Nowhere to hide from the homo agenda

[piranha45]

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.

we aren't bashing bedside practices, we're bashing the social mentality that a certain group of people (who-- conveniently-- have similar bedside practices) have.

As for the rest of your post's content, the truth of the matter is that two smoking hot chicks rarely pair up for exclusive bedside activity. Its more like one sometimes-hot chick and one butch man-wannabe beast... Or just two butch man-wannabe beasts.


I would like to ask the behaviorists a question--- is there scientific evidence that strongly supports the idea that sexual orientation is based on behavior? If not, why are you so quick to deny nature and support nurture on this subject?

 

[AlexTheGreat]

It's one thing to hear Perez Hilton spew out his crap. Next level is to read the comments posted underneath his video blog.

"OMG Perez you're SOOOOO right!! I love you man!"

"I completely agree with you! I have literally been refreshing this page since the pageant ended because I knew you'd would post. I was so shocked and disgusted!"

"that *****! i saw that! i'm so ashamed she's the california representative!!
love you perez!"

Those are only examples (the first one is made up by me hehehe! )

I really think it's disgusting that people would spit on that girl for expressing her beliefs. Or, should I say, I really think it's disgusting that people would completely ignore the out-of-context question, the truthful, unbashful, peaceful answer and follow this fool's words like lemmings.

 

[Michele l'Arcangelo]

HAHAHHA! After reading all of the replies... I could only imagine the Gay Revolution... like the French Revolution. Or a Civil War between gay/straight people.

Gay people rebelling and fighting a WAR... A WAR! HAAHAHHA!

Man... that would be hilarious!

 

[j0n024]

I dont think two girls going at it is hot...I see it as ugly.

But I dont know the whole pushing gay "Rights," Is getting out of proportion..

I was watching cartoon network right now cause of King of the hill and they had a damn commercial for a show on CN and they actually showed two guys kissing on a damn kids network!

This gay thing is going to far, I dont care for them but fvck take it easy.

 

[ready123]

I disagree with almost every post in this thread

yeah she's entitled to her opinion but obviously if her opinion polarizes the nation, she owns that too. freedom of speech means you won't be locked up for having an opinion - it doesn't mean people have to react positively and love what you say. if they asked her a question about gun control or capital punishment, she would've brought the same reaction, just on different blogs. also, there's a difference between being pissed off because of actual injustice and pissed off because you're anti-gay and can't fathom why the pro-gays should be pissed off at her comment which though subtle and articulate, was still anti-gay. And Perez Hilton is flaming gay and she just implied gay people shouldn't have this or that, how else did you think he was gonna react

and yeah I'm sure there's a homo agenda, just like there's a burmese-american agenda. they got no fvckin power. I live about 30 miles from West Hollywood. the homos there never did anything to me. As an Asian American, I worry more about the redneck politicans like this btch who would probably be puzzled that I can speak perfect English. why? Because she has actual power - it's like giving a retard a loaded pistol

and everytime I time I see one of these stupid ass threads claiming it's a choice, I always bring up the same topic which is always ignored and will probably be ignored again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals. oh yeah, those gay penguins with their social agendas trying to DESTROY the straight penguins. oh the horror

if you guys have anti-homo perspectives because of religion or because of the culture of where you live, then it is what it is, I'm not putting a label on it becuase I really don't care. but I see other guys here who I suspect are insecure in their masculinity and jump on the homophobic bandwagon to fill a void. you guys got problems

 

[Spez]

The "homo-agenda" :crackup:

You mongs.

On the other hand Perez Hilton is everything that is wrong with society. If I was gay I would surely rise up and do something horrible to him for being a **** representation of gays.

 

[ketostix]

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

That's exactly right. But that's just it when you hold a position of authority whether in the government, media, or in a corporation, whether you're an university faculty administrator, a jack azz judge in a Miss America contest or what have you, then you are in a position to real fvck people over. But it's more than just that as bad as that is. Groups do form a confederacy to conspire against the majority. How did feminism, gays, political correctness, etc take so much control and make such inroads without conspiring? These are movements. Movements are conspiracies.

It's common knowledge or should be common knowledge that there is a boatload of think tanks, political activist groups and foundations. These activist literally sit around and plan this sh!t. It's their job and life ambition.

 

[ketostix]

yeah she's entitled to her opinion but obviously if her opinion polarizes the nation, she owns that too. freedom of speech means you won't be locked up for having an opinion - it doesn't mean people have to react positively and love what you say. if they asked her a question about gun control or capital punishment, she would've brought the same reaction, just on different blogs. also, there's a difference between being pissed off because of actual injustice and pissed off because you're anti-gay and can't fathom why the pro-gays should be pissed off at her comment which though subtle and articulate, was still anti-gay. And Perez Hilton is flaming gay and she just implied gay people shouldn't have this or that, how else did you think he was gonna react

It was a beauty pagain, not running for political office. WTF is some gay judge doing in a Miss America contest and asking her opinion about gay marriage? And WTF is the point of asking someone a question that there's only one right way to answer that isn't "offensive". If the question could only be answered one way then it was the question that was offensive.

and yeah I'm sure there's a homo agenda, just like there's a burmese-american agenda. they got no fvckin power. I live about 30 miles from West Hollywood. the homos there never did anything to me. As an Asian American, I worry more about the redneck politicans like this btch who would probably be puzzled that I can speak perfect English. why? Because she has actual power - it's like giving a retard a loaded pistol

The gays never did anything to you? Well buddy the gays have done a lot of stuff to a lot of people when they find out they are not pro-gay.

and everytime I time I see one of these stupid ass threads claiming it's a choice, I always bring up the same topic which is always ignored and will probably be ignored again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals. oh yeah, those gay penguins with their social agendas trying to DESTROY the straight penguins. oh the horror

You are comparing human beings to pequins literally LOL. What are you trying to demonstrate? It's well known that abnormalities exist in all animal species. Because an abnormality exist in penquins it magically makes the same abnormality normal in humans lol? Maybe crocodiles eat their young so I guess canabalism is normal in humans.

if you guys have anti-homo perspectives because of religion or because of the culture of where you live, then it is what it is, I'm not putting a label on it becuase I really don't care. but I see other guys here who I suspect are insecure in their masculinity and jump on the homophobic bandwagon to fill a void. you guys got problems

Lol dude you are steeped in the PC brainwashing. Are you too dense to get what people said? The point was that gays or feminist or whatever minority group are intolerant of free speech and are known to to destroy people's reputation and livelihood if they find out they are not pro-homo, pro-feminist or what have you. It has nothing to do with being anti-homo, "homophobic", or insecure of one's masculinity. You pulled those words right out of the homo play book. Congratulations you are part of the homo agenda on sosuave. I think maybe you have "red-neck" phobia .

 

[ketostix]

Every time you bring up empirical evidence of homosexuality being genetic, you just throw SCIENCE out the window.

Let this be clear, there is NO PROOF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS GENETIC.

Look at the statistics of homosexuality bro. Its disturbing. I personally view it as abnormal deviant behavior.

I've responded, so do the same.

Like I said before what does it even matter if homosexuality is genetic? Some researchers say pedophilia is genetic, but that doesn't making it any more valid.

But I'm still trying to figure out why it's OK to be against the majority but if someone expresses a majority opinion that doesn't support some minority "group", homosexuals in this instances, then they're blacklisted. It's nuts. It's called a taboo. But how can something become taboo, without being promoted by propaganda, and that's right, an agenda? I mean people have posted how universities have favored homo groups over others, public school have put pro-homo propaganda in elementary books, yet some posters claim there's no agenda and even say the idea of an agenda is preposterous. Talk about having blinders on. It's really amazing.

I really think it's disgusting that people would spit on that girl for expressing her beliefs. Or, should I say, I really think it's disgusting that people would completely ignore the out-of-context question, the truthful, unbashful, peaceful answer and follow this fool's words like lemmings.

Well said. It really is amazing. And this SOB didn't do this in some hole in the wall bar. It was on national TV watched by millions. The message got across to any lemmings that didn't know already-If you aren't pro-homo, you pay.

 

[Darth]

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.

Watching lesbians turns you on?

Not me.

 

[Colossus]

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

I question the validity of those studies. How are they controlled? How many subjects? Subject selection? If the general public knew how easy it is to "engineer" studies to get the results you want, they would be astounded.

Further, if homosexuality indeed has behavioral origins, then it would be reasonable to assume other behavior patterns would induce rather large morphological changes in the brain as well. 1-2% is pretty huge. I highly doubt those were large, randomized, population-based studies.

 

[piranha45]

I would like to ask the behaviorist advocates a question--- is there scientific evidence that strongly supports the idea that sexual orientation is based on behavior? If not, why are you so quick to deny nature and support nurture on this subject?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

and everytime I time I see one of these stupid ass threads claiming it's a choice, I always bring up the same topic which is always ignored and will probably be ignored again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

I was waiting for this one to come up. Yes, homosexuality does have parallels in other animals. However, what's conveniently overlooked is that most instances of this animal homosexuality often occurs in social animals that rely on a collective group for survival (like your penguins). Homosexuality is almost non-existent in predatory animals. Among these social animals, homosexuality is generally exhibited in higher frequency only when the population of the collective has excessively higher proportions of one sex. Homosexuality is also exhibited in lower order animals such as insects and amphibians, however it's postulated that this homosexuality is an instinctive survival mechanism necessary to prompt sexual amorphisms. Certain animals (particularly fish and amphibians) have an ability to change sex (sexual amorphism) when high frequency or exclusively same sex members dominate a population.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to define homosexuality based on the amorphous breeding habits of fire toed newts, but in principle there may be environmental triggers that prompt homosexual behavior. The example I made in my first post was heterosexual prisoners resorting to homosexual behavior in jai and then returning to heterosexual behavior after their release. Is that person a "homosexual", or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression available to them in their controlled environment?

I would like to ask the behaviorist advocates a question--- is there scientific evidence that strongly supports the idea that sexual orientation is based on behavior? If not, why are you so quick to deny nature and support nurture on this subject?

No, and the reason for that (and getting back to the OP) is because studies like that would be considered unethical. In all likelihood I'd say that, like most other human conditions, the answer is both nature and nurture, however the homosexual side of the issue has asserted it is a uniquely genetic condition and therefore a civil right issue, whereas the moralistic crowd argue it's a conscious choice. Neither camp is going to concede any middle ground. That's where behaviorism comes in, but both sides don't want any concrete answers.

 

[ready123]

It was a beauty pagain, not running for political office. WTF is some gay judge doing in a Miss America contest and asking her opinion about gay marriage? And WTF is the point of asking someone a question that there's only one right way to answer that isn't "offensive". If the question could only be answered one way then it was the question that was offensive.

I think it was a loaded question and shouldn't have been asked because no matter what she answered, people would have been marginalized. They might as well just asked her about her religious beliefs. On that note, you should be blaming the pageant organizers, not the group that was marginalized

The gays never did anything to you? Well buddy the gays have done a lot of stuff to a lot of people when they find out they are not pro-gay.

really? what did they do to you personally except annoy you by making noise? give me a break. even here in LA, after prop 8, all they did was a few mass protests, and made a big deal about boycotting a restaurant. and you think they're oppressing you somehow, lol

You are comparing human beings to pequins literally LOL. What are you trying to demonstrate? It's well known that abnormalities exist in all animal species. Because an abnormality exist in penquins it magically makes the same abnormality normal in humans lol? Maybe crocodiles eat their young so I guess canabalism is normal in humans.

yea I find it funny that even though genetic evidence of homosexuality is found in the wild, people still deny a genetic link. and an abnormality is biological terms is a genetic mutation. also your crocodile argument is fvckin stupid for reasons I don't feel like addressin right now

Lol dude you are steeped in the PC brainwashing. Are you too dense to get what people said? The point was that gays or feminist or whatever minority group are intolerant of free speech and are known to to destroy people's reputation and livelihood if they find out they are not pro-homo, pro-feminist or what have you. It has nothing to do with being anti-homo, "homophobic", or insecure of one's masculinity. You pulled those words right out of the homo play book. Congratulations you are part of the homo agenda on sosuave. I think maybe you have "red-neck" phobia .

yea its funny how terms like PC and feminist which have an actual sociological basis get flipped on this site by guys wbo act like they're progressive thinkers but really have no clue what the fvck they're talking about. I bet you think there's an actual homo playbook out there - you'd probably be that stupid

I'd also love to know what minority groups ruined your reputation keto. Please do share

 

[ready123]

I was waiting for this one to come up. Yes, homosexuality does have parallels in other animals. However, what's conveniently overlooked is that most instances of this animal homosexuality often occurs in social animals that rely on a collective group for survival (like your penguins). Homosexuality is almost non-existent in predatory animals. Among these social animals, homosexuality is generally exhibited in higher frequency only when the population of the collective has excessively higher proportions of one sex. Homosexuality is also exhibited in lower order animals such as insects and amphibians, however it's postulated that this homosexuality is an instinctive survival mechanism necessary to prompt sexual amorphisms. Certain animals (particularly fish and amphibians) have an ability to change sex (sexual amorphism) when high frequency or exclusively same sex members dominate a population.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to define homosexuality based on the amorphous breeding habits of fire toed newts, but in principle there may be environmental triggers that prompt homosexual behavior. The example I made in my first post was heterosexual prisoners resorting to homosexual behavior in jai and then returning to heterosexual behavior after their release. Is that person a "homosexual", or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression available to them in their controlled environment?

this is a good point and I'll share my thoughts if I have time when I get home

 

[Da Realist]

A "Gay Agenda"? I believe in it as much as the Black Agenda that is supposedly around. I wish I knew about it because all I have ever seen are folks who want to get a house, a piece of land, and just to be let alone like anyone else to pursue their dream. The problem is how people react. First there is going to be the one guy who takes things too far because he believes everyone should agree with him: in this case Perez. Yeah, gays should be treated with respect as everyone should be, but at the end of the day you have to realize there's going to be someone who doesn't for whatever reason. The aim though isn't to convince everyone you're right, but to get respect. Now there is the otherside who take the actions of one as a representation of a larger, nebulous force that will somehow harm society. I mean, from reading this thread I have no idea about what the gay agenda is since Logical Player hasn't shown any specifics, but all I can gather is that gays will get all they want by how the crowd reacts choosing Miss America. To me, it's like people don't look at the merits of what the other side may be putting out, but attack because they aren't over the initial shock of seeing someting different. Yeah, two guys are kissing, but when they're asking for same sex marriage, it's due to the fact they want to have the same benefits a married heterosexual couple would get which isn't too unreasonable on paper. Really, the same could be applied to unmarried couples if they sought rights because they didn't want to do the traditional thing. I could go more into my view on marriage and government, but I'll leave that alone right now. Anyway, my point is that there is nothing to fear from gays and that every person should learn to live their own life instead of worrying about what the next person may get. If you're going to stand on your principles, fine because that is your right. There are people who believe their skin color is what make them supreme to everyone else as there are people who put all their self worth in their sexuality, but as long as they don't hold you back from what you work for its best to focus on your own life.

 

[Darth]

Well said. It really is amazing. And this SOB didn't do this in some hole in the wall bar. It was on national TV watched by millions. The message got across to any lemmings that didn't know already-If you aren't pro-homo, you pay.

Exactly. This is what happens when they get into positions of authority and power.


Look, it's one thing to be sympathetic toward and try to understand gay people.

It's another thing to be persuaded to THINK like them and trying to push their homo marriage agenda on everybody else, including women in beauty contests and children in schools.

I for one am not going to take it laying down.

Again, this isn't about what causes gayness, but about how they are trying to change America by imposing their warped ideas on everybody else, especially in such a public and obviously unfair way as brought up by the OP.

EDIT: And to anyone who says there's no homo agenda...are you freaking kidding? Like someone else said, these activist groups basically sit around and strategize ways to push their views into the mainstream- it's their life's work. To think otherwise is naive and dangerous.

 

[ketostix]

I think it was a loaded question and shouldn't have been asked because no matter what she answered, people would have been marginalized. They might as well just asked her about her religious beliefs. On that note, you should be blaming the pageant organizers, not the group that was marginalized

Duh I am blaming a large group associatd with the pageant, but the only group marginalized was those who aren't pro-gay marriage. Do I have to spell everything out? The fact that this gay judge was on this pageant, was allowed to ask this question etc is why I say it is an agenda.

really? what did they do to you personally except annoy you by making noise? give me a break. even here in LA, after prop 8, all they did was a few mass protests, and made a big deal about boycotting a restaurant. and you think they're oppressing you somehow, lol

Well yeah if you ignore everything and don't look deeper into what's going on, then no no one is doing anything to anyone.

yea I find it funny that even though genetic evidence of homosexuality is found in the wild, people still deny a genetic link. and an abnormality is biological terms is a genetic mutation. also your crocodile argument is fvckin stupid for reasons I don't feel like addressin right now

Well people who say homosexuality tendencies are genetic are saying their brains are different or abnormal for their sex. But I disagree with you anyway. You can have a abnormality that is enviromentally induced. And as I said over and over it doesn't make a difference if it's genetic or not. And I think my crocodile analogy did make about as much sense as your pequin analogy.

yea its funny how terms like PC and feminist which have an actual sociological basis get flipped on this site by guys wbo act like they're progressive thinkers but really have no clue what the fvck they're talking about. I bet you think there's an actual homo playbook out there - you'd probably be that stupid
I'd also love to know what minority groups ruined your reputation keto. Please do share

I can't believe I'm dignifying this comment with a reply but I'll go ahead. When people support a position using buzzwords it's effectively a playbook. There doesn't have to physically be a playbook, but I'm sure if you did a little research you would find lots of pro-homo and pro-feminisim material out there. Heck, I saw a lot of it at the university. As far as what these groups have done to my reputation, it's not about me and I'm not going to reveal my personal life experience. Suffice it to say pro-homos and pro-feminist will commonly block your opportunities if they realize you're not on their side.

 

[ready123]

I was waiting for this one to come up. Yes, homosexuality does have parallels in other animals. However, what's conveniently overlooked is that most instances of this animal homosexuality often occurs in social animals that rely on a collective group for survival (like your penguins). Homosexuality is almost non-existent in predatory animals. Among these social animals, homosexuality is generally exhibited in higher frequency only when the population of the collective has excessively higher proportions of one sex. Homosexuality is also exhibited in lower order animals such as insects and amphibians, however it's postulated that this homosexuality is an instinctive survival mechanism necessary to prompt sexual amorphisms. Certain animals (particularly fish and amphibians) have an ability to change sex (sexual amorphism) when high frequency or exclusively same sex members dominate a population.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to define homosexuality based on the amorphous breeding habits of fire toed newts, but in principle there may be environmental triggers that prompt homosexual behavior. The example I made in my first post was heterosexual prisoners resorting to homosexual behavior in jai and then returning to heterosexual behavior after their release. Is that person a "homosexual", or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression available to them in their controlled environment?



No, and the reason for that (and getting back to the OP) is because studies like that would be considered unethical. In all likelihood I'd say that, like most other human conditions, the answer is both nature and nurture, however the homosexual side of the issue has asserted it is a uniquely genetic condition and therefore a civil right issue, whereas the moralistic crowd argue it's a conscious choice. Neither camp is going to concede any middle ground. That's where behaviorism comes in, but both sides don't want any concrete answers.

ok, first 2 paragraphs are interesting to me, and there are a ton of different perspectives and interesting ways to look at it and we'd still only be scratching the surface. IE you could argue non-homo predators mean something or you can argue it doesn't because humans are inherently social creatures anyway. you can relate homosexuality to biological functionality or you could cite examples like gay chimps that have a small genetic distance to human beings. Ultimately though, it's pointless to me to even get into it because...

of your last paragraph, which I agree with and is one of the few objective things that's been said on this thread. there's no real way to actually prove nature or behavior, unless scientists actually identify something in the genome that makes you gay (which if you ever studied bioinformatics will be borderline impossible because of what little we know), so for both pro and anti, there's speculation. on top of that there's possible overlap too - guys who aren't gay who did gay sht because of whatever reason, guys who possibly are gay but in denial, etc, whatever

personally I believe it's genetic, and I've studied bioinformatics in grad school and linked all kinds of species to humans using BLAST, so conceptually, it's within my reality that homosexuality is genetic. I don't really care to argue about it because a lot of the anti-gay arguments go into religion and deep-rooted beliefs and I don't fvck with that

what I hate though is when people get stupid and paranoid are start thinking there's a conspiracy and incorporate their anti-gay opinions into retarded sociology. an oppressive homo agenda is one of the stupidest things I ever heard. If you ever heard Chris Rock Bigger and Blacker, he had a bit where he was talking about white people complaining about how they were losing everything - jobs, the country, etc. then he says, if white people are losing, then who's winning, because it's not the minorities. replace white with straight and you get this thread

 

[ketostix]

If you ever heard Chris Rock Bigger and Blacker, he had a bit where he was talking about white people complaining about how they were losing everything - jobs, the country, etc. then he says, if white people are losing, then who's winning, because it's not the minorities. replace white with straight and you get this thread

I have to comment to that because now I see where your basis is all wrong. You believe fundamental things that simply aren't true. Heterosexual white males absolutely are losing things to gays, women and other "minorities". Chris Rock just says a lot of things that aren't necessarily true one bit. Do you not understand that gays disapportionally hold high paying, high power postions? Do you understand how Affirmative Action works? Say there's 10 great police job openings. They are going to give 5 to applicants of the "right" gender and ethnicity regardless of best qualifications. It doesn't matter that the 15 applicants who were most qualified and tested highest happened to be male and white. They must be denied the opportunity. It goes much further than this and it becomes "OK" to reverse-discriminate everywhere, universities, private sector etc.

You don't see the inherent unfairness of giving preferential treatment to one group and disfavoring another? And make no mistake saying you want to make one group "equal" to another requires preferential treatment because it should be an individual merit thing not group based.

This minority and group identity thinking is the problem. Minorities groups can dominate majority groups, they shouldn't but it happens. Calling yourself a minority or indentifying yourself in a group doesn't mean you need special protections or treatments. The idea that gays are a minority group is ridiculous anyway. Celibates and pedophiles are a minority group too, so what? And most of all it shouldn't be PC for so-called "minority groups" to cast aspersion on the "majority" if it's not PC to do the reverse. This is where the special treatment comes in.