results indicate that it does not appear to have skewed the data. Kinsey had over-represented people who were homosexual, but Bullough considers this may have been because this was stigmatized and needed to be understood.[13][14] It was Paul Gebhard, in the 1970s, who removed all suspect data (e.g., pertaining to prisoners and similar respondents), and recalculated significant sets of figures against results given by "100 percent" groups. He found only slight differences between the original and updated figures.[27]

From Kinsey's Wiki article

My sister is a lesbian and her and her mates bug the hell out of me!!! They think they are always being persecuted when they are not! It’s crazy! They think everyone is against gays..
Get over it they are not!
I don’t care what your do!! Just stop going on about it!
And get on with it. You will be happier
Regards Jamie

I have my own theory.

The world government and the mainstream media want you to think that homosexuality is a normal thing, because they want to reduce the number of population...

I don't have anything against gay people, but think about it. The prime reason of living is to have kids so the human race can survive. But, if homosexuality is a normal thing as you say, how people who are gay cant have their own kids but have to adopt them? So that's not a normal thing.

I think this lady had an interesting view on the whole topic

www.heraldsun.com.au...

I totally agree, I dont have a problem with gay people, but I do when it is being pushed and promoted to drive a very anti-mankind agenda!