The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

[chromium]

Thread is over. I answered your question. If you don't like it, too bad. I'm bored with this topic.

i didn't ask any question. Do you see any freaking question mark? <---- example of a question

normally i would say no thread can end because 1 person says so, but since you've been the one and only agitator for 20+ pages, i'm afraid i have to defer to you on this

 

[calamity]

i didn't ask any question. Do you see any freaking question mark? <---- example of a question

normally i would say no thread can end because 1 person says so, but since you've been the one and only agitator for 20+ pages, i'm afraid i have to defer to you on this

Clearly there is a question in the following post, with or without the "?"

hardly, at one point you were saying the higher rate of hiv calls into question the morals of gay men. That's not a choice of words problem, but a prejudice

or will you admit that hetero women have inferior morals cause their rate of hiv is higher than lesbians

what you're doing is backtracking

 

[roguenuke]

Anal sex is most definitely homosexual male sex. Just because some straights engage in it, does not make it the primary activity that it is for homosexual men.

40% of straight men have reported participating in anal sex. Around 60% of gay men report participating in anal sex. That is not that big of a difference.

 

[calamity]

40% of straight men have reported participating in anal sex. Around 60% of gay men report participating in anal sex. That is not that big of a difference.

Actually, it is a big difference. 50% more to be exact. This is compounded by other issues, like straights trying anal sex once or twice because, "Hey what the hell?" And, gay men doing it pretty regularly because it is the only hole below the waist available for their use.


BTW: that only 60% of gay men surveyed admitted that they participated in anal sex tells me the survey is not very accurate. That's like saying only 60% of automobile drivers reported pumping gas.

 

[roguenuke]

Actually, it is a big difference. 50% more to be exact. This is compounded by other issues, like straights trying anal sex once or twice because, "Hey what the hell?" And, gay men doing it pretty regularly because it is the only hole below the waist available for their use.

BTW: that only 60% of gay men surveyed admitted that they participated in anal sex tells me the survey is not very accurate. That's like saying only 60% of automobile drivers reported pumping gas.

There are other ways to get sexual pleasure without below the waist hole penetration. And if gay men are lying then so too are likely straight men. Plus there are far more straight men then gay men.

 

[calamity]

There are other ways to get sexual pleasure without below the waist hole penetration. And if gay men are lying then so too are likely straight men. Plus there are far more straight men then gay men.

I didn't say the gay men were lying. I said the survey didn't seem trustworthy. There is a difference.

Back to the big question, since you brought it up. Since there are so many more straight men than gay ones, and if really so many of them are practicing anal sex, then why are there not more HIV infections among straight men than gay ones?

 

[roguenuke]

I didn't say the gay men were lying. I said the survey didn't seem trustworthy. There is a difference.

Back to the big question, since you brought it up. Since there are so many more straight men than gay ones, and if really so many of them are practicing anal sex, then why are there not more HIV infections among straight men than gay ones?

In the US, because there are much fewer women infected with HIV, as well as willing to have anal sex. Plus, it would be passed generally easier from giver to taker. The mechanism is a large part of the issue. If everyone, male and female, had an organ that could penetrate holes and release bodily fluids, we would see much higher rates among heterosexuals of such things because they would show they are just as likely to have unsafe sex as gay men and are just as irresponsible when it comes to sex. The mechanism involves in passing HIV is part of the issue, but can be compensated for by encouraging safe sex and getting tested, as well as responsible sharing of pertinent info with sexual partners.

 

[chromium]

I didn't say the gay men were lying. I said the survey didn't seem trustworthy. There is a difference.

Back to the big question, since you brought it up. Since there are so many more straight men than gay ones, and if really so many of them are practicing anal sex, then why are there not more HIV infections among straight men than gay ones?

because many try it once or twice only

 

[CriticalThought]

You probably have a more tastefully decorated house. I'm jealous.

My favorite feature of my apartment are three Thomas Kinkade jigsaw puzzles that I glued, framed, and hung in the dining area. That is the extent of my decorating skills.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

My favorite feature of my apartment are three Thomas Kinkade jigsaw puzzles that I glued, framed, and hung in the dining area. That is the extent of my decorating skills.

Sounds funky. I like it.

 

[cooplemone]

So is the gay agenda.

You are absolutely right.

 

[calamity]

You are absolutely right.

Did you read almost 1500 posts to finally find one you like?

 

[JPUK]

To me, homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

If it is true that homosexuality has no scientific benefit, that it is a defect, then the question is - what should our response to that be?

If someone has a defect that means they are not useful to reproduction, should we actively intervene to prevent them having sex?

Since we are talking about science and not morality here, why not just let them get on with it? There are many defects that people might have and if an incorrect sexual desire is one of them, so what?

You don't have heterosexual sex drive because your science textbook tells you to. I am happy to concede that homosexuality is useless to the advancement of the human race and that it is a defect. So what? If you then want to say we should restrict these people's freedoms, then you'll have to make a moral argument.

In fact you started off by saying this should be about science, not morals, then proceeded to make a moral argument, implying that that we should only allow that which results in reproduction.

If you have nothing moral to say then we have no disagreement - I agree that homosexuality is a defect. That's where the scientific non-moral discussion ends.

 

[TheParser]

IMHO:

1. The police should not entrap gays.
2. Gay bashers should be severely punished.
3. Employers should not discriminate against gays.


And, IMHO, gays should reciprocate by:

4. Living their lives as happily and privately as possible.
5. Discontinuing gay parades, since gay love is now legal.
6. Letting the straights keep the word "marriage."


There are some countries where gays live their lives, largely in peace. The government (i.e., the police) does not ruin their lives. And gays in turn simply do not discuss their personal lives. It may be an open secret at work or the elephant in the room at home. SILENCE is accepted by all concerned.


I do think that some gay activists are doing the gay community a disservice by their in-your-face activities.

 

[JPUK]

IMHO:

1. The police should not entrap gays.
2. Gay bashers should be severely punished.
3. Employers should not discriminate against gays.


And, IMHO, gays should reciprocate by:

4. Living their lives as happily and privately as possible.
5. Discontinuing gay parades, since gay love is now legal.
6. Letting the straights keep the word "marriage."


There are some countries where gays live their lives, largely in peace. The government (i.e., the police) does not ruin their lives. And gays in turn simply do not discuss their personal lives. It may be an open secret at work or the elephant in the room at home. SILENCE is accepted by all concerned.


I do think that some gay activists are doing the gay community a disservice by their in-your-face activities.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, a very sensible statement. With the exception of point 6. Not to say it's not sensible, but I respectfully disagree.

Religious institutions should absolutely not be made to do anything they don't want to, including gay marriage. But legal marriage, which confers legal rights and responsibilities, should be open to gay couples. Former British prime minister (and Conservative), David Cameron, said "I believe in gay marriage BECAUSE I'm a conservative". I take this to mean that, since gay people exist, better to encourage (or at least allow) them to integrate into normal civil society and engage in long term, civil monogamous relationships. Rather than promoting the idea of difference and promiscuity.

 

[CLAX1911]

IMHO:

1. The police should not entrap gays.
2. Gay bashers should be severely punished.
3. Employers should not discriminate against gays.


And, IMHO, gays should reciprocate by:

4. Living their lives as happily and privately as possible.
5. Discontinuing gay parades, since gay love is now legal.
6. Letting the straights keep the word "marriage."


There are some countries where gays live their lives, largely in peace. The government (i.e., the police) does not ruin their lives. And gays in turn simply do not discuss their personal lives. It may be an open secret at work or the elephant in the room at home. SILENCE is accepted by all concerned.


I do think that some gay activists are doing the gay community a disservice by their in-your-face activities.

One thing I never understood. Why do people have such a problem with the pride parades? No other parade causes this much angst.

As far as marriage mean nobody's taking the word from straight people.

But I do agree with you some activists do a lot of damage to the gay community.

 

[JPUK]

I think there are a lot of gay people who just want to be part of normal civil society, have normal monogamous relationships, socialise with regular society and want to be defined by their character and achievements, as opposed to their sexuality.

The loud and proud gay pride movement is damaging to these people because it creates a false image of what gay is. Let these people have their pride parties but they shouldn't be calling them gay pride because many gay people do not identify with this sort of behaviour.

 

[CLAX1911]

I think there are a lot of gay people who just want to be part of normal civil society, have normal monogamous relationships, socialise with regular society and want to be defined by their character and achievements, as opposed to their sexuality.

I think that's pretty much everybody.

The loud and proud gay pride movement is damaging to these people because it creates a false image of what gay is.

The movement or the parade? I'm not familiar with the movement. The parade is once a year and it's no different than Mardi gras.

Let these people have their pride parties but they shouldn't be calling them gay pride because many gay people do not identify with this sort of behaviour.

What behavior?

 

[JPUK]

I think that's pretty much everybody.

I wouldn't be so sure. There are people who want to be different socially, who want to surround themselves with like-minded people, who promote safe spaces and no-platforming, who prefer non-monogamous or open or multi-partner relationships, who don't want to marry or settle down, who enjoy a highly sex-based lifestyle, who want their sexuality to be known and 'celebrated' and to identify them. This is all very different from a gay couple who wants to integrate with normal civil society, be in a monogamous marriage, and regard the sexuality as private and unimportant in their identity.

The movement or the parade? I'm not familiar with the movement. The parade is once a year and it's no different than Mardi gras.

I'm not sure of the distinction you wish to make between the gay pride movement and gay pride parades but for the sake of clarity, we can stick the the parades.

What behavior?

If you look at gay pride parade videos, you will see that it is overwhelmingly focussed on sex or sexual behaviour. Men dancing suggestively in small shorts, fetish behaviour, even people wearing PVC or leather and being on a leash or chain, sexual innuendo. Each to their own, but it would be more accurate to call it a sexual freedom parade or something like that, because not all gay people want to be associated with this sort of behaviour. In fact it is very damaging to those who just want to integrate into normal society when this is the image of gay people that has been put in people's minds.

 

[TheParser]

There are people who want to be different socially, who want to surround themselves with like-minded people, who promote safe spaces and no-platforming, who prefer non-monogamous or open or multi-partner relationships, who don't want to marry or settle down, who enjoy a highly sex-based lifestyle, who want their sexuality to be known and 'celebrated' and to identify them. This is all very different from a gay couple who wants to integrate with normal civil society, be in a monogamous marriage, and regard the sexuality as private and unimportant in their identity.

I believe that you have hit the nail on the head.



A few gay "thinkers" have opined that the gay community in its understandable desire to achieve respectability is making a mistake in trying to mimic the straight community.

 

[wellwisher]

I think there are a lot of gay people who just want to be part of normal civil society, have normal monogamous relationships, socialise with regular society and want to be defined by their character and achievements, as opposed to their sexuality.

The loud and proud gay pride movement is damaging to these people because it creates a false image of what gay is. Let these people have their pride parties but they shouldn't be calling them gay pride because many gay people do not identify with this sort of behaviour.

I agree with this.

As a parallel, how many married women enjoy having a husband's friend around, who brags about how he is free to have sex with as many women as he wants? On the one hand, the friend has pride in his straight sexuality. He expresses his pride, openly, telling us of all his conquests. But on the other hand, this type of pride, to the wife, can also send a wrong message to her husband, which could undermine her family. It is not about the friend's sexuality, but about how his constant need to reinforce his pride, impacts other people. Is this over compensation to overcome inner doubt? Or is it a means to an end, which is to get the husband back into the game, as his partner in crime. It is not normal but stinks of pathology or hidden motivation.

In the case of flamboyant gay pride, it is not so much being gay that bothers most people. Once you know someone, you judge based on character. Rather the in your face style, can leads to unwanted visualizations, one does not wish to see that can create doubt or mixed feelings.

As a neutral analogy, we all may love our grandparents, and see(saw) them as kind people, who spent time with us. If your grandparents started to talk to you about old people sex, between your grandparents, this is not a visualization, that everyone is comfortable with. You may know that older people have sex, but old people sex between your grandparents is not what you wish to see in your imagination. This image can spoil your memories of youth; mixed bag of feelings.

This in your face style, to induce an unrequested visualization, can cause people to visualized things that sours their emotions. Once this is triggered, it can overlap even the innocent person, who did not do this. A young person may average sex, one hour per day, to use a high number. This is about 4% of the minutes of a 24 hour day. In this example, we are 4% sexuality and 96% regular Joe. A sour visualization, can make 4% appear like 50%, which is not natural. This con crete an instinctive backlash, on top of a personal sour taste for former clean memories.

 

[wellwisher]

Another idea popped into my mind that is connected to the current fad of sexuality now has dozens of combinations of expressions. Now you can be a man, you thinks you are a lesbian woman, who likes women. You still date women, but now it has to be more complicated than that.

This bizarre alternate reality, has to do with social conditioning experiments, that were run, starting a few decades ago. These experiments were designed to discredit the notion of the traditional gender roles. It tested conditioned versus natural sexuality.

Before these social experiments were run, boys played with trucks and guns, and girls played with dolls. The result of this role play was males stayed as males, and females stayed as females. It was very tight. There was homosexual behavior, but gays managed as a biological male and lesbians managed as biological females, with a slight inner twist. The bandwidth was tight.

The new experiment, had girls playing with trucks, and boys playing with dolls, to see what would happen. The result has been a much wider ranging divergence of behavior, compared to the original experiment. The original experiments had a tight bandwidth while the second experiment fanned out behavior in ever increasing diversity, which gets worse each year. This result has been two very opposite affects for such a simple experimental change.

What this contrast of output results tells me is the current state of affairs is not natural.Natural instinct is very conservative; tight bandwidth, and is not divergent on demand. The DNA will not change that far in a few decades. Divergence is more connected to willpower and choice. This is more choice, based on the social conditioning experiment, where the seeds of choice were planted at a young age. Unnatural behavior could explain the unconscious fear and/or anger of the youth. Something is wrong inside, and it is trying to express itself, outside, to become conscious. A transposition of inside and outside is the result of the experiment.

To me it makes sense that girls should play with dolls. Women have an extra large X chromosome compared to the smaller Y chromosome in the males. The extra genes are connected to the needs of reproduction and child raising. If you don't make use of these genes, something unnatural will happen due to unused potential. Boys do not have this larger X chromosome, and therefore they lack many genes, that the social experiment required they pretend to have. This created a different problem.

 

[JPUK]

Very sensible and interesting points wellwisher.

I think that, in the not-too-distant past, there was of course a need for gay people to call for more equality and fairer treatment. But things are very different now. I think that the current gay pride parades can lead to alienation and division. It is okay for those who wish to be different and surrounded by like-minded people and be in a sort of constant angry opposition mindset. But for a regular guy who just happens to be gay, but regards it as private, and wants to just work hard and live a normal life, it is very problematic. Usually when someone like this, meets a conservative, the conservative is completely fine with their sexuality, since it is a private matter. But is it any wonder that conservatives become disturbed by the impression of gay people they are given by the gay pride parades? This adds an additional barrier to people who just want to integrate and live a normal life.

The behaviour and lifestyle associated with the gay pride parades should not be conflated with homosexuality. And I really don't know what transgenderism or any of this gender neutral or pronoun stuff has to do with homosexuality either. It is a completely separate issue.

If people want to celebrate sexual promiscuity, multiple gender ideology, or any other non-traditional behaviour, that's fine, but please don't conflate it with homosexuality.

 

[CLAX1911]

I wouldn't be so sure. There are people who want to be different socially, who want to surround themselves with like-minded people, who promote safe spaces and no-platforming, who prefer non-monogamous or open or multi-partner relationships, who don't want to marry or settle down, who enjoy a highly sex-based lifestyle, who want their sexuality to be known and 'celebrated' and to identify them. This is all very different from a gay couple who wants to integrate with normal civil society, be in a monogamous marriage, and regard the sexuality as private and unimportant in their identity.

I suppose that's true.

I'm not sure of the distinction you wish to make between the gay pride movement and gay pride parades but for the sake of clarity, we can stick the the parades.



If you look at gay pride parade videos, you will see that it is overwhelmingly focussed on sex or sexual behaviour.

I've been to them before personally and no that's not true. honestly I'd struggled to understand the purpose of the parade.

Men dancing suggestively in small shorts, fetish behaviour, even people wearing PVC or leather and being on a leash or chain, sexual innuendo.

I did see a lot of guys wearing short shorts but I've seen women wear the same thing to a family dinner. I've never seen anyone wearing PVC, like fishnet shirts are pretty common, and you do have to understand I live in Houston and people don't want to wear black leather in the middle of June

Each to their own, but it would be more accurate to call it a sexual freedom parade or something like that, because not all gay people want to be associated with this sort of behaviour.

I think you'd be surprised if you actually went to one and saw what really happens there

In fact it is very damaging to those who just want to integrate into normal society when this is the image of gay people that has been put in people's minds.

I think your mind has been polluted with video clips and aggregated pictures that are designed to show what a sexual saying the pride parade is. your opinion reminds me of that of anybody else that has never been and seeing what really goes on there.


In my city it's a lot of floats made by companies. Did they throw out like Mardi gras beads the people standing on the side. There are few religious groups that are open to LGBT that March some of the clubs in the area have promotions elite driving a party bus through the parade and there are drag Queens and guys in bikinis. it's not that different than any other parade I've ever seen. there's a lot more color because everything's a rainbow. and I suppose the guys in bikinis has a little different than ladies in bikinis that I see in other parades.

 

[CLAX1911]

I agree with this.

As a parallel, how many married women enjoy having a husband's friend around, who brags about how he is free to have sex with as many women as he wants? On the one hand, the friend has pride in his straight sexuality. He expresses his pride, openly, telling us of all his conquests. But on the other hand, this type of pride, to the wife, can also send a wrong message to her husband, which could undermine her family. It is not about the friend's sexuality, but about how his constant need to reinforce his pride, impacts other people. Is this over compensation to overcome inner doubt? Or is it a means to an end, which is to get the husband back into the game, as his partner in crime. It is not normal but stinks of pathology or hidden motivation.

I have to disagree with you here as well. Refusing to be ashamed of one's sexual orientation is not at all like bragging about your sexual conquests. It's like refusing to be ashamed about your religious beliefs or something if that nature. You don't have to talk about it to anyone really. Just if they ask you tell them.

In the case of flamboyant gay pride, it is not so much being gay that bothers most people. Once you know someone, you judge based on character. Rather the in your face style, can leads to unwanted visualizations, one does not wish to see that can create doubt or mixed feelings.

have you ever been to any kind of parade? They are all flamboyant that is the purpose. St Patty's day parades are all up in your face with all this green and Irish stuff. a Thanksgiving day parade date jam their turkeys and pilgrims and Indians all up in your face, and a Fourth of July parade they've Jam their flags and patriotism in Uncle Sam's all up in your face. I've actually even been to a Charles Dickens festival that had a Charles Dickens parade and they were all up in your face with Charles Dickens.

It's a celebration of something.


I've never heard anyone else complained about the flamboyance of any other parade.

As a neutral analogy, we all may love our grandparents, and see(saw) them as kind people, who spent time with us. If your grandparents started to talk to you about old people sex, between your grandparents, this is not a visualization, that everyone is comfortable with.

and do you think that that's what a gay pride parade is?

The only difference you're going to see between it any other kind of parade is that the people at the gay pride parade in bikinis are sometimes men, and there's a rainbow flag very present.

You may know that older people have sex, but old people sex between your grandparents is not what you wish to see in your imagination. This image can spoil your memories of youth; mixed bag of feelings.

your analogy seems bizarre to me. Gay people telling you their gay is not them telling you about their sexual conquests.

This in your face style, to induce an unrequested visualization, can cause people to visualized things that sours their emotions. Once this is triggered, it can overlap even the innocent person, who did not do this. A young person may average sex, one hour per day, to use a high number. This is about 4% of the minutes of a 24 hour day. In this example, we are 4% sexuality and 96% regular Joe. A sour visualization, can make 4% appear like 50%, which is not natural. This con crete an instinctive backlash, on top of a personal sour taste for former clean memories.

I'm sorry to break this to you the people that brag about having sex all the time are typically straight guys.