[TomArrow]

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.

[Truth Teller]

Basically, the media has done a fantastic job of convincing people (through television and film) that gays are just like heterosexual people. Of course, anything negative (like increased drug abuse, increased STD rates, etc.) is conveniently ignored in order to support that agenda.

[TomArrow]

(05-28-2015 10:08 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Basically, the media has done a fantastic job of convincing people (through television and film) that gays are just like heterosexual people. Of course, anything negative (like increased drug abuse, increased STD rates, etc.) is conveniently ignored in order to support that agenda.

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.

[WestIndianArchie]

Will and Grace

[Easy_C]

The old axiom "follow the money" will answer your question.

[Drazen]

I think it all started with the movie Philadelphia. One of the first times a gay person was really portrayed on the screen. I never watched the movie, but I believe Hanks was portrayed as a victim. Victims get sympathy. Social Justice Warrior types latch on to victims and become their crusaders to boost their own egos and places in society. Eventually the walls break down further and further until its normalized in society.

Then as time goes by, women latch on to their "gay best friend" as a status symbol.

The status symbol of accepting gays naturally gives rise to the group thought that not accepting gays is the worst possible attitude in the world.

And boom: popular.

[8ball]

(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.

Straight artists and Gays found a common enemy: The Church + Conservatives. We now live in a world where if you offend fat women or gays you are chased of twitter but back then it was the right wing church goers who were doing the censoring. Writers/producers in hollywood always had problems with mass complaints from groups with names like "christian mother unite" or other related groups. When you work is attacked, well that will turn even the most conservative fiction writer into a gay rights activist.

Another alliance was struck with the unions, remember all actors/directors and most crew members are in a Union. Even church going union leaders couldn't understand why a leader of an evangilical church would visit the NY stock exchange and say "you are doing Jesus' work, when the work they were doing was mostly destroying the unions.

GLAAD was set up in hollywood and pretty much runs like a Mafia by promoting talent that advances their agenda. Its a network of writers/editors, critics, publicists and other influential people that will take you down if you have anything against gays.

And lastly, the people at the top discovered that baiting brings a new market and lots of money.

[scotian]

I entered the main door of my condo building today and saw one of those window stickers on it proclaiming Edmonton to be "An LGBT friendly community", I wondered why the fuck it was on there since there's no other stickers on the door except for an RCMP one informing people not to let strangers in. I peeled the sticker off and threw it in the trash, not because I'm against the LGBT per say , I just don't see why they feel so special as to be able to put stickers on doors like that.

[Onto]

Homosexuality is a flight from masculinity. The popularity of gays, liberalism/socialism, etc is what happens when the masculine principle decays, and it's been decaying since the 1950's.

There really aren't many male character's in today's movies/media that even embody true masculinity any more. Watch a movie like Shane (1953) to see a view of the true masculine in action along with the foreshadowing of it's demise at the very end of it.

Movies/TV shows/Media in general will always tell us where society currently is and where it is headed.

[speakeasy]

Every generation had to latch on to some climactic social cause. Women's suffrage, civil rights, ending the Vietnam War. Now it's LGBT as the cause celebre.

How did it become so popular. A few things had to be aligned for it to happen:

1) Radical egalitarianism, e.g. everything under the sun is equal and equally valuable. I even see animal rights types claiming humans and cows are equal.

2) Destruction of gender roles and the belief that they are sexist and oppressive. Male and female behavior is considered a construct. Some of the extremists have gone as far as refuse to call their children boys or girls and let them choose their own gender when they get older. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pare...24245.html

3) Belief that marriage is nothing more than an officiated ceremony of love. Belief that marriage is deeply tied to religious tradition, children and family structure is rendered anachronistic.

4) Gay victimhood complex

5) SJW phenomenon rife with smug and sanctimonious hashtag activist millenials who think they are on a crusade to give people "the right to love". A red herring if there ever was one.

6) Maybe most importantly, the media. Mainstream news media, entertainment media, social media. When I saw Brokeback Mountain nominated for the most Academy Awards, I knew it was a full scale LGBT propaganda war. I actually watched the movie to see if it lived up to the hype. If the movie were about a straight couple, it would've been totally forgettable. It would not have been nominated for an Academy War, let alone won 3. Then you've had all the gay propaganda on MTV and gays portrayed overwhelmingly in positive roles. Rarely do you see any footage of them parading through San Francisco in leather chaps and whips. Or hear about how they are spreading HIV with their extremely promiscuous lifestyles. Gays are presented as warm and cuddly people who are victimized by a virulently homophobic society. They obviously make better parents than straights. I don't think they could've come this far in so short a time without the full backing and promotion of the mass media.

[Fortis]

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Destroy the family unit, sure, but you must provide people with an alternative: rampant homosexuality and promiscuity.

[Sherman]

I think it is much bigger than what is being stated here. It isn't a grassroots movement. The gay agenda is being aggressively pushed all over the world by those in power. This takes millions, maybe even billions of dollars. They have control of the media, education, and government. Most people will go along to keep from becoming persecuted. They are using shame and ostracism to go after anyone who speaks out against homosexuality. Ultimately, it will be prison and other forms of state violence. This is a top down revolution. I have yet to see a complete history of any of these movements showing the money trail.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/u-s-thrusts-g...upon-world

[Drazen]

(05-28-2015 04:57 PM)scotian Wrote:  

I entered the main door of my condo building today and saw one of those window stickers on it proclaiming Edmonton to be "An LGBT friendly community", I wondered why the fuck it was on there since there's no other stickers on the door except for an RCMP one informing people not to let strangers in. I peeled the sticker off and threw it in the trash, not because I'm against the LGBT per say , I just don't see why they feel so special as to be able to put stickers on doors like that.

http://thewelcomingcommittee.com/

Saw this liked by a friend on Facebook on my feed. Basically what it comes down is this, a bunch of gays go and invade a "straight" bar and probably act super gay to elicit reactions. They'll dance with each other, kiss in public and do anything to make people either freak out or clap in solidarity.

I don't mind gay people, but when they go around and purposefully try to shove their lifestyle down one's throat, attention whore, etc its very off putting.

This is their "way" of becoming popular nowadays. They'll go to these events now, record, Instagram, and vine people's reactions and shame anyone who doesn't comply with nothing less than enthusiasm for their "takeover".

They'll eventually show up on Facebook and social media about how "great" people were to them and what a fun, normal party it was, while on other clickbait feeds, anyone who leaves will be shamed in "you'll never believe this guy's reaction" and articles will be written on Gawker.

[MrXY]

Research "Cultural Marxism" and related topics such as the Frankfurt School and you will get the answers you are seeking, OP

[Pride male]

Delete.

[Honorable Man]

Those two had a lot to do with it. I watched the entire show in high school with my girlfriend at the time. It made her really horny for some reason so I think it was worth it. Honestly I thought they were the best part of the show, they were the only characters who consistently called out the main four girls on their bullshit. In my personal experience I haven't enjoyed being around gay guys, as they always seem to want to trick me into sex. No thanks.

[kerouac]

I used to like gay people more when they were a fringe group. Living in various metropolises here in the United States, I used to have some gay co-workers who would inevitably try to get friendly with me, and through that I heard their stories. Even within their community, there is a lot of debate whether it is a nature vs. nurture thing. A lot of the gay guys I talked to had difficult relationships with their fathers.

I've been noticing a trend amongst the "sexual deviants," whether they're prostitutes, porn stars, and/or homosexuals: they all have difficult relationships (or abusive relationships) with their fathers (or whoever was in the fatherly role).

In any case, their story, as well as every other disenfranchised group's story, deserves a bit of empathy, but unfortunately, empathy means votes, which parts of the homosexual community use to further their own fringe causes (Gays raising children).

I still don't think gays raising children is the right thing, but we're living in a time where we will see the results first hand. It will be an interesting sight, but I still can't help but feel bad for the kids involved.

To answer the question more directly, Gays are more likeable than the typical Right-Wing figure. Gays are also very coordinated. Go to any gay neighborhood and you will hear chatter about their causes (when they're not busy flirting or fucking).

[Pride male]

After Broke Back Mountain.

[KorbenDallas]

I used to think gays were only 1-2 % of the population, but I don't know anymore. Maybe that used to be the figure.

I think its closer to 5% now. That could be a part of it. There's just more of them. Also, gays seem to have a way of becoming powerful.

[Samseau]

(05-29-2015 05:24 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

I used to think gays were only 1-2 % of the population, but I don't know anymore. Maybe that used to be the figure.

I think its closer to 5% now. That could be a part of it. There's just more of them. Also, gays seem to have a way of becoming powerful.

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.

[Truth Teller]

(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.

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

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.

[Dusty]

[kerouac]

Honest Question:

Have you guys met an Indian Gay?

I haven't, but they surely exist.

[Comte De St. Germain]

There's money in it simple as that. Oh look an "oppressed minority" lets make them out to be victims and profit of the channeled rage of angsty millennials. A lot of people don't seem to realize gays are persecuted because they try to stray from social norms in the public atmosphere.

If they kept it in their rooms nobody would give a fuck to be honest. What's so special about marriage(especially considering its history and origin) that would cause people to fight for it for homosexuals?

Simple thing is shock and rage are easy to profit from, and there are plenty of millennials angry over perceived and/or realistic faults with their parent's generation because lets be honest they weren't exactly the smartest bunch themselves. It's just the general intelligence level has gotten worse in terms of common sense with heavy outliers.

Millennials for the vast majority may be some of the easier sheep, but I've met several one with ideals similar to RVF in terms of the issues they find with society. Though I wouldn't put many of them under the same category either due to leftist idealist leanings. It's almost masochism in that the smarter ones see the faults but only make them worse with the "good" they wish to implement.

[Parlay44]

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.