Denying One's Desires Tied to Homophobia

[Paschendale]

Am I to assume that you admit that the mainstream media has been actively pushing the homosexual agenda then? :roll:

The dreadful agenda of equality. Perish the thought! Everyone who can push the agenda of equality should be doing so. It's that self-evident truth that is supposed to be at the core of American morality. I suppose the real question is, why aren't you pushing that agenda?

 

[GottaGo]

Just because someone doesn't want to hear about something all the time, doesn't mean they deny it exists, hates the people involved, or in this particular case, is a closet homosexual.

I'm heterosexual. I support Gays/Lesbians in their wish to be able to marry. But I am mighty tired of hearing about it.

 

[Gipper]

The dreadful agenda of equality. Perish the thought! Everyone who can push the agenda of equality should be doing so. It's that self-evident truth that is supposed to be at the core of American morality. I suppose the real question is, why aren't you pushing that agenda?

So are you saying that if gay marriage was suddenly legal in all 50 states tomorrow, it'd be all over?

I'd bet every cent I have that it wouldn't.

 

[Andalublue]

You made the claim that heterosexuals started the majority of the threads concerning homosexuality on this forum. I questioned the truth of that claim.

I said they started "a large number". I stand by the truth of that claim.

 

[Andalublue]

Just because someone doesn't want to hear about something all the time, doesn't mean they deny it exists, hates the people involved, or in this particular case, is a closet homosexual.

I'm heterosexual. I support Gays/Lesbians in their wish to be able to marry. But I am mighty tired of hearing about it.

Believe me, you're not as tired of hearing about it as LGBT people are of having to keep fighting for it. In this day and age. :roll:

 

[Gathomas88]

The dreadful agenda of equality. Perish the thought! Everyone who can push the agenda of equality should be doing so. It's that self-evident truth that is supposed to be at the core of American morality. I suppose the real question is, why aren't you pushing that agenda?

In short, the answer to my question is; "yes," you do admit that the mainstream media has been actively pushing the message of homosexual acceptance.

Why not simply admit as much right off the bat? Anyone with two functioning brain cells to rub together could've already told you that it was true.

Frankly, the answer to your own question would depend entirely upon how one defines the word "equality." I basically think of homosexuals exactly as I would nudists, furries, or any other fringe minority group. I do not hate them or feel that they should be discriminated against, but I have absolutely no interest in being squawked at by their apologists, or told that my aversion to their lifestyle is on any level unacceptable either.

I'm all for "equal rights." I simply resent the implication, widely pushed through media, that society at large, and I, as an individual, should be forced to change the beliefs and perceptions we have carried for centuries uncounted in order to better suit the counter-cultural inclinations of a single minority group.

Quite honestly, if we were talking about any other minority group besides homosexuals, no one would be insane enough to even suggest such a thing in the first place.

 

[rathi]

Because heterosexual coupling is the default norm of human behavior, and homosexual coupling is not. :roll:

It's roughly the equivalent of having something like extreme BDS&M or Scientology shoved in your face day in and day out. Even if you don't actively "hate" either phenomena, it is still annoying to have something which bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to your own, or roughly 95% of the population's, day-to-day life or common frame of reference constantly rammed down your throat.

People who get insecure just by seeing someone different than them are pathetic. There is no reason to coddle frightened losers who need to validate themselves by pretending only their groups exists.

The other problem is just how inherently forced the whole thing happens to be. It isn't the kind of story that one would naturally expect to hear about in the course of their daily life. It is usually deliberately pushed upon the casual viewing audience in the most unabashedly awkward and self-conscious manner possible.

I don't deal with hurricanes in my daily life living in California, yet someone I don't get offended when the news covers a giant storm pounding the Carolina's. Its almost as if the media is meant to provide insight into the wider world beyond your immediate bubble.

They might as well be smacking you in face with it while repeatedly shouting "ACCCEEEEPPPT MEEEE!!!" at the top of their lungs.

It honestly comes off as being blatant attention whoring more than anything else most of the time.

The entire purpose for the media is attention whoring. Everyone on the cable news channel is trying to grab as many eyeballs as possible. The fact you only whine about it when it involves homosexuality isn't a problem with homosexuality, its a problem with you.

 

[Gathomas88]

People who get insecure just by seeing someone different than them are pathetic. There is no reason to coddle frightened losers who need to validate themselves by pretending only their groups exists.

For all intents and purposes, only my group (in this instance, heterosexuals) does exist. We make up 95% or more of the human population.

There is absolutely no rational reason why a minority group comprising less than 5% of the overall population should have the massively disproportionate media representation that it currently does. The only possible explanation is deliberate propaganda.

At this point, there are honestly more "token gays" on television than blacks, latinos, or asians.

I don't deal with hurricanes in my daily life living in California, yet someone I don't get offended when the new covers a giant storm pounding the Carolina's. Its almost as if the media is meant to provide insight into the wider world beyond your immediate bubble.

And what if almost literally every new program on television was suddenly required to have a "token Carolinian about to have his home destroyed by a hurricane" as a member of the regular cast and some sort of (often highly unsubtle) message about how hurricane victims should all be "treated with dignity and respect" as a major plot point in every other episode before it was allowed to air on a major network?

Would that not be on some level grating?

The entire purpose for the media is attention whoring. Everyone on the cable news channel is trying to grab as many eyeballs as possible. The fact you only whine about it when it involves homosexuality isn't a problem with homosexuality, its a problem with you.

Clumsy, heavy handed, and over-exposed moral or political messages in mainstream media are irritating in any context.

Twenty or so years ago, the message being pushed by the Left in the mainstream media was environmentalism in the form of such tripe as Captain Planet and Ferngully. Now, it is homosexuality.

What can I say? I simply have a natural aversion to politicized bull crap.

 

[Paschendale]

So are you saying that if gay marriage was suddenly legal in all 50 states tomorrow, it'd be all over?

I'd bet every cent I have that it wouldn't.

You do realize that marriage is not the only area where gays are discriminated against, right? Why is it so important to you that the problems of others remain invisible? Are your own that insurmountable that you can't stand even to consider the hardships faced by others? How can merely having other people talking about their troubles be such a burden to you?

I'm all for "equal rights." I simply resent the implication, widely pushed through media, that society at large, and I, as an individual, should be forced to change the beliefs and perceptions we have carried for centuries uncounted in order to better suit the counter-cultural inclinations of a single minority group.

No one is forced to change their beliefs or perceptions. You should change them, because they're wrong. But it would be even more wrong to force someone to change their mind. As I said, no one is forced to change their minds. But the movement by gays and gay rights activists over the last few decades has been to bring homosexuals into the public eye, because gays are not creepy or weird, but are in fact just like everyone else. Learning that important fact, because gays were brought into that public eye, is what has caused the public to change its mind. No one forced anyone to do anything. Most people, unlike you, do not have an emotional stake in rejecting gays and homosexuality.

 

[Gathomas88]

No one is forced to change their beliefs or perceptions. You should change them, because they're wrong. But it would be even more wrong to force someone to change their mind. As I said, no one is forced to change their minds. But the movement by gays and gay rights activists over the last few decades has been to bring homosexuals into the public eye, because gays are not creepy or weird, but are in fact just like everyone else. Learning that important fact, because gays were brought into that public eye, is what has caused the public to change its mind. No one forced anyone to do anything. Most people, unlike you, do not have an emotional stake in rejecting gays and homosexuality.

The argument that homosexuals are "just like everyone else" is your subjective opinion (and frankly one that doesn't make a great deal of rational or objecive sense given how small their numbers happen to be and the generally over the top and outrageous nature of their chosen public personas).

Trying to force everyone else to adopt it as well by deliberately flooding them with homosexual messages until they relent is nothing less than an overt exercise in blatant propaganda.

I work in a military unit that specializes in psychological warfare. This sort of thing is what we do for a living. The P.C. language you insist on layering your intentions under is fooling exactly no one.

 

[rathi]

For all intents and purposes, only my group (in this instance, heterosexuals) does exist. We make up 95% or more of the human population.

There is absolutely no rational reason why a minority group comprising less than 5% of the overall population should have the massively disproportionate media representation that it currently does. The only possible explanation is deliberate propaganda.

At this point, there are honestly more "token gays" on television than blacks, latinos, or asians.


And what if almost literally every new program on television was suddenly required to have a "token Carolinian about to have his home destroyed by a hurricane" as a member of the regular cast and some sort of (often highly unsubtle) message about how hurricane victims should all be "treated with dignity and respect" as a major plot point in every other episode before it was allowed to air on a major network?

Would that not be on some level grating?

Study finds rise in gay characters on network TV - Salon.com

The actual number of LBGT characters on primetime television is 4.4%, which means they are being accurately depicted by population frequency. Statistically speaking, it is white men who are overrepresented. I suppose you will now demand that TV stop shoving white guys in everyone's face?

Clumsy, heavy handed, and over-exposed moral or political messages in mainstream media are irritating in any context.

Twenty or so years ago, the message being pushed by the Left in the mainstream media was environmentalism in the form of such tripe as Captain Planet and Ferngully. Now, it is homosexuality.

What can I say? I simply have a natural aversion to politicized bull crap.

Actually you just have prejudice against groups you consider to be different. Your biases make it so that the representative number of gay people on television is seen as too many. You just perfectly demonstrated how prejudice causes confirmation bias.

 

[Gipper]

You do realize that marriage is not the only area where gays are discriminated against, right? Why is it so important to you that the problems of others remain invisible? Are your own that insurmountable that you can't stand even to consider the hardships faced by others? How can merely having other people talking about their troubles be such a burden to you?

Okay, I'll bite - where else?

 

[Gathomas88]

Study finds rise in gay characters on network TV - Salon.com

The actual number of LBGT characters on primetime television is 4.4%, which means they are being accurately depicted by population frequency. Statistically speaking, it is white men who are overrepresented. I suppose you will now demand that TV stop shoving white guys in everyone's face?

And what about gay themed story arcs, subplots, political messages, and screen time?

The simple fact of the matter is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the way in which shows like Seinfeld portrayed homosexuals more than a decade ago. They were alluded to occasionally, and you might even get an occasional homosexual character, but massive chunks of the show's regular running time were not devoted to long running homosexual story arcs to which roughly 95% of the regular viewing audience would be unable to relate. If viewers were looking for explicitly homosexual content, they could watch Will and Grace or something similar.

That was more representative of what the average American will experience in their day-to-day lives, not what we have today.

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people simply don't know that many homosexuals.

Having roughly a quarter of a show like Glee, Modern Family, Game of Thrones, or even Defiance's running time every week be devoted to homosexual storylines that the vast majority of the audience isn't going to be able to relate to is simply ludicrously excessive.

It is down and dirty politically motivated pandering, nothing more.

Again, you'll notice that no other minority group is shown such special favoritism.

 

[rathi]

And what about gay themed story arcs, subplots, political messages, and screen time?

The simple fact of the matter is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the way in which shows like Seinfeld portrayed homosexuals more than a decade ago. They were alluded to occasionally, and you might even get an occasional homosexual character, but massive chunks of the show's regular running time were not devoted to long running homosexual story arcs to which roughly 95% of the regular viewing audience would be unable to relate. If viewers were looking for explicitly homosexual content, they could watch Will and Grace or something similar.

That was more representative of what average Americans will experience in their day-to-day lives, not what we have today.

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people simply don't know that many homosexuals.

Having roughly a quarter of a show like Glee, Modern Family, Game of Thrones, or even Defiance's running time every week be devoted to homosexual storylines is ludicrously excessive.

It is down and dirty politically motivated pandering, nothing more.

Again, you'll notice that no other minority group is shown such special favoritism.

I'm sure you feel that gay characters are being forced onto you with television. That isn't rational analysis guiding you, its your prejudice against homosexuality that makes an accurate number of gay characters seem like an overwhelming number. My statistics are based on objective reality rather than bias, and they demonstrate that you see gay characters with the same frequency as you would in real life.

Where We Are on TV Report: 2012 - 2013 Season | GLAAD

For a specific case study, lets take game of thrones which I assume you are familiar with according to your avatar. There are two gay characters in the show, Renly and Tyrell. One of them is dead and neither one could be considered to be the focus of the show. I'm sure however that the sex scenes between the two of them made you uncomfortable enough that you chose to remember gays everywhere.

The only pandering is to white males like you, demonstrating a larger proportion of screen time and character vs population frequency. The number don't lie and no amount of baseless personal claims change reality. You can either accept that its not gays who are being shown favoritism but your own group, or continue to live in the delusion that the oppressor is the victim.

 

[Paschendale]

The argument that homosexuals are "just like everyone else" is your subjective opinion (and frankly one that doesn't make a great deal of rational or objecive sense given how small their numbers happen to be and the generally over the top and outrageous nature of their chosen public personas).

I can't help it if you only ever pay attention to pride parades and not your gay neighbors who live the same lives that you do. They raise their kids, they grumble when they lose the office pool about the football game, they grill on the 4th of July, and they watch Littlefinger plot and enjoy it for exactly the same reason you do. So where's this difference? Because the people they love aren't the people you love? Yeah, big difference.

Trying to force everyone else to adopt it as well by deliberately flooding them with homosexual messages until they relent is nothing less than an overt exercise in blatant propaganda.

Except that the intended message is, you know, true.

I work in a military unit that specializes in psychological warfare. This sort of thing is what we do for a living. The P.C. language you insist on layering your intentions under is fooling exactly no one.

PC language like "not creepy or weird"? Yeah man, real duplicitous.

Okay, I'll bite - where else?

Adoption, health issues, gay men still aren't permitted to donate blood, despite all donated blood being tested for infection, employment discrimination, and others.

And what about gay themed story arcs, subplots, political messages, and screen time?

The simple fact of the matter is that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the way in which shows like Seinfeld portrayed homosexuals more than a decade ago. They were alluded to occasionally, and you might even get an occasional homosexual character, but massive chunks of the show's regular running time were not devoted to long running homosexual story arcs to which roughly 95% of the regular viewing audience would be unable to relate. If viewers were looking for explicitly homosexual content, they could watch Will and Grace or something similar.

That was more representative of what the average American will experience in their day-to-day lives, not what we have today.

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people simply don't know that many homosexuals.

Having roughly a quarter of a show like Glee, Modern Family, Game of Thrones, or even Defiance's running time every week be devoted to homosexual storylines that the vast majority of the audience isn't going to be able to relate to is simply ludicrously excessive.

It is down and dirty politically motivated pandering, nothing more.

Again, you'll notice that no other minority group is shown such special favoritism.

Do you understand how petty this sounds? Crying because the characters on TV dare to be unlike you? Tell me, should we not have black characters, either? Or Jews? There are far fewer Jews in this country than gays. There are even fewer Indians, bother American and Hindu. Should they be left out as well? There are in fact more gays in this country than Jews, American Indians, and Indian Americans combined. Do you whine about their depictions on television? Is it so offensive to you that people who aren't like you be in the public eye?

 

[Gipper]

Adoption, health issues, gay men still aren't permitted to donate blood, despite all donated blood being tested for infection, employment discrimination, and others.

If SSM becomes legalized, I imagine that gay adoption will fall into line.

I don't know what "health issues" means.

You can be discriminated in employment for any reason. It's not like gays have the franchise on that. Also, I support employer rights - they can discriminate for any reason they want.

And gays are not allowed to give blood? When the hell did this start to happen?

 

[Paschendale]

If SSM becomes legalized, I imagine that gay adoption will fall into line.

Maybe, but it won't happen by sitting around on one's ass.

I don't know what "health issues" means.

No, I don't imagine you do.

You can be discriminated in employment for any reason. It's not like gays have the franchise on that. Also, I support employer rights - they can discriminate for any reason they want.

Completely false.

And gays are not allowed to give blood? When the hell did this start to happen?

At least 20 years. Probably longer.

I don't personally know all the ways that gays are discriminated against. Why don't you ask Your Star. All of those issues that you care nothing for are actual concerns in her life.

 

[GottaGo]

At least 20 years. Probably longer.

Re the giving blood, it's not just Gays, it's anybody who carries a blood-borne illness. And I don't consider that discrimination, that's called safety.

And just for the record, I have a blood borne illness (now dormant) and can't give blood to a family member even in a life or death situation even though it's considered dormant.

 

[Gipper]

Let me guess - if a gay guy doesn't get a job he's interviewed for, it's automatically discriminatory.

Ah, the persecution complex...

 

[Gathomas88]

I'm sure you feel that gay characters are being forced onto you with television. That isn't rational analysis guiding you, its your prejudice against homosexuality that makes an accurate number of gay characters seem like an overwhelming number. My statistics are based on objective reality rather than bias, and they demonstrate that you see gay characters with the same frequency as you would in real life.

Where We Are on TV Report: 2012 - 2013 Season | GLAAD

You continue to ignore the issue of screen time and content.

For a specific case study, lets take game of thrones which I assume you are familiar with according to your avatar. There are two gay characters in the show, Renly and Tyrell. One of them is dead and neither one could be considered to be the focus of the show. I'm sure however that the sex scenes between the two of them made you uncomfortable enough that you chose to remember gays everywhere.

I'm glad that you brought it up. GoT is actually a prime example of exactly what I've been talking about.

Do you know how much of the text is devoted to those characters and their sexual relationship in the books? They literally get about five or six paragraphs in total, and then one of them dies, and the other is barely mentioned again for the next couple of books until he eventually gets doused in boiling oil off screen while sieging a castle.

It's never even explicitly stated that they are homosexual, only implied. It is that unimportant.

Tell me, given these facts, why on earth was it necessary for these characters to be involved in no less than four on screen homosexual sex scenes in the television adaptation of the books?

It adds absolutely nothing to story, and I can guarantee you that it does nothing to titilate the vast majority of the viewing audience.

The only end those scenes could've possibly served was as a political statement.

The only pandering is tom white males like you, demonstrating a larger proportion of screen time and character vs population frequency. The number don't lie and no amount of baseless personal claims change reality. You can either accept that its not gays who are being shown favoritism but your own group, or continue to live in the delusion that the oppressor is the victim.

We (along with white heterosexual females) make up the vast majority of the viewing audience for broadcast televesion. Of course most of the programing on these stations is designed to cater to our tastes.

Why on earth wouldn't it be?

The problem with the current rash of homosexual content on television is that it feels extremely forced and artificial precisely for that reason. It has absolutely no bearing on the najority of the audience's demands or life experiences.


It has tacked on to the greater story for no other reason than to send a political message.

Again, you will notice that no other minority group on television has been afforded the same treatment. Black characters from the "hood" are not being commonly forced into television programs written for Middle Class whites.

Other than the fact that they happen to be the political Left's "charity case of the week," what makes homosexuals so deserving of such special treatment?

I know a hell of a lot more african americans than I do gays.

 

[sangha]

Do you understand how petty this sounds? Crying because the characters on TV dare to be unlike you?

The funny thing is, you're talking to a guy who goes ga-ga over a series with a medieval theme and significant amounts of magic

You know, because medieval characters and magic are totally representative of real life :roll:

 

[sangha]

You continue to ignore the issue of screen time and content.



I'm glad that you brought it up. GoT is actually a prime example of exactly what I've been talking about.

Do you know how much of the text is devoted to those characters and their sexual relationship in the books? They literally get about five or six paragraphs in total, and then one of them dies, and the other is barely mentioned again for the next couple of books until he eventually gets doused in boiling oil off screen while sieging a castle.

It's never even explicitly stated that they are homosexual, only implied. It is that unimportant.

Tell me, given these facts, why on earth was it necessary for these characters to be involved in no less than four on screen homosexual sex scenes in the television adaptation of the books?

And the original Star Trek story was not about racial themes

Top 10 Star Trek Episodes Dealing With Tolerance | TrekMovie.com

And in spite of the producers "tacking on" themes that weren't in the original text, you still love Star Trek.

But those were racial themes, and you don't have to worry about being black.

But homosexual themes, that's another story

Looks like the OP is on to something

 

[Gathomas88]

I can't help it if you only ever pay attention to pride parades and not your gay neighbors who live the same lives that you do. They raise their kids, they grumble when they lose the office pool about the football game, they grill on the 4th of July, and they watch Littlefinger plot and enjoy it for exactly the same reason you do. So where's this difference? Because the people they love aren't the people you love? Yeah, big difference.

Most of the homosexuals I've met have not been as "normal" as you are describing. Most of them look and act, for lack of a better word, like "freaks."

They talk like they're doing a bad impression of Marilyn Monroe, they sway their hips when they walk in a grotesque exaggeration of stereotyped female behavior, and even their body language and style of dress are noticeably off.

Hell! One of the few homosexuals that I actually did have the chance to get know on more than the level of mere acquaintance actually had a name for them. He called them "fags," and said that he couldn't stand them. He classified himself as being a "queer," which he seemed to view as being more or less in the middle on the outrageous homosexual behavior spectrum.

I'm sorry, but those aforementioned "f**s" are simply never to going to be able to achieve the level of mainstream acceptance you seem to desire for them.

"Behind the Candellabra" style homosexuality simply isn't "normal" by any definition of the word.

Except that the intended message is, you know, true.

The "truth" of the matter is that the abnormal things are always going to be treated by most people as exactly what they are, abnormal.

If you want to try and indoctrinate people with your subjective point of view, that's fine. However, I would prefer that people at least have the gall to be honest about it.

Do you understand how petty this sounds? Crying because the characters on TV dare to be unlike you? Tell me, should we not have black characters, either? Or Jews? There are far fewer Jews in this country than gays. There are even fewer Indians, bother American and Hindu. Should they be left out as well? There are in fact more gays in this country than Jews, American Indians, and Indian Americans combined. Do you whine about their depictions on television? Is it so offensive to you that people who aren't like you be in the public eye?

The problem is precisely that those other minorities are not provided the same coverage, which makes the political agenda behind the current surge in homosexual programming on television that much more transparent.

It is annoying enough having something you couldn't care less about deliberately jammed in your face at every turn. Tossing blatant pandering hypocrisy into the mix only makes things that much worse.

 

[Gathomas88]

And the original Star Trek story was not about racial themes

Top 10 Star Trek Episodes Dealing With Tolerance | TrekMovie.com

And in spite of the producers "tacking on" themes that weren't in the original text, you still love Star Trek.

But those were racial themes, and you don't have to worry about being black.

But homosexual themes, that's another story

Looks like the OP is on to something

First off, Star Trek can have a tendency to more than obnoxious in its overt level of preachiness as well.

Secondly, homosexuals already have equal protection under law, and are not subject to anywhere near the same level of violent institutional prejudice that blacks were during the 1960s.

Besides, as several posters in this thread have pointed out, homosexuals do not need my approval in order to go about their lives.

As such, why in the ever living name of all that is holy is it necessary that I be made to suffer through seemingly endless scenes of guy on guy romance in almost every new show on television?

If this trend continues, I honestly think it will spawn far more backlash than social change.

 

[sangha]

It is annoying enough having something you couldn't care less about deliberately jammed in your face at every turn.

Am I the only who has noticed how he repeatedly objects to having something jammed in his face? :lamo