Nowhere to hide from the homo agenda

[ready123]

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.

if you can't see how her answer, even though she was being sincere with her opinion, marginalized gay people, then I don't know what the fvck to tell you. learn some empathy maybe

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.

tell me exactly what you've done in real life to look deeper into this whole gay issue other than claim conspiracy on the internet. you're giving me some generic fake philosophical bullsht response

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.

it's not that their brains are different, it's their genome that's different. one quarter of us human beings on the planet will ultimatley die from cancer, which is caused by a chain reaction of genetic mutations. knowing that we got a common set of genetic mutations that kill off 1/4 of the population, it's totally plausible that we could have another common set of mutations that alter sexuality

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.

and if you can't give me examples, then you're just talking out of your neck. give me some fvckin examples that aren't speculation of why you think there's a gay conspiracy

I do research and I also form my opinions from firsthand experience. I run in a large social circle that by virtue of numbers includes a couple gay guys. Even though I personally can't relate to them, I'm not bothered by them - as long as they don't hit on me I don't give a fvck what they do. What else? Some gay guy hit on me repeatedly last year. He creeped the sht out of me so much I wanted punch him but at the time I was at a wedding. I don't blame the gay comunity for him being a dumbass though. I do feel bad for all the girls in the clubs that I creeped out in my first 5 years of sarging because now I know what it feels like. Live and learn. And 6 years ago I had an ex drag me to Rage because she thought I was homophobic, which was one of the stupidest things I ever agreed to. I ended up being uncomfortable and then bored because there's no reason for a straight guy to be in West Hollywood and then I told my ex this was a stupid exercise and went home. At no time did I feel any evidence of this gay conspiracy you guys are talking about. All I saw were a bunch of people I can't relate to trying to go about their own lives. And with the exception of that one dude who kept hitting on me, none of them disrespected me

So now your turn, why exactly are you so anti-gay? Did some gay guy kick your ass when you were younger? Or is it because you can't think for yourself

 

[ready123]

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.

this is my last response because I'm going to sleep. you're opening up a whole new avenue for debate by bringing in affirmative action - I'm not even gonna get into it. You can argue pro and cons, that's one thing. but to think because someone has an opposing view that they have an agenda and are conspiring against you, that shows you're living inside of a bubble. Chris Rock's whole point in that bit wasn't being pro affirmative action - he was trying to show there's a general lack of perspective - the majority being blind to who truly has power because they're paranoid and wanna complain. You guys are throwing tantrums about the gay community oppressing you. Meanwhile gay people couldn't even reject prop 8 - they can't even get what they want, how on earth are they gonna take what you have?

and gays hold disproportional high paid positions? that's a first I ever heard. prove it with some facts and names

 

[ketostix]

if you can't see how her answer, even though she was being sincere with her opinion, marginalized gay people, then I don't know what the fvck to tell you. learn some empathy maybe...

I can see there's no getting through to you. Why you keep bring up "gay conspiracy" and asking what do gays do to anyone after it's been explained to you 8 ways till Sunday is beyond me. She did not marginalize gay people. You have a gay judge approved for the Miss America contest, and his ridiculous dirty trick question approved, then the publicly broadcast assertion that if you are not pro-gay, then you pay for a multi-million audience to see. But you can't seem to understand how this PC tramples free speech and effects behavior and thinking.

It was explained to you that this is the same tactics of feminism. I guess according to you as long as some random gay guy at the bar didn't do anything to you personally then that proves none of them do anything to anyone anywhere else either. Using your logic I guess if you know a couple girls that ostensibly seem nice and feminine, then case-closed there's no feminist agenda either. I'm done debating with you. You're just pulling out the strawmen and making it personal now.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

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

This is exactly my point from a pro-genetic perspective. I haven't tried to break you down, nor have I interjected anything religious (and I wont), but that's exactly what I'm getting at. The moralistic "it's a choice" crowd will retreat behind a religious absolutism, and this is convenient for the "it's genetic" crowd because it absolves them of exploring it any further.

And so oddly enough, and almost on cue, I come across this today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/23/o.women.leave.menfor.women/index.html

This is an article on "sexual fluidity". Have a read and tell me if it changes your mind about anything.

A handful of studies in the 1990s, most of them focused on men, suggested that homosexuality is hardwired. In one study, researchers linked DNA markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome to gay males. But a subsequent larger study failed to replicate the results, leaving the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association to speculate that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes, including environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.

No penguins, or fire toed newts here, just people. And in this instance, life long heterosexual women in 15 year LTRs consciously "choosing", or at least opening themselves up to the opportunity of a homosexual relationship.

Discuss?

 

[ketostix]

This is an article on "sexual fluidity". Have a read and tell me if it changes your mind about anything.

I personally think that enviroment or nurture can affect brain development. But I'm still having a hard time seeing why it really matters whether homosexuality is primarily biological or genetic, or behavorial choice.

Some people see it as simply there's normal and useful behavior and then there's abnormal and useless behavior. And it makes no real difference as to why whether it's a character defect, choice or biological defect.

No penguins, or fire toed newts here, just people. And in this instance, life long heterosexual women in 15 year LTRs consciously "choosing", or at least opening themselves up to the opportunity of a homosexual relationship.

Discuss?

You know, if I were going to look at examples for human behavior, I wouldn't look to penquins or even apes. I would look at the historical record of human behavior, native and indeginious peoples' behavior etc. I'd wager you'd find that the vast majority of human cultures over time were primarily heterosexual and not supportive of homosexual behavior. I think observing animal behavior would have very limited value to model human behavior. For example, apes primarily eat grasses and raw food. You wouldn't draw any conclusions that human being being primarily omnivores and cooking their food is a question of which way is right and normal for humans.

 

[Darth]

Well, regardless of genetic predisposition, a lot of it is behavorial. For instance, the gay lisp and similar learned affectations.

 

[Da Realist]

Heterosexual white males absolutely are losing things to gays, women and other "minorities".

I'm sorry, but where are you seeing this? Most of the branches of government are are filled with heterosexual white males at the top levels, but you're threatened? What makes you different than the lesbian group that felt threatened because Bible Belt's religous organization exists? Also, one interesting thing I have noticed is that I never see an unemployed person who complains about Affirmative Action. Either they have a job somewhere else, or they are working with a group that is opposed to it.

 

[ketostix]

I'm sorry, but where are you seeing this? Most of the branches of government are are filled with heterosexual white males at the top levels, but you're threatened? What makes you different than the lesbian group that felt threatened because Bible Belt's religous organization exists? Also, one interesting thing I have noticed is that I never see an unemployed person who complains about Affirmative Action. Either they have a job somewhere else, or they are working with a group that is opposed to it.

I'm not talking about the mostly 100 US Senators who are mostly white and male, who btw signed legislation that sold out heteros, males, and the majorty.I'm talking about the 100,000's of federal, state and local government jobs. They give preference to gays, women and "minorities". I've seen personally many examples of women being hired with less qualifications and being payed and promoted more than hetero white malkes. I've known gays who held government jobs while they freely spoke their political beliefs that would cause heteros probelsms. It's pretty similar in the private sector. No one can tell me this is not how it is because I've seen it many times over and again.

The important thing is I feel every bit as "threatened" if not more by a heterosexual white male that's pro-gay than I do a homosexual or some other so-called minority group.

 

[Darth]

I'm not talking about the mostly 100 US Senators who are mostly white and male, who btw signed legislation that sold out heteros, males, and the majorty.I'm talking about the 100,000's of federal, state and local government jobs. They give preference to gays, women and "minorities". I've seen personally many examples of women being hired with less qualifications and being payed and promoted more than hetero white malkes. I've known gays who held government jobs while they freely spoke their political beliefs that would cause heteros probelsms. It's pretty similar in the private sector. No one can tell me this is not how it is because I've seen it many times over and again.

The important thing is I feel every bit as "threatened" if not more by a heterosexual white male that's pro-gay than I do a homosexual or some other so-called minority group.

You're exactly right. I've seen it up close and personal in the USDA. They'll turn down a qualified, experienced white male for a black or a woman that is useless for the job, just to say they are diverse. Happens all the time in government.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Homos want everyone to be like them, meanwhile flaunting their gayness in straight people's faces.

 

[Da Realist]

I'm not talking about the mostly 100 US Senators who are mostly white and male, who btw signed legislation that sold out heteros, males, and the majorty.I'm talking about the 100,000's of federal, state and local government jobs. They give preference to gays, women and "minorities". I've seen personally many examples of women being hired with less qualifications and being payed and promoted more than hetero white malkes. I've known gays who held government jobs while they freely spoke their political beliefs that would cause heteros probelsms. It's pretty similar in the private sector. No one can tell me this is not how it is because I've seen it many times over and again.

The important thing is I feel every bit as "threatened" if not more by a heterosexual white male that's pro-gay than I do a homosexual or some other so-called minority group.

So you're saying that your real gripe is with white heterosexual men who have no problem with gays or minorities?

 

[ketostix]

So you're saying that your real gripe is with white heterosexual men who have no problem with gays or minorities?

No what I'm saying is homosexuals, feminist, people who identify themselves as some group and whoever supports them paint a target primarily on straight, single, heterosexual white males. They are pushing an agenda and part of that agenda is group politics. Their goal is to get a preferential advantage at the "majority group's" expense. A better way of putting it is I have a problem with white heterosexual males who have a problem with other heterosexual males and align themselves with gays and minorities and their agenda.

 

[Da Realist]

A better way of putting it is I have a problem with white heterosexual males who have a problem with other heterosexual males and align themselves with gays and minorities and their agenda.

So white heterosexual men are plotting to keep other white heterosexual men down, but are using other groups to do it?

 

[ketostix]

So white heterosexual men are plotting to keep other white heterosexual men down, but are using other groups to do it?

I'm not sure why you are highlighting obvious conclusions, but when a white heterosexual male senator votes for legislation like AA, and various other pro-feminism, pro-gay or other pro this group or that legislation, then he's voting in favor of these groups. And it's clearly premised on the concept of disadvantaging one group at the expense of the other. Keep in mind these types in power don't follow the same standards that they foist on the populace.

 

[Da Realist]

I'm not sure why you are highlighting obvious conclusions, but when a white heterosexual male senator votes for legislation like AA, and various other pro-feminism, pro-gay or other pro this group or that legislation, then he's voting in favor of these groups. And it's clearly premised on the concept of disadvantaging one group at the expense of the other. Keep in mind these types in power don't follow the same standards that they foist on the populace.

Just making sure I know what you're really talking about. Really sounds like what's going on is that you feel like the people you identify with have turned their back on you when you feel they owe you something. So now everyone else is the enemy to you because, to put it figuratively, it's cold outside and your not eating. My thing is that life ain't fair. You can be the best at whatever and still come up short, so why expect anything different from another person? That's why I really don't see the need to worry about a "homo" agenda because either I get over it or use it as an excuse.

 

[ketostix]

Just making sure I know what you're really talking about. Really sounds like what's going on is that you feel like the people you identify with have turned their back on you when you feel they owe you something. So now everyone else is the enemy to you because, to put it figuratively, it's cold outside and your not eating. My thing is that life ain't fair. You can be the best at whatever and still come up short, so why expect anything different from another person? That's why I really don't see the need to worry about a "homo" agenda because either I get over it or use it as an excuse.

My view is that people who come along with new-fangled agendas like gay rights, feminism, AA, and group indentity special rights and protections are the ones that feel like someone owes them. If someone is coming along to steal your lunch so to speak, do you pretend like it's OK or they're not really stealing from you? They'll come back for more seeing you as an easy mark. These groups love it that no one opposes them. That's the usefulness of PC with no real free speech. No one dares say a word or they will be punished. Men fought and died for freedoms like free speech, and opportunities but I guess to you it's OK to hand these rights and opportunities over to crackpot groups that come along. Why is it OK that these groups can raise hell and have rights and opportunities transfered to them from another group but it's not right to oppose them?

 

[Da Realist]

My view is that people who come along with new-fangled agendas like gay rights, feminism, AA, and group indentity special rights and protections are the ones that feel like someone owes them. If someone is coming along to steal your lunch so to speak, do you pretend like it's OK or they're not really stealing from you? They'll come back for more seeing you as an easy mark. These groups love it that no one opposes them. That's the usefulness of PC with no real free speech. No one dares say a word or they will be punished. Men fought and died for freedoms like free speech, and opportunities but I guess to you it's OK to hand these rights and opportunities over to crackpot groups that come along. Why is it OK that these groups can raise hell and have rights and opportunities transfered to them from another group but it's not right to oppose them?

Funny you talk about the whole lunch thing because if I traced my roots, I'm entitled to some of those lunches also. But do I let bother me? Nah. I'm making my own way instead of just relying on what someone else already did. Its what every person has to do at sometime whether they get the "foundation" they think they should have or not. Now, some of these folks you talk about actually died so someone could get the so called free lunch you talk about. Heck some died so you could get the freedom you like to talk about. Thing is though, wrong or right, someone got up a little earlier than you, put in a little more work, and got something out of the deal. The unfair part of life is that you will have to do the same despite what you feel you are owed. It's the way things are and that's how you have to take it till you change things. Now with the freedom of speech thing, just because you're free to talk does not mean you are free from any consequences. The beauty queen did her thing, stood by her word, and got shafted. Is it her fault? Yeah because she told the truth. But was she wrong? Not really because she had an opinion that wasn't hateful in any way. Hilton got overly defensive since he represents another side and it didn't jive with his thinking. Really, he let the fact he was a gay man define him instead of just judging a contestant on her merits; his ego got in the way. And that's what I see a lot when one group is talking about another; they let their race, groups, sex, etc. go to their head and that is the only way they can feel good about themselves. The reason why I asked those question was to see where you fell along those lines.

 

[ketostix]

OK just so we're clear. I'm not talking about past foundations or free lunchs here. I'm talking about things that were presently and rightfully earned or competed for being taken away from the rightful owner and handed to someone else and with no real ability for recourse. And I'm never going to agree that PC is not for all intents and purposes taking away the the inalienable right to free speech.

You can sugar coat the issue all you want. There really is no difference between these groups tactics and the Nazi propaganda and brainwashing against the jewish people. The only difference is the degree, for now, but even in that case they started out mildly. Feminism started out as propaganda that was not challenged, and now look at it. It's now incorporated throughly into the laws and legal system and into conventional wisdom. It's even worse than that because they even violate laws to go above and beyond to benefit women or whatever favored group at the time. I've witnessed it many times. No matter how you spin it I'm never going to agree with you that these people with group agendas are no big deal, so I'm going to end it here.

 

[Da Realist]

Never asked you to agree, nor was it my aim. But to clarify things, the Nazi movement was done by a majority who felt wronged because they felt a small, select group was keeping them down. The only minority groups that ever took over were either rich or more techinologically advanced. Don't think the ones you refer to fall in either category, but you're free to have your opinion.

 

[ready123]

This is exactly my point from a pro-genetic perspective. I haven't tried to break you down, nor have I interjected anything religious (and I wont), but that's exactly what I'm getting at. The moralistic "it's a choice" crowd will retreat behind a religious absolutism, and this is convenient for the "it's genetic" crowd because it absolves them of exploring it any further.

And so oddly enough, and almost on cue, I come across this today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/23/o.women.leave.menfor.women/index.html

This is an article on "sexual fluidity". Have a read and tell me if it changes your mind about anything.



No penguins, or fire toed newts here, just people. And in this instance, life long heterosexual women in 15 year LTRs consciously "choosing", or at least opening themselves up to the opportunity of a homosexual relationship.

Discuss?

It doesn't really change anything for me because like you mentioned before most of the debate is in a gray area where nothing is proven but everything is speculated. I came to my own conclusions through research and firsthand experience with the sciences. Until there's actual proof, my conclusions are speculations, like you keep pointing out, but so are the counter references you mention. On top of that, any counter argument that's brought up, I can add another layer and flip it. I could take your quote and mention the systems component of bioinformatics and how it supercedes all that. I could reframe the sexual fluidity article as an outlier. And then we'd go back to the beginning and repeat and go nowhere.

The whole nature vs nurture thing, even though I really think it's not a choice, doesn't bother me as much as the paranoia on this board about a gay conspiracy. To me that's just delusional and ridiculous. It would almost be a fun exercise to start speculating psychological reasons as to why guys on this board are so insistent on feeling threated by gays that they gotta invent a sociological context to justify it