[Screwston]

How does everyone feel about them in modern America or whatever your country is? What do you think about "gay rights"? Are they having a huge impact on society?

I remember we used to call guys we didn't like faggots and fairies got made fun of in their face. Things have changed a lot in just 10 years. I have nothing personal against gays and have a couple in my family, but it seems like you might as well be saying "I hate niggers" if you say anything bad about them. Am I crazy or does anyone know what I'm saying?

[esperar]

Personally, I call them faggots and queers all of the time, but I don't hate them. I just like saying those words. It still seems more acceptable to call someone a faggot rather than a nigger though, at least to me.

[Mage]

I don't hate them as people, because I try not to hate anyone. But I do recognize that they have problems, just like I don't hate smokers and alcoholics, sadly a few of my best friends smoke or drink too much, but I recognize that they have problems.

The difference is not within me but within them. While alcoholics and smokers just admit that they have a problem and that they would like to quit but just cannot - the gays and transsexuals usually become aggressive and say that it is me who has a problem. Therefore we cannot be good friends, but it is their fault not mine.

[Screwston]

[Lemmo]

Gay rights seem like abortion or gun control or any of those other issues that people like to froth at the mouth about but that never amount to anything.

I don't have anything against gays since I think it is just a genetic flaw determined at birth. But it is clearly a flaw, like being ugly or stupid, so I can't really get behind the whole gay pride thing or understand why people would be flamboyant and in your face about it. But they generally seem able to function, pay their taxes, etc. and I know they won't breed so I don't have a problem. Transgendered, on the other hand, seem more like a type that needs to be medicated/institutionalized.

[bacon]

gay men can be funny

[encanto]

Calling someone "maricon" (fag) in Mexico is now illegal. Brazil has also introduced many laws that limit freedom of speech in order to protect gays and lesbians. I see a world tendency to "protect" them and create a climate of acceptance. As someone who has closely observed this trend, I can say it's definitely linked to feminism.

Nobody can deny there is a culture of idolatry of women and soon we might have a culture of idolatry of homosexuality.

I know most of you aren't Christians but any knowledgeable pastor will tell you this is part of the apostasy that according to the Bible will take place before the manifestation of the antichrist. Many Christians believe the antichrist will strongly support gay marriage and feminism.

When he comes into the scene, most people will have been brainwashed into feminism and the idea that homosexuality is beautiful and normal. They will have no problem with a leader that supports abortion, gay rights, female supremacy, etc.

Ask any good pastor and he will tell you that what you and me are witnessing is the devil turning society upside down in order to corrupt everyone and lead them straight to hell.

[bojangles]

dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

[bacon]

(03-20-2013 07:06 AM)encanto Wrote:  

Calling someone "maricon" (fag) in Mexico is now illegal. Brazil has also introduced many laws that limit freedom of speech in order to protect gays and lesbians. I see a world tendency to "protect" them and create a climate of acceptance. As someone who has closely observed this trend, I can say it's definitely linked to feminism.

Nobody can deny there is a culture of idolatry of women and soon we might have a culture of idolatry of homosexuality.

I know most of you aren't Christians but any knowledgeable pastor will tell you this is part of the apostasy that according to the Bible will take place before the manifestation of the antichrist. Many Christians believe the antichrist will strongly support gay marriage and feminism.

When he comes into the scene, most people will have been brainwashed into feminism and the idea that homosexuality is beautiful and normal. They will have no problem with a leader that supports abortion, gay rights, female supremacy, etc.

Ask any good pastor and he will tell you that what you and me are witnessing is the devil turning society upside down in order to corrupt everyone and lead them straight to hell.

pro gay marriage/rights obama looks a lot like the anticrist in the new history channel special THE BIBLE

[Mage]

(03-20-2013 07:15 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

Oh, boy how wrong can you be?

There were always a minority of gays and there were always people who cared about masculinity and potency of survival of their tribe/nation/faith.

Everybody has always given some shit about it. Some supported it, some shamed it but everybody gave some shit.

[funkyzeit]

(03-20-2013 07:42 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 07:15 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

Oh, boy how wrong can you be?

There were always a minority of gays and there were always people who cared about masculinity and potency of survival of their tribe/nation/faith.

Everybody has always given some shit about it. Some supported it, some shamed it but everybody gave some shit.

Exactly. I try not to hate them, but I fail most of the times. Probably because of their sense of entitlement and their disconnection from reality.

[Teedub]

(03-20-2013 07:42 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 07:15 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

Oh, boy how wrong can you be?

There were always a minority of gays and there were always people who cared about masculinity and potency of survival of their tribe/nation/faith.

Everybody has always given some shit about it. Some supported it, some shamed it but everybody gave some shit.

Roman and Greek soldiers engaged in homosexuality very, very frequently. There wasn't any stigma at all, and they were very masculine in the sense they were warriors. Bojangles is right in the sense that it wasn't this big of an issue pre-Abrahamic religion.

Homosexuality occurs in many animals, but I agree with Lemmo that it is sort of a defect as it negates the ability to reproduce. I'm interested in the evolutionary reasons for it.

Trannies though? They annoy me, as do parents obsessed with raises gender-neutral children.

[liberman]

(03-20-2013 08:28 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 07:42 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 07:15 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

Oh, boy how wrong can you be?

There were always a minority of gays and there were always people who cared about masculinity and potency of survival of their tribe/nation/faith.

Everybody has always given some shit about it. Some supported it, some shamed it but everybody gave some shit.

Roman and Greek soldiers engaged in homosexuality very, very frequently. There wasn't any stigma at all, and they were very masculine in the sense they were warriors. Bojangles is right in the sense that it wasn't this big of an issue pre-Abrahamic religion.

Homosexuality occurs in many animals, but I agree with Lemmo that it is sort of a defect as it negates the ability to reproduce. I'm interested in the evolutionary reasons for it.

Trannies though? They annoy me, as do parents obsessed with raises gender-neutral children.

In the Archaic period of ancient greece women were not even considered sex objects they were just existing for breading thats all. The men engaged in homosexuality frequently out of sexual desire (with the older guy being attracted to the young guys) Funny how this lifestyle went against evolution and natural instincts but men were still attracted to youth.

Now we have a gay culture which is not only accepted but promoted.
I cant say I fully understand the reasons for this.

[Kingsley Davis]

Who is old enough to remember the furor this caused back in the day?

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

I'm generally pro-freedom and very tolerant so I don't have a problem with them at all. The government shouldn't define marriage anyway, so if I made the laws, any group of consenting adults could sign something they want to call a marriage contract.

I still use faggot to describe unmasculine men.

Homophobia is definitely a beta trait, though the hatred of homos is not really beta. Too many chumps are homophobic against gays but not lesbians. The fact is lesbians mostly hate men, but gays -by definition- like us.

[Kingsley Davis]

Red pill writing by an alpha.

   

[TheMan]

The fact that some people are gay don't bother me in the slightest.
As Lemmo said, they are productive members of society and-to me-good friends and valued members of the human race.

My only problem with any group [not necessarily homosexuals] is when they carry a-not always unjustified-chip on their shoulder. This goes for my group as well [North American Blacks].

When ( x ) group decides that because of the injustices that they face(d)-however real, however painful, however current-that they have the right to at best: infringe upon your rights /peace of mind / well being / bother you and at worst: launch all out assaults on who / what you are (...looking at you feminists), they're not just hindering the progress of any possible benevolent, mutually beneficial societal outcomes of their endeavors but also the progress of our species as a whole. By doing so they automatically put "the others" on the defensive and preclude any possibility of people looking at it through their eyes. Its the equivalent of name calling or likening to Nazis during a heated argument.

[Note: that most male supporters of the feminist movement that truly appreciate what is happening, not what they are being told is trying to be accomplished, are either acting out of fear of loss or self-loathing or are being manipulative for some kind of personal, professional or societal gain]

[jaakkeli]

(03-20-2013 08:47 AM)liberman Wrote:  

In the Archaic period of ancient greece women were not even considered sex objects they were just existing for breading thats all. The men engaged in homosexuality frequently out of sexual desire (with the older guy being attracted to the young guys) Funny how this lifestyle went against evolution and natural instincts but men were still attracted to youth.

Does masturbation go against evolution and natural instincts? There's really nothing different in gay sex so the mystery is why don't most men feel about it the same way as they do on masturbation. Most men and societies will do a bit to shaming on masturbation since it can be seen as loserish to not be getting it from a woman but the evolutionary cost of just ejaculating clearly doesn't matter considering how much sperm we actually waste on masturbation.

There actually has to be some particular evolutionary reason why men are so reluctant to have sex with men. The cost of ejaculating and "wasting time" instead of being with a woman explains nothing since the cost is the same as it is with masturbation yet all normal men do that all the time. My suggestions would be disease-avoidance (we've developed an instinctive distaste for homosexuality because men having anal sex with each other spread disease much faster than anything else) or the dominance dynamic (every society that has accepted some form of homosexual relations still looks down on the submissive partner).

Me, personally, I'm an ultra-far-right guy when it comes to minority cultures (fuck them all) but ultra-live-and-let-live on tastes of individuals.

[TheMan]

(03-20-2013 09:30 AM)jaakkeli Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:47 AM)liberman Wrote:  

In the Archaic period of ancient greece women were not even considered sex objects they were just existing for breading thats all. The men engaged in homosexuality frequently out of sexual desire (with the older guy being attracted to the young guys) Funny how this lifestyle went against evolution and natural instincts but men were still attracted to youth.

Does masturbation go against evolution and natural instincts?

Maybe not.
There can only be one alpha male in a group.
Perhaps it was a coping and survival mechanism, to maintain group stability and make sure your beta ass didn't get killed. <<total layman speculation>>

[Ego]

I read an article that said that homosexuality used to be just a sex act, but because of religious persecution it's made it much more of a life style than it once was.

I'm not threatened by homos in any way or form. Find a consenting hole that gets you hard and fuck it.

[Bad Hussar]

I'm cool with gay men, and personable with the kind of lesbians who don't have a chip on their shoulder and are the type who's rationale in life is just to kick back and watch the game. Transexuals are a bit weird and I tend to avoid.

But... I really don't like the current environment of "political homosexuality". As someone said above homosexuality is a sexual act not a political movement. The irony is that the political operatives like Rahm Emanuel who are so vocal about gay rights would throw actual gay people under the bus in a second if another bigger, better and more fashionable victim group with conflicting interests came along.

Gay people themselves are rarely a problem for anybody and have contributed a lot to the world. But sometimes gay men are a problem for themselves due to their denial regarding how their sexual practices (anal sex and often very large average number of partners/concurrent partners ) massively increases their STD risk.

PS: I know this has been said elsewhere, but gay are often more "red pill" than the average straight man. Can make good wingmen in the right circumstances as well.

[megatron]

It's funny, I actually don't care that much about gay guys. What I've noticed about them is that they're usually very nice, helpful people. And if you say something anti-liberal or something, they usually just roll their eyes: they don't get too angry.

Lesbians, however, do much more damage to our society. And they're always angry and looking to force their ultra-liberal bullshit on everyone.

[soup]

Gay people aren't a problem- I have no problem with gay people.

If anything, transsexuals are proof that gender duality exists. Otherwise, why would a man go through some much trouble to try to make himself into a woman?

Gay people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't get in the way of what I want to do. Same with any group of societal force. As long as nobody is getting hurt, why care?

People will get angry if you subjugate their individuality. Addressing someone as a group is condescending. It's even more offensive if you use pejorative terms.

And, I don't think we should lump gay guys in with lesbians. In general, they really are two distinct groups as far as culture goes. In general, gay guys are much cooler than lesbians. A lot of lesbians have a huge chip on their shoulder when it comes to dealing with men. Gay guys don't really seem to give a shit about women one way or another.

In general, gay guys have a positive energy. On the other hand, lesbians tend to be the ones with bad attitudes.

[Aliblahba]

I'd rather be around a gay guy that didn't cockblock than a straight guy that did.

[Timoteo]

Personally, words like fag, faggot and queer aren't part of my vocabulary. Nigger isn't either.

It's one thing to demand protection from discrimination and harm, but it's another to demand acceptance by society as a whole for the way you live your life. That's a tall order. Putting aspects of your lifestyle out front, and attempting to get others to see it as normal is counterproductive. Just live your life. If someone attempts to, or brings harm to you because of it, they should be dealt with harshly. But the mantra that "I'm no different than you" is ridiculous.

I know there was huge pushback against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military. The gay community's problem with it was they were being told that they had to hide who they were. They want to put sexuality above the job they are in the military to do. The policy may not have been perfect, but I think Clinton's intent was to take sexuality off the table. You're all just soldiers. If we don't make a declaration of sexuality, no one can abuse or discriminate against you because of it. If it's illegal for an employer to ask you about it, you in turn shouldn't be declaring it either. Clinton was attempting to be practical - men in the military will probably never be thrilled about the presence of gays. Gays demanding that they be able to serve openly is a demand to be accepted, and you simply can't force that on someone. You can demand that someone not be able to beat your ass because of your sexuality, but you can't demand that someone accept it and see it as normal. You can't demand that others be comfortable around you.