Nowhere to hide from the homo agenda

[The Logical Player]

in case no one noticed, this thread is not about homosexuality, but it is about how the homos are trying to CONTROL people's opinions - goes against freedom of speech

 

[Smack]

Well you can't control anyone's opinions, it just doesn't work, and nor does anything in the article mean that homosexuals are restricting people's free speech.

 

[ketostix]

Was she imprisoned for what she said? She said what she thought on national tv. People will agree or disagree but it sounds like a lot of people didn't agree with her at the show.

Free speech is not a guarantee that you will not pay in opportunities and economically. In fact, chances are very good that you will pay for expressing controversial views. I thought it was this acceptance of consequences that marked a Don Juan from lesser men.

If you pay economically and in opportunities for speech that is perfectly reasonable and valid then it's not free speech. If saying something that was a mainstream view is now taboo, then through shaming tactics and coercion mainstream views are being replaced by a new politically correct view.

Also, has not the US been pluralistic society? Telling a minority portion of your population that they're not entitled to freedoms that everybody else shares seems non-pluralistic to me.

What are you talking about? In this case it's the minority telling the majority what they are free to say. This country is supposed to be majority rule. What you have is a loud and brash minority cajoling the majority to acquiesce to their beliefs and agenda.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Excellent article find CR1MSON KING.

in case no one noticed, this thread is not about homosexuality, but it is about how the homos are trying to CONTROL people's opinions - goes against freedom of speech

Duly noted TLP, but hear me out and perhaps you'll learn something. The Times article CR1MSON linked is exemplary of why shouting louder doesn't make your argument any more valid. The notion that 10% of the population is homosexual was drawn from a 1948 Kinsey study (and a shoddy one at that). However, for the past 61 years this notion has become standardized to the point that political and social practices normalized around it - including the agenda you're pointing out in this thread. Without digging any deeper, or expending anymore effort than what it would take to scream "the sky is falling" you simply sound like any other "homophobe" that same agenda would too easily paint you to be. Never enter a debate unarmed.

In many threads I've made the point that the soul-mate myth and the fallacy of the ONE are founded in exactly this kind of popularized ideological normalization. For instance the Carl Jung idea of anima & animus is so embedded in our culture that we take it for granted. For the past 70+ years popular culture has operated from an unquestioned idea that men and women possess both masculine and feminine aspects of their personalities. Why? Because at some point Carl Jung proposed the idea and a culture embraced and perpetuated the idea that "men ought to get in touch with their feminine sides" as a means to an end for another agenda. No one even thinks to question the origins of this concept much less the veracity of it. Small wonder that so many women and too many men get agitated and hostile at the idea that this basic of their identity understanding could very well be horsesh!t.

 

[Colossus]

There is no conclusive end all be all evidence that homosexuality is genetic till then, its going to be assumed thats its behavioral.

I wholeheartedly agree. However, to suggest otherwise in this homo-sympathetic culture is bordering on heresy. It's even to the point in the scientific community that, despite the lack of concrete, reproducible evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined, it is incorrectly assumed as such---unproven doctrine that is gaining acceptance without proof, much like some areas of evolutionary theory

I was fine with gay people when they just wanted to be left alone. But now they want to force everyone to agree with them, and it's ridiculous. I don't think there's hardly any oppression of gays left in this country. If so, they just move to the city. If gay people want to be activists so badly, let them go fight the Taliban, the Iranians, and all of the other powers that be who are still executing people for simply being gay. That is oppression.

At least once every couple weeks I get acosted by some dolt on the street canvassing for "gay rights". Give me a f*cking break. This is an example of one particular group using political leverage to strongarm the public and the legislature into giving them SPECIAL rights (not equal rights), and if you disagree with them you're a bigot.

What "rights" dont gays have in this country? The only one I can think of is they dont have the right to marry in some states. That is rapidly changing. And dont think they will stop there.

I really could not give a flying turd about someone's sexual orientation. What I have a problem with is, like BibleBelt said, when they label anyone who disagrees or simply doesnt support their agenda as racists, bigots, and religious extremists.

 

[Darth]

^^ And when they put their "progressive" party line into schools, like they're doing now. There are books for pre-schoolers and kindergarteners now that have things like, "Bob has one daddy and one mommy." "Timmy has two daddies but that's OK."

Brainwashing the kids from the beginning.

 

[ChrizZ]

It's no secret that women LOVE gay guys.

They MARRY gay guys.

For the simple reason that they are the most submissive and easiest to manipulate. Even more submissive than AFCs.

That means easy $$$ for the woman and she always has the upper hand in the relationship and doesn't have to worry about him cheating on her.

Women would take money over sex any day.

THIS is the new generation of men that women want.

 

[ketostix]

I wholeheartedly agree. However, to suggest otherwise in this homo-sympathetic culture is bordering on heresy. It's even to the point in the scientific community that, despite the lack of concrete, reproducible evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined, it is incorrectly assumed as such---unproven doctrine that is gaining acceptance without proof, much like some areas of evolutionary theory

The thing of it is from my viewpoint I couldn't care less if homosexuality is genetic or not. Any number of abnormal behaviors could be genetic-from serial killer or rapist to congenial liar or sociopath-but that doesn't make them acceptable. It doesn't make it any more valid than if pedophilia is genetic. The way I see it is having homosexual desires is as disfunctional and adnormal as having pedophilia desires. Putting consent aside, it makes little sense to me that pedophilia is demonized as the worse thing ever and homosexuality is considered equally valid to heterosexual. Either both pedophilia and homosexuality are about equal valid or they are both about equally invalid. I don't see that either of those desires are normal/valid sexual desires.

Abnormal is abnormal regardless of its type, degree, or rate of expression. What you have is an abnormal, twisted and loud,vocal minority trying to redefine what's normal and abnormal in the topsy-turvy way that they are themselves.

Having said all of that this is really a matter beyond whether being homosexual is genetic or acceptable. It's to the level of gays and their supporters being intolerant and reverse-discriminating against heteros, people of faith, etc. As Bible_Belt shown even at the state institutional level they are trampling on free speech and equal protection.

 

[MikeYikes122]

This thread itself is an example of the gay agenda at work. Like Keto said, free speech is widely advocated, unless of course what you have to say is offensive to gays or women.

How many of us would have this conversation in public or on our Facebook status messages? Probably none of us. I know I don't have the nuts to do that. Plenty of my friends - good friends, even - would never talk to me again. I know of about seven people who I can talk like this with in real life. Anyone else I know is way too close-minded and has drank the Kool-Aid for way too long to be able to entertain thoughts like these. The mere suggestion that sexuality isn't a trait that a person is born with will draw intense contempt from a wide majority of people. I knew a guy in college who was a columnist for the student paper. He wrote a column once about how our society was overly feminized and how we're all just becoming gay, with our embracing of metrosexuals and things like that. My buddy got death threats - not just from anonymous e-mails but from people who dug his phone number up in the student directory.

There is a minority that is controlling the collective thought about things like this. And this minority is so loud and fanatical that it's intimidated average people into being scared crapless of even entertaining the thought that being gay is something other than a trait that you're born with. How people don't see the logic behind this is beyond me. Like Rollo pointed out, sexual identity has become so skewed anymore, where there are so many variants of what people are attracted to, it's very hard to argue that a person is scientifically born gay.

Like I've said before on threads like these, I don't hate gays or anything like that. I actually feel bad for them, the same way I feel bad for a guy who is an AFC who gets used by women. In both cases, something awful probably happened in these guys' lives that made them lose touch with their sexual identity.

But, I do hate when people force their beliefs on others. And that is exactly what these media types and these Hollywood writers and actors are doing. I agree that most of them want money before anything else. But you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that they don't have an axe to grind. How do you think society accepted that 10 percent statistic so widely? The media widely reported it and referenced it as fact without ever skeptically looking at Kinsey's studies. When, even a kid in a high school statistics class would see some of the errors in Kinsey's findings.

Where are we going to be in 40 years with all this? Will stuff like this be on the verge of acceptance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE3pGYjz8Ws&annotation_id=annotation_368450&feature=iv

 

[ketostix]

This thread itself is an example of the gay agenda at work. Like Keto said, free speech is widely advocated, unless of course what you have to say is offensive to gays or women.

How many of us would have this conversation in public or on our Facebook status messages? Probably none of us. I know I don't have the nuts to do that. Plenty of my friends - good friends, even - would never talk to me again. I know of about seven people who I can talk like this with in real life. Anyone else I know is way too close-minded and has drank the Kool-Aid for way too long to be able to entertain thoughts like these. The mere suggestion that sexuality isn't a trait that a person is born with will draw intense contempt from a wide majority of people. I knew a guy in college who was a columnist for the student paper. He wrote a column once about how our society was overly feminized and how we're all just becoming gay, with our embracing of metrosexuals and things like that. My buddy got death threats - not just from anonymous e-mails but from people who dug his phone number up in the student directory.

There is a minority that is controlling the collective thought about things like this. And this minority is so loud and fanatical that it's intimidated average people into being scared crapless

This is a good point and example of how there really is no longer free speech, only political correct free speech. The majority don't speak their mind out of fear of retaliation, and so what they belief just as well doesn't exist. "Politically correct" is the antagonist of free speech. They both can't exist side-by-side. It's false to say as long as your not arrested and prosecuted for speech then it's free. Free means free of persecution. And losing your reputation and means of livelihood is persecution.

Private individuals don't really have the right to persecute you in various ways for your free speech. You wouldn't say, "Well you have a constitutional right to life and liberity but since I'm not the government I'm free to take that away from you." But you have even government institutions doing it, like universities. What you have is a radical minority trying to control speech, thoughts and behavior of the majority. Until gays can establish they are 51%, then they are a minority. As far as I'm concerned they are like terrorist groups but instead of using weapons they use propaganda and coercion to cajole the majority.

This is the same way feminism operates too.

 

[Alle_Gory]

The easiest way is to shame those that are too afraid to speak their mind.

Why not use the same tactics the frauds do?

 

[Darth]

This is a good point and example of how there really is no longer free speech, only political correct free speech. The majority don't speak their mind out of fear of retaliation, and so what they belief just as well doesn't exist. "Politically correct" is the antagonist of free speech. They both can't exist side-by-side. It's false to say as long as your not arrested and prosecuted for speech then it's free. Free means free of persecution. And losing your reputation and means of livelihood is persecution.

Private individuals don't really have the right to persecute you in various ways for your free speech. You wouldn't say, "Well you have a constitutional right to life and liberity but since I'm not the government I'm free to take that away from you." But you have even government institutions doing it, like universities. What you have is a radical minority trying to control speech, thoughts and behavior of the majority. Until gays can establish they are 51%, then they are a minority. As far as I'm concerned they are like terrorist groups but instead of using weapons they use propaganda and coercion to cajole the majority.

This is the same way feminism operates too.

Brilliant post. That is EXACTLY how second-wave feminism happened. Shaming the majority of people into going along with with because they're too sheepish to fight back against the small, radical, outspoken minority.

That's where we get words like "homophobic."

It worked for them back in the 70's and 80's ("male chauvinist pigs," "controlling," etc.), and now the gays are trying the same thing.

But for me, putting it in elementary school curriculums just crosses the line. That's brainwashing. It has to stop.

 

[Phenomenal One]

How many of us would have this conversation in public or on our Facebook status messages? Probably none of us. I know I don't have the nuts to do that. Plenty of my friends - good friends, even - would never talk to me again. I know of about seven people who I can talk like this with in real life. Anyone else I know is way too close-minded and has drank the Kool-Aid for way too long to be able to entertain thoughts like these. The mere suggestion that sexuality isn't a trait that a person is born with will draw intense contempt from a wide majority of people. I knew a guy in college who was a columnist for the student paper. He wrote a column once about how our society was overly feminized and how we're all just becoming gay, with our embracing of metrosexuals and things like that. My buddy got death threats - not just from anonymous e-mails but from people who dug his phone number up in the student directory.

This is a good point and example of how there really is no longer free speech, only political correct free speech. The majority don't speak their mind out of fear of retaliation, and so what they belief just as well doesn't exist. "Politically correct" is the antagonist of free speech. They both can't exist side-by-side. It's false to say as long as your not arrested and prosecuted for speech then it's free. Free means free of persecution. And losing your reputation and means of livelihood is persecution.

i've said it before and i'll say it again, Free Speech does not exist.

these days, anything a person says is basically want they heard someone else said.
people want to hear what you have to say, only if it's what they expect.
shaming works because people don't form their own opinions, they get them from someone else.
everyone live their lives under a microscope,
any little things they do that is'nt what other people do is under scrutiny

 

[Darth]

To go back to the article the OP posted, this is a link to Perez's blog (who asked the question at the pageant) where he calls Miss California a "dumb *****."

http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-19-everyone-is-entitled-to-their-own-opinion-but

What a jackass.

 

[PRMoon]

This is a pretty toxic topic. Really hard to pick side from where I sit. One one hand classic relgious beliefs in the institution of marriage and it's "sanctity" definately shouldn't be punished. Freedom of speech and opinoin were definately stepped on in this girls case and that's a shape. Standing up for something you believe in should be encouraged. She even said "I don't want to offend anyone" in her response and still had her neck stepped on.

Conversely I can see why homosexuals act the way they do. I mean they are easy targets for oppression. Sure, even I think the quick pace in which homosexualy has reached quasi acceptability, is quite overwhelming. However it wasn't all that long ago that they got beat up for being open and no one batted an eye lash. Being over zelous about their rights isn't all that unexpected.

Frankly it's hard to tag either one as the definate right and remain objectionable in totallity. There are quite a few homosexuals in my line of work but they're not like the activist you see in california. More content that most of us are more focused on our money then whether they should be able to fall into that death trap or not. Still gay or not, Perez Hilton is a complete douch. We met that ****, he thought since he got a table with a bottle, he bought the club and acted as such. No no no sir!:nono:

 

[bud_2005]

Why do gay guys talk really weird like really fruity. Were they born that way or do they just adopt it from their f@ggy friends who all talk that way?

 

[STR8UP]

To go back to the article the OP posted, this is a link to Perez's blog (who asked the question at the pageant) where he calls Miss California a "dumb *****."

http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-19-everyone-is-entitled-to-their-own-opinion-but

What a jackass.

"I am thooo dithapointed in Mith California reprethenting my country, not becauth she dothent believe in gay marriage but becauth she doethn't inthpire and she doethn't unite."

That was some queer ass sh!t.

That said, this whole conspiracy crap annoys the hell outa me. Women aren't conspiring against you, the government isn't conspiring against you, the media isn't conspiring against you, corporations aren't conspiring against you, and homosexuals aren't conspiring against you.

EVERYONE AS AN INDIVIDUAL is conspiring against you. That's all you need to know.

 

[azanon]

Thanks for this DEEP. I may be inclined to change my mind about a few things in light of new information. However, the similarities between brain shapes still doesn't empirically suggest a genetic basis for homosexuality. I'm also aware of the infamous hypothalmus studies too, but as was stated in that study, brain similarities cannot determine cause or effect. It's entirely possible that brain shape and neuosynaptic functions are the result of environmental stimulus and adapting to it. For instance, when a person learns to play piano they progressively create new neural pathways. This is a fundament of learning. Similarly, traumatic experiences, and memory can alter brain function. Post traumatic stress disorder and Alzheimer's are 2 examples.

A new born child's brain is notably smooth after birth, but acquires shape and synaptic function as the child matures. This is why the formative years of a child's life (the first 5) are so crucial. As that child learns and is better able to understand abstract concepts, it forges new neural pathways and shapes the brain in response to it's learning. So it's entirely possible that a homosexual's brain shape is the result of it's learning rather than a genetic indicator of homosexuality. I should also add that this still doesn't account for a genetic basis of bisexuality or biologically transgender people.

It is a major stretch to suggest that of the myraid of things a human does as he develops, learns, and experiences this world, that one's mere choice of sexual expression is going to have such a dramatic impacts as to cause the literal physiology of the brain to be 1-2% different on average. Growing (microscopic) dendrites from learning is one thing or "altered brain functions" from ailments is one thing, growing "significantly larger" brain mass due to just one behavioral attribute is quite another. For something that dramatic, you'd almost need to be dealing with, say, a different gender of the same species.

Whether gay or straight, when does the average person began to engage in sex? 16 or so? (just guessing). Next question: At what age is the brain (size-wise) almost completed? You see where I'm going with that? "Environment" is basically almost out of time before its horse can even leave the gate. Of course genetic code starts "its race" at birth.

In short, "altered brain function" and "creating neural paths" are one thing. 1-2% difference in brain mass symmetry is quite another.

I've heard it estimated that if you compare the physiology of the entire male human body with the female, mathematically they are approximately 5% different on average. Just thought I'd throw that in there. My point is, 5% is a lot. That's not meant to be an analogy though.

 

[azanon]

Whenever I see a thread which includes guys bashing "gays", I can't help but wonder how many of them get turned on by two hot chicks going at it like I do, and how many of them would enjoy, or probably do enjoy, watching that and if they were there, would ask if they could join in. I'm going to conservatively guess at least three-fourths of you. I'll stop short of referring to said guys as hypocrites because the accusation could be interpreted as rude despite being completely true.

 

[horaholic]

"I am thooo dithapointed in Mith California reprethenting my country, not becauth she dothent believe in gay marriage but becauth she doethn't inthpire and she doethn't unite."

I would like everyone here to raise their hand if they, or ANYONE they have ever met in their entire lives, have ever been INSPIRED or united, or have ever given a flying fvck about miss America, other than how her ass looks in a tight dress or bikini. (other than aspiring models, that is)