Is there an agenda regarding homosexuality?

On a side note...this has been the best "gay" thread I have participated in to date. Especially the last couple of pages.

Reasonable people having passionate but reasonable conversation. Well done, ATSers. You have made me proud.

reply to post by grandmakdw


I've just re read this thread and your posts and realised that you do make sense to a point.

I can understand the scenario whereby a bisexual male may be more likely to "experiment" with another guy if he perceived that it was socially acceptable. I also get that perhaps more of these bisexual men will remain in a homosexual relationship than say twenty years ago when it was taboo.

The world does seem very "metrosexual" nowadays and who knows where this is all going. 

But...... We live in a world that is struggling to support the 7 billion people on the planet, we are using the worlds natural resources beyond believe.

Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. And this is the top end figure and only if everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people,".

www.livescience.com...

We will reach 9.7 billion in approximately 2050, i'd say we have a lot more to worry about. Perhaps we do need some form of population control otherwise, we'll have nothing to eat, more wars over scarce resources, do you really want your grandchildren's children growing up in a world like this? 

Perhaps a Gay World is the way to go and only the 5% of Hetrosexuals born completely hetrosexual do the breeding and the rest just have good ole gay time 

reply to post by grandmakdw


So, you're saying that it's fine to be gay - perfectly okay. But the media telling people who have homosexual tendencies that it's okay to be your self, and telling everyone else to chill out and accept those who are different than you - is a terrible thing? Whether it's manipulation or not, that's a good message and there's not a thing wrong with it. It's like trying to manipulate people to be kind to each other by showing moral tales - don't kill, lie or steal -and treat others as you would like to be treated.

There are still WAY more heterosexual relationships being depicted in the media - still WAY more heterosexual idols and icons. WAY more. If there was manipulation going on, it would seem to me that the media is telling most of us to be heterosexual.

Oh gurl!

okay, here is the T.

it's news because she is a "Celebrity". is it Major news that i'm Gay? no one reports on my Drag shows. this is a "Celebrity" infused world of Media and people wanting to know everything about them. if she didn't publicly come out and was seen with another female it would have been a "Scandal" and she would have been on the receiving end. instead of someone "Outing" her, she was on the offensive, she selected it and she had the "Power"

another note is since she has "Celebrity Status" she can become a "Figure" for younger kids struggling with their Sexuality and dealing with life problems due to it.

now the T on the Homosexual Agenda.... it's secret

I finally watched the video today. I wasn't all that into Ellen Page other than as a good-looking actress, but now she's got my attention as a person. I gotta say, she makes some excellent points. Maybe if we weren't so ****ing horrible to one another, this wouldn't be news. Ellen could walk up to a fan and say, "You're gay? Cool, so am I." And not one reporter would bat an eye, not one parent would throw a hissy fit, not one person would look her in the eye and tell her she is teaching children bad things and she is going to go to hell if she doesn't change her ways blah blah blah. Because that's what we have right now. Fear, shame, dread, and denial. You can actually hear her choking up near the end. I have respect for that, not for the people who ask, "Why do we make a big deal out of this?"

Because this world is full of assholes, in case you haven't noticed. And that woman has the heart to stand up to them. If that's an agenda, maybe it's about time we got behind it instead of worrying about what our neighbors are thinking about us for having an opinion.

reply to post by flammadraco

We will reach 9.7 billion in approximately 2050, i'd say we have a lot more to worry about. Perhaps we do need some form of population control otherwise, we'll have nothing to eat, more wars over scarce resources, do you really want your grandchildren's children growing up in a world like this?

Perhaps a Gay World is the way to go and only the 5% of Hetrosexuals born completely hetrosexual do the breeding and the rest just have good ole gay time

I like that idea. Honestly, I don't feel the human species has done a very good job of demonstrating their usefulness to the world. Sure, we're clever. But we're also reckless. And in the end, we're usually recklessly clever instead of cleverly reckless. We do more damage than we know how to fix and we sweep it under the rug.

So maybe homosexuality is the failsafe to keep us from swarming this rock and annihilating it in a bid for global supremacy. I can respect that.

reply to post by EloquentThinker


Sure there is.

The Gay Agenda.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Very well written OP on the other thread.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I have obviously (to you and I) had disagreements with you, but I agree with above poster in that your thread OP is really good.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I have obviously (to you and I) had disagreements with you, but I agree with above poster in that your thread OP is really good.

Thank you.

You know what's funny though? I Can use that same argument from a few years ago, against any detractors. Yet people against the 'gays' so to speak have to constantly change tactics to remain relevant, since most of their stances are morally charged and opinion based, as opposed to factual.

~Tenth

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


MHmm. likewise.


Until 1974 homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.. All the pro-gay protests that broke out in San Francisco turned political and forced the Psychiatric Association to cave and unlist it as a mental illness. Who was behind shoving all the pro-homosexual agenda? GOOGLE
How can an individual organism be normal without the means, or desire, to procreate? Luckily, most of the world is not homosexual or us humans would only last a generation more.

reply to post by Fylgje


How could a social creature not find the value in helping to keep the young in their social grouping alive in lieu of having their own children?

In Samoan culture there is a gender name assigned to such an uncle, who essentially assumes the identity of a female and becomes an aunt for all the children. There is a lot of value, socially speaking, in putting more effort into maintaining the current crop of youth.

And, as has been mentioned for several pages here, the science behind epigentic markers may be an indicator of how/why this would happen.

Were you here for answers, instead of argument, you would have already seen this information explained ad nauseum on the previous couple of pages.

I doubt there's an underlying agenda, but I don't blame anyone for thinking there is. The aim of the movement is to engender tolerance and acceptance, however, there's an element of pressure in it for people to not just accept it, but to embrace it. People who so much as admit that the idea of two guys walking down the aisle hand in hand seems rather strange to them will be called bigots and homophobes, even if they don't even oppose gay marriage itself. Also, people who think that the marriage should stay in its original male-female format in principle are told that they hate gay people or want to 'take away their rights'. It's really frustrating to see.

reply to post by EllaMarina


Men have been marrying men for centuries before the modern definition was even a thing. And if all people did was look sideways at you, that would be a drastic improvement in many places.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Huh. I didn't know that. My point still stands though-- that mere opinions are treated as social grievances. It's like a thought police mentality.

reply to post by EllaMarina


I never told you that you were wrong for having an opinion.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I was talking about the hypothetical opinions I was referring to in my first comment, and the stigma that they get from the realm of political correctedness.

reply to post by Fylgje

How can an individual organism be normal without the means, or desire, to procreate? Luckily, most of the world is not homosexual or us humans would only last a generation more.

This idea that gay people can't procreate is nonsense. Just because you are homosexual, doesn't mean your junk stopped working. Nor does it make your desire to procreate disappear or make it any less valid than a hetero's desire.

~Tenth

reply to post by Fylgje

How can an individual organism be normal without the means, or desire, to procreate? Luckily, most of the world is not homosexual or us humans would only last a generation more.

I am heterosexual and have absolutely no desire to have children.

I know many heterosexual couples that also don't want children.

The absurd notion that homosexuals don't have the means or desire to procreate is completely false.

Just like heteros, some choose to have kids, some don't.

I can't believe I had to type something so effing obvious.

reply to post by Chamberf=6

I can't believe I had to type something so effing obvious.

Some people never had the bird and the bees talk I guess.



Preference means you prefer this over that, like Coke over Pepsi, It doesn't mean you wont be able choke on one and not the other if you swallow it wrong when drinking and anything else, it means you prefer one taste over the other.

A gay person can produce children like any other human, the gay person might not enjoy procreating in a natural sense as they are attracted to the same sex, thats all, it wont hinder their chances of being a parent if they choose to be or it wont cause human extinction in one generation because homosexual is a term describing sexual preference not their ability to pro create.


Some people seem to be under the impression that being gay somehow deactivates your reproductive organs


I think something has deactivated in their thought process to make such ignorant and generalization statements.