[Wutang]

To me the question of whether homosexuality is inborn or not is completely irrelevant to these sort of discussions no matter what side you are on.

To frame it another way, ask a LGBT activist if it was discovered that homosexuality was indeed a choice would it change any of her opinions on the issues. I'm guessing it would not.

[Samseau]

(06-23-2015 12:14 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

To me the question of whether homosexuality is inborn or not is completely irrelevant to these sort of discussions no matter what side you are on.

To frame it another way, ask a LGBT activist if it was discovered that homosexuality was indeed a choice would it change any of her opinions on the issues. I'm guessing it would not.

They aren't connecting the dots. As has been demonstrated in this thread, homosexuality leads to pedophilla because homosexuality isn't genetic and is itself the product of pedophilla. Hence why you have little boys twerking at pride parades (NSFW).

[Phoenix]

(06-23-2015 03:30 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(NSFW).

You mean 'Not Safe For Faith In Mankind'.

[amity]

I met a couple of gay guys over the weekend, in fact one is a brother of a girl I'm seeing.
First thing that struck me was that (regardless of one's views on homosexuality), both of these guys were fun, they were pretty much 'on' for the entire weekend, with a kind of infectious childlike enthusiasm for everything, joking and laughing most of the time with a charisma that few other people I know have.
This, in and of itself, must play at least some part in explaining why gays have been pushed to the forefront and praised and bigged-up at every opportunity by the establishment and MSM in most Western countries.
I briefly touched on some political topics with one of them, naively hoping we might find at least some common ground on some of the issues involving LGBT people.
Sadly not, in his eyes, Obama was God, Hilary was God, the Democrats could do no wrong and the Republicans were a bunch of idiots.
The echo chamber effect writ large.
Sure they have some straight friends, but their social circle is predominantly other gay guys so they rarely get exposed to views that aren't fully in line with the pro-gay narrative.

[YoungAngel1]

I know just as many introverted gays as extroverted. I don't think that plays in it at all.

[amity]

(06-24-2015 08:16 AM)YoungAngel1 Wrote:  

I know just as many introverted gays as extroverted. I don't think that plays in it at all.

I don't doubt that that's your experience, and I agree that there are a significant proportion of gays that are not so flamboyant or extroverted, however by applying your personal experience of gays, to gays in general, is to fall into a cognitive trap of sorts.
My experience is that for every introverted/quiet gay guy I've come across, there are at least two, if not three, that are outgoing, fun-loving, attention seeking and somewhat narcissistic.
Perhaps I'm also guilty of doing the same though.
Maybe gay guys in Dublin are just that bit more outgoing and flamboyant than the norm.
I still think that the average gay guy is viewed as significantly more 'fun' though, than the average hetero guy, certainly by women and the MSM anyway and it appears to me that that plays a part in how much positive coverage they get everywhere these days.

[Glaucon]

I have no idea how but it is fucking disgusting.
I do not care about them, but do not push it to my face goddammit.

[demolition]

(06-24-2015 08:31 AM)amity Wrote:  

My experience is that for every introverted/quiet gay guy I've come across, there are at least two, if not three, that are outgoing, fun-loving, attention seeking and somewhat narcissistic.
...
I still think that the average gay guy is viewed as significantly more 'fun' though, than the average hetero guy, certainly by women and the MSM anyway and it appears to me that that plays a part in how much positive coverage they get everywhere these days.

Gays' personality profile does differ significantly from men's. I don't know whether this is as a result of their biological miswiring or simply a cultural artifact of the gay culture. Imagine having sex basically whenever you wanted, simply by walking up to other gay men and saying, "Wanna fuck?". That would dramatically change your outlook on life, since you're no longer having to learn to filter your nature through socially acceptable convention.

(Interesting side point: Lesbians don't exactly have a reputation for being 'fun.' Aside from fake college lesbians showing up in porn, actual lesbians have a reputation for being cold, dour bitches.)

As for gays being viewed as more 'fun' -- This is almost certainly a propaganda effect, since the entire left wing Cathedral has been promoting homosexuality with 'fun' characters for the past two decades. Depictions of homosexuality in less-than-glowing light have been effectively banned for the last two decades. In less flattering terms, they might be described as neurotic and narcissistic.

[Gimlet]

Homosexuals became popular because they enacted a playbook and followed through on it. Think Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.


After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's

The architects aka authors:
Marshall Kirk (researcher in neuropsychiatry, logician, poet, graduated Harvard in 1980)
Hunter Madsen (expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing, designed commercial advertising on Madison Avenue, Ph.D. in Politics, graduated Harvard 1985)

From the book flap: "Dismissing the movement's outworn techniques in favor of carefully calculated public relations propaganda, AFTER THE BALL unveils the key psychological principles and national strategies that gays must follow..."

The book is an expansion of an article the authors wrote in 1987.

THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA

Here are the rules a a summary:

[1] TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.
almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.
gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.

[3] GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.
The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.
In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. The campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society.

5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.
At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.

[6] SOLICIT FUNDS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE
Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years--an unprecedented fundraising drive.
The appeal should be directed both at gays and at straights who care about social justice.

7 GETTING ON THE AIR, OR, YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.
So what can be done to crash the gates of the major media? Several things, advanced in several stages.
VISUAL STAGE 1: YOU REALLY OUGHTTA BE IN PICTURES
- encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows
- run gays for office symbolically in order to get gay ads on tv, so that people can quickly get over their initial shock

VISUAL STAGE 2: PEEKABOO ADVERTISING
-promote bland messages about America the Melting Pot, ending with "this message is brought to you by National Gay Task Force
-propose sympathetic media appeals for gifts and donations to fund AIDS research

VISUAL STAGE 3: ROLL OUT THE BIG GUNS
- Time to bring the blatantly gay ads out of the closet using testimonials, celebrity endorsements and victim sympathy as well as vilifying the opposition


I found an outline of the book which someone posted online which in and of itself further lays out the strategy:

http://www.parentsofgaychildren.org/uplo..._Cohen.pdf

[Gimlet]

Interesting, the book has been deleted from Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_the_...the_%2790s

Here is a book review from 1989:

LA Times: Book Review : Provocative Call to Arms on Gay Rights

[Samseau]

Adding to this thread for completeness.

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-48590-...pid1071360

(07-23-2015 11:38 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 03:11 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Yup - it is mainly one stepping stone of destroying normal marriage.

Also interesting his statements about sexual abuse of children in same-sex couples. It's a whopping 23% vs 2% among heterosexual normal parents.

But keep in mind how often the father is portrayed as the sexual predator, while the 1000% more common case of the homosexual father is never ever touched in the media. We truly live in Bizarro-Land.

In terms of sexual abuse (and other negative outcomes), Mark Regnerus did a study of different family structures and their effects on children- the results of their study didn't paint the rosy picture you hear in the media:

Quote:

Prior to the NFSS, the academy had come to believe that children raised by gay or lesbian parents fared, on average, no worse, and in some cases better, than children raised by heterosexual parents. Dr. Regnerus and a group of social scientists decided to evaluate this claim empirically by studying the responses of children who were raised in a variety of family structures. The goal of the NFSS, from the beginning, was to gather the best social science possible to address the question of what family arrangements were best for children. The results of the NFSS research revealed that the “no differences” claim—the claim that children raised by parents in gay or lesbian relationships fared no worse and in some cases better than children raised by intact biological parents—was not true. On the contrary, the children of these households, on average, did worse than children raised by their biological, still-married parents.

You can see an infographic of the results of the study (Outcomes for Children) where they display the results for children who were asked to respond to questions such as:

- Were ever touched sexually by a parent or other adult (23% LM vs 2% IBF)
- Were ever forced to have sex against their will (31% LM vs 8% IBF)
- Ever had a sexually transmitted infection (STI) (25% GF vs 8% IBF)
- Had an affair while married or cohabitating (40% LM vs 13% IBF)
- Identify as entirely heterosexual (straight) (61% LM vs 90% IBF)
- Are currently unemployed (28% LM vs 8% IBF)
- Are currently on public assistance (38% LM vs 10% IBF)
- Have thought recently about suicide (24% GF vs 5% IBF)

LM = Lesbian Mothers
GF = Gay Fathers
IBF = Intact Bio Family (ie, Hetero Dad & Mom, not divorced)

[DarkTriad]

(06-12-2015 04:36 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 03:53 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

People were suffering horribly under the Aztecs before Cortez came.

LOL, first time I've heard someone speak of Cortez as a saviour. I'm not sure if I was an Aztec dude, I'd swap 'we have ritual sacrifice', for 'we are being wiped out by slaughter, being deliberately worked to death, and all our women being taken by the invaders as concubines'.

Of course you wouldn't if you were an Aztec. But you definitely would have if you were one of the tribes being ritually sacrificed by the Aztecs, and having your women taken as concubines by the invading....Aztecs. We know this because these people did in fact go with the Spaniards against the Aztecs. People are surprisingly non racist when they're being human sacrificed and their women taken as concubines and slaves.

[DarkTriad]

(06-14-2015 07:48 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Guys - if you want to talk about whether or not colonization was justified in various parts of the world go make a new thread. No offense to anyone here; but I do believe it is an interesting topic worthy of a good discussion. Still you should ask Roosh first to make sure it's not race trolling to create such a thread.

Respectfully, is it race trolling to ask that all conquerors, brown or white be held to the exact same standard? Seems to be the opposite of race trolling IMO.

Not saying he's correct, but it's hardly race trolling, just asking for the same standard to be applied and making an argument for his point.

[Phoenix]

^ LOL WTF dude?

[remy55]

Here's the real "profit". It's power. The left has always been very effective at rallying around smaller special interest groups that the right either ignores or disagrees with. Many of these are one issue voters that don't care about 99% of the issues. They just care about their issue.

Do you know how rare it is to find a staunch gay republican? They exist (the have an organization called the Lincoln Log Cabin), but they are hard to find. Are we to then assume that just because someone is gay, they can't be fiscally conservative and they support Obamacare, etc.? Of course not!

The thing is though that since the right offers no support of the only issue they truly care about, they are pretty much forced to align left. None of these special interest groups need to care about each other, but they will support each other as long as their interstellar don't conflict. It's like the labor unions. When the electricians go on strike, the plumbers may go on a sympathy strike to support them. The feminists will support the gays who will support the PETA activists who support the Greenpeace hippies who support the gun control protesters.... It's all about getting more members in your club who will never leave because you STRONGLY show support for a cause that you really don't give a crap about, but the people do and they love you for it. Why do you think Obama wanted to legalize all the illegal Mexicans in the US? It has nothing to do with caring. It has to do with substantially growing your support base. Think about it... If you were an illegal Mexican who was granted amnesty from those wonderful democrats, would you ever vote for one of those "mean republicans who tried to take away your freedom"? Would your kids? Clever idea Mr. President. Very clever.

[ColSpanker]

^^^Quite possible, but how long do you think such a coalition will last?

[TomArrow]

(08-01-2015 07:13 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

^^^Quite possible, but how long do you think such a coalition will last?

two periods should suffice, for starters.