[Wutang]

(05-28-2015 04:18 PM)8ball Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:23 AM)TomArrow Wrote:  

..yet why did it work and who profited from it? why would the media be invested in that? why did the public not reject that opinion?

i am interested in the intricacies of the process. "the media did it" may be true, but it's too simplistic for my taste to really understand how it happened and what the motivations of all the involved parties were.

There are multiple reasons:

Gays have always had a disproportionate representation in anything related to art. There are various reasons for this which including genetic, social and cultural. Straight artists who often work with gays and who can't see past their own world(high levels of narcissism) don't see how the normalization of the gay lifestyle could be damaging to society. In film school students are taught to write/direct what they know and if all you know is other artists and gays well you can be sure at least one of your characters will be gay.

I think this is a significant reason and I'm surprised it doesn't get brought up more often. The reason why gays get favored over say polygamists even though the reasons for supporting gay marriage, namely that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to do with each other also support polygamy is simply because homosexuals have a lot more allies in popular media. Gays are seen as part of the urban "tribe" along with hipsters, SJWs, and other assorted artsy fartsy "cultured" peoples while some Mormon or Muslim guy who wants to have multiple wives come from cultures that they hold in contempt. I'm don't that there's some sort of organized conspiracy to push homosexuality, to me it seems like a more organic thing. If some sort of industry is filled with people of a particular type and the allies of those people, it's not a big stretch to imagine that they'll try to increase their influence without any sort of central planning.

[N°6]

(05-29-2015 10:01 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

I think it's because we've peaked culturally. All that's left to do is to elevate every minority to the status of the privileged white male.

Capitalism needs the creation of more and more niche groups. The pink-pound ££ is very influential.

Socially speaking, the nation states that once were formed by the European family as the cornerstone had to go.

[Guitarman]

Homosexuality should be considered an mental/ hormonal disorder. Rather than pandering to gays, research should be done on effective treatment and possibly a cure because of the risk to public health that this disorder poses.

Either that or ignore them, but please, enough of the promotion and publicity for homophillia.

Whatever next?? "Acceptance" and promotion of zoo, necro and pedophillia as acceptable / normal life style choices?? Better to accep what nature and evolution designed sex for and only accept hetero sex as being the norm.

[Truth Teller]

(05-30-2015 05:21 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  

Homosexuality should be considered an mental/ hormonal disorder. Rather than pandering to gays, research should be done on effective treatment and possibly a cure because of the risk to public health that this disorder poses.

Either that or ignore them, but please, enough of the promotion and publicity for homophillia.

Whatever next?? "Acceptance" and promotion of zoo, necro and pedophillia as acceptable / normal life style choices?? Better to accep what nature and evolution designed sex for and only accept hetero sex as being the norm.

It's interesting how hard nature works to eliminate gays, if you think about it. The vast majority of HIV infections (originally called GRID, gay related immunodeficiency disorder) in the Western world are homosexual men.

[Samseau]

(05-29-2015 09:20 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 08:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Gays spread gayness when they molest little boys and make them permanently gay. As gays get more power and access to children then of course we're going to see faggotry rise in the next generation.

Usually the problem corrects itself after a good war.

I think it's a little deeper than early molestation (there's likely a biological factor as well as an environmental one), but I do think that homosexuality is going to increase in terms of "outed" gays.

Most people don't believe this, but the amount of gays who claim they've been molested or raped as children by older men is shockingly high, around 15-25% by my estimates of total gays.

No one wants to do actual research on this, because it's such a damning indictment.

Quote:

War tends to reduce the male population between 18 and 45 overall. That also includes gays.

The reason war fixes things is because straight men take advantage of the lawlessness to take justice into their own hands.

Quote:

On another level, it seems fairly interesting to me that the majority of gays are white males. Maybe that's selection bias on my part (I live in a predominantly white area), but it seems as though there are fewer gay Asians, blacks, and Hispanics.

That's because of a certain group using organized cultural attacks against them.

[mastauser]

Heck even the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who we tend to revere here had their dicks sucked by their male pupils after the philosophy class (ok not everyone of them but quite frequently).

However back then it was under the table, both literally and in a metaphorical way. And I must agree that that bullshit is spoon fed to people nowadays in some Western societies.

I think it is from all times, though. I talked about it with my uncle and he stated that several "abnormalities", under which homosexuality occur in every family, era and society.

Would say comtemporal acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality is better than in the past, when it was taboo. Imagine old frustrated gay men secretly raping young boys because nobody could know.

But to spoon fed this gay and gender crap to young kids is definitely undesirable.

[demolition]

(05-30-2015 12:34 PM)mastauser Wrote:  

Heck even the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who we tend to revere here had their dicks sucked by their male pupils after the philosophy class (ok not everyone of them but quite frequently).

To be honest, it would be surprising if this were anywhere near as common as certain people suggest.

The people who we have records of in the ancient world were the 1%, or less than 1% (generally). The actual prevalence of what we'd consider homosexual (or pedophilic / pederastic, or whatever) behavior is almost certainly overstated due to skewed samples and even more skewed 'scholarship.'

[Samseau]

(05-30-2015 05:07 PM)demolition Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 12:34 PM)mastauser Wrote:  

Heck even the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who we tend to revere here had their dicks sucked by their male pupils after the philosophy class (ok not everyone of them but quite frequently).

To be honest, it would be surprising if this were anywhere near as common as certain people suggest.

The people who we have records of in the ancient world were the 1%, or less than 1% (generally). The actual prevalence of what we'd consider homosexual (or pedophilic / pederastic, or whatever) behavior is almost certainly overstated due to skewed samples and even more skewed 'scholarship.'

To the extent that pederasty was done was actually very limited.

It was always for rich upper class men in their late twenties or early thirties, and young attractive men. It was NEVER between two men of the same age, which was viewed as an abomination. The reason it was only done by the rich was because having a young boy lover was basically a luxury; it was something you could spend extra money on before getting a wife and raising one's own family. Furthermore, young boy lovers expected a lot in return for their companionship - money, status, knowledge, and connections to higher politics within the city.

Finally, apprenticeship was a pivotal part of Greek education. It was very common for young boys to learn from young men, and for the most part these relationships were never sexual. To the extent it did occur was still limited. The actual numbers are not known, but given of what I know about how few men were rich in those days, it was definitely less than 5% of the population. Also, assfucking wasn't in the cards most of the time - usually men put their dick between a young boys legs and masturbated, or engaged in fellatio.

Disgusting to talk about, yes, but this is the truth as far as I know. For the most part remember the Greek education system was one of the finest in the world and produced men like Plato and Aristotle. Apprenticeship worked, but there were some flaming pederasts that corrupted the experience. Over time, people came to reject this especially with the knowledge of Christ.

[ColSpanker]

One of the bizarre things about being an older dude is seeing how things have changed drastically with time. When I was in my early twenties, Russia was considered by the Right to be the enemy because it was the home of Godless communists. Now it is considered to be the enemy by the Left because it is the home of religious fanatics who won't allow Bruce and Steve to kiss each other on TV.

[ColSpanker]

And it doesn't take a conspiracy freak to notice the subtle message on a lot of TV shows in the US. I'm thinking of 'Modern Family". Yes, one family may be queer and funny; another may be straight and dysfunctional; but the one with the Al Bundy Paterfamilias is the real pitch: don't worry old guys, you can at least score a hot Latina for a wife.

[Parlay44]

(05-31-2015 02:51 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

And it doesn't take a conspiracy freak to notice the subtle message on a lot of TV shows in the US. I'm thinking of 'Modern Family". Yes, one family may be queer and funny; another may be straight and dysfunctional; but the one with the Al Bundy Paterfamilias is the real pitch: don't worry old guys, you can at least score a hot Latina for a wife.

Have we all been so distracted by hot Latin poosy that we have been subverted by the gays

[ColSpanker]

You got it, my man. It lets us old farts think if we buy into teh gey agenda we'll have all the hot chicas we want.
And it is absolutely, one hundred percent, bullshit. Sofía Vergara' daddy is a big ranchero in Columbia and you would never get close to that level of talent in the real world. The only way Al Bundy could trade her up from the cat lady who left him on the show would have been hitting the lottery or having a rich relative drop dead. In the real world, Universe A, the Al Bundy's don't even get Peggy as an option.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The reason is the media pushed gay issues full-time for over a decade. Here are the reasons why:

1. The media is anti-Christian.
This isn't just because there are lots of people writing for the media that fear and resent the influence Christians have. It's because the media needs to have undue influence over people to influence them *out* of their charitable Christian mindset and turn them instead into selfish consumers. They're driven by ads and need to please the advertisers first and foremost.

Because a lot of Christians were at first against gays in their churches, the media immediately became vocally pro-gay as a way to break the influence of churches.

2. Reporters always look for the next Civil Rights Movement.
They missed the '60s, but want the glory days those reporters had. And the awards. For a while, gay rights was that.

But then something unexpected happened. The majority of Christians that make up flyover country did not prove to be the intolerant, bigoted rednecks imagined by reporters who'd never met one. In fact, they proved surprisingly accepting of gays and gay marriage. Christianity is one of the more open-minded religions, it turns out.

So what did the media do next? It found another issue to push the buttons of Christians even more: trans-acceptance. And it threw kids into the mix, for good measure. Take that, Christians!

Now you can go back to Step 1 and repeat the original question in an altered form: "How did trans people become so popular?" In a few years, the media will be calling for acceptance for something else that will make the trans kids look like apple pie.

[Parlay44]

Fuck Christianity. You don't need to be a religious scholar or a rocket scientist to understand that homosexuality is a twisted perversion. The last thing it should be portrayed as is cool or normal.

And trannies are just a walking freak show. Proof that even God makes mistakes.

It annoys me that medical professionals haven't spoken up about this shit. Why are we so accepting of these things?

[Sherman]

The most sensible policy on gays has been put into law by Putin. The law basically makes it illegal to promote homosexuality to young people. Gays shouldn't be persecuted, but also they shouldn't be allowed to recruit children. Also, the purpose of marriage is to define legal rights and responsibilities for heterosexual couples having children. Marriage just isn't relevant to gays and a tiny minority shouldn't be allowed to screw up the laws for the majority population.

[Easy_C]

Got the answer for you here:

The Overhauling of Straight America:

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/E...raight.htm


This article outlines the strategies used to make gays a dominant social force in spite of a small percentage. It revolves around using sophisticated dialectics to make bullying on the part gays look like the complaints of an oppressed victim in order to win public favor.

[Phoenix]

From what I read it originated in the stonewall riots. A free society doesn't take well to minorities of people being persecuted for a trait they can't change. Thence the pendulum swung.

One of the tragedies of it certainly is that medical research into it has ceased. It may be reversible or treatable, so young men realizing they are gay can reverse it before it becomes part of their personality. We just don't know, and we can't know without research.

Both sides got it wrong. The right thought persecution was OK, causing a backlash. The left then broadcast the lunacy that 'it's normal'. The truth was that it's an incurable mental illness, and as such should be treated as other illnesses in similar categories. It is inhuman to persecute the ill. They should be kept at a safe distance, their condition researched, and it left at that.

[DjembaDjemba]

Gays run in tight knit circles. They help each other with jobs and connections all the time.

They don't have children so their incomes can be re-invested into the market. Society is far more capitalist today than ever before and those with the most disposable income drive the agenda. A boycott over anti-female or anti-gay comments or viewpoints can spell financial doom for a company, especially in media entertainment.

He who has most money laughs loudest.

[Samseau]

(06-06-2015 11:13 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

Gays run in tight knit circles. They help each other with jobs and connections all the time.

This is because the same way that men financially support young gold-diggers with money, gifts, and jobs in exchange for sex, the same thing occurs with older gay men towards younger gay men.

Given that there are no discernable genetic causes for faggotry, the most reasonable hypothesis is that gayness is a pathological disease (probably a virus) that sustains itself along cultural vectors:

- Gay pederasts who prey on young boys who are too immature and weak to resist advances of homos
- Gay sugar daddies who lure straight men with money to perform sexual favors
- Straight men who are so thirsty for sex with females they are willing to try and experiment with gay men

In all three cases the results are usually permanently corrupting (with the first cause being the most damaging), affecting the brain chemistry of straight men forever which then turns them into the next batch of gay predators.

[CodyB]

I think it's driven largely by hollywood and the left-wing agenda that uses many other groups and minorities as it's political pinups in order to

A) make money
B) advance their own political agenda

Much like in America the GOP / Tea Party use honest and straight forward people as pinups to forward their own fucked up agendas also.

Polarisation in America is fucked up.

[CodyB]

(05-31-2015 11:04 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

The most sensible policy on gays has been put into law by Putin. The law basically makes it illegal to promote homosexuality to young people. Gays shouldn't be persecuted, but also they shouldn't be allowed to recruit children. Also, the purpose of marriage is to define legal rights and responsibilities for heterosexual couples having children. Marriage just isn't relevant to gays and a tiny minority shouldn't be allowed to screw up the laws for the majority population.

This.

In a way, gay people serve a purpose in excluding themselves (and their effeminate tendancies) from the reproductive marketplace by coupling with each other.

They should be fine to live their lives and earn a living like every other person that is reliant upon themselves for their wellbeing.

Marriage, I don't care about so much but the fact there are children growing up with two fathers/mothers and the gay men have actually passed their genes on I find to be wrong.

Every day I question beliefs I have held my whole life but I strongly believe that every child should at least be born into a traditional family unit with a mother and father. It's time that traditional family unit no longer is shunned and that men and women should aspire to, amongst other things, having healthy happy families.

Homosexuality is not an evil, but it shouldn't be overly embraced as well. There are kids who question their sexuality who are legitimitely not gay. This could be the kid wondering why he hasn't hooked up with a girl and he is almost 18, or a girl who has had an adoration of a female authority figure. Today's society is saying 'You're gay, embrace it!', even if that young man isn't actively fantasising about men.

[Bill Brasky]

(05-28-2015 09:34 AM)TomArrow Wrote:  

I am writing an article about a bill that was voted in in Munich in support of gays / LGBT.

Since gays consist of about 1-2% of the population, how is it that a majority is in favor of them? This is in stark contrast to, say, right-wing groups. Obviously, the victim mentality plays a big role - if you look strong, who would get off helping you?

I am rather young and not very knowledgeable in history and I wonder if there's anyone here who has backtraced / followed this development and knows something about how public opinion was influenced to the point where a majority is in favor of LGBT.

Who are the opinion-makers and who are their holders? Who profits from this?

Since the partys supporting this particular bill were exclusively leftist, I imagine that the demographics to whom protecting LGBT rights appeals are the same who generally perceive themselves as victims, namely women, immigrants, city folk.

There are many powerful families that have sons and daughters who are gay. In the past, revelations of homosexual family members always needed to be kept quite and away from the public. However, with slow increase in acceptance followed by an outright embrace, it became much easier for the political and media classes to have this newfound "change of heart" be reflected in culture and politics at large. Media, politics, and art always reflect the sensibilities and beliefs of the upper classes.

Regarding your question about this specific bill:

Most people do not inherently have vitriol hatred for anything that doesn't directly affect them. As a kid, I never had to be told or acculturated to not hate gays. I've always been a live and let live guy.

Most people have a sense of goodwill towards people which includes gays and this combined with what I stated above as well positive media portrayal and the fact that "gay rights" is usually bundled with other leftist causes (intersectionality) you get these types of policies put through which usually have mass public support. Not that I even know what the details of the policy you are talking about but it generally follows that formula.

While my opinion remains one of indifference to homosexual acts, I am 100% against the belligerent, condescending, and intolerant beast that the "gay-rights" movement has become.

[N°6]

People talk about 'Left wing' and the gay agenda. The USSR banned homosexuality but used it to infiltrate the British Establishment which is weaned with traumatic buggery in the boarding school system (Philby et al). Liberal-Capitalism is where homosexuality flourishes as it is just as unproductive as its usury.

[Wutang]

"Most people do not inherently have vitriol hatred for anything that doesn't directly affect them. As a kid, I never had to be told or acculturated to not hate gays. I've always been a live and let live guy."

I'm the same way.

I remember around my area there was this group of Hispanic trannies that would constantly go bar hopping in the same area weekend after weekend. People included me talked about them as a curiosity but there was never any sort of hatred or discrimination directed towards them. If you see a tall ass Spanish dude that is obviously trying to appear to be a female and failing at it horribly of course it's going to stand out but to most people they aren't going to make the jump from "Hmm that's strange looking" to "Fuck these monstrosities let's fuck them up".

In the past 2-3 years I started getting a lot more ill feelings towards various LGBT groups which was strange because previously they never really bothered me on a personal level. I remember even speaking up for gay marriage a couple of times and honestly to this day if I was forced to choose between making it legal or not I would choose the former (even though my recent posts on this subject might seem to indicate otherwise). Recently I been really trying to think over why I had this gradual change of heart and I came to the conclusion that it actually doesn't have much to do with gays or trans people themselves. Instead it has everything to do with this campaign where everyone is expected to cheerlead and rah-rah every single thing they do and if you aren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the cause then the standard buzzwords of "homophobic" and "ignorant" get thrown at you. Hell, even with things I like I'll tend to get annoyed by it if it gets constantly put in my face so of course my reaction to something that I'm indifferent too will be way more negative.

[Samseau]

Usually the only people who support gays are people who have no experience with them.