• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Denying One's Desires Tied to Homophobia

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

It was vaguely by design. ;)

Though... To be honest, I kind of had something more like this is mind when I first thought it up.

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

And yet, you've never ranted about the show. In fact, you love it

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.

Remembering the UpStairs Lounge: The U.S.A.’s Largest LGBT Massacre Happened 40 Years Ago Today


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?

Are you a character in Clockwork Orange, or is there a non-delusional reason why you think you're forced to watched TV?
 
And yet, you've never ranted about the show. In fact, you love it

It's never really come up. I also don't remember ever saying that I "loved" the show.

TNG's endless pacifist and anti-capitalist rants were often groan inducing to say the least.

I honestly prefer my science fiction to be more in the vein of such media as Warhammer 40,000.

spacemarine.jpg

Ultramarines_Honor_Guard.jpg

1315183747621.jpg

CATHOLIC SPACE NAZIS FTW!!! :rock


That was an isolated incident that occurred forty years ago. It has no bearing on today.

Are you a character in Clockwork Orange, or is there a non-delusional reason why you think you're forced to watched TV?

Right, because the only options available to the average citizen should totally be "unconditionally accept homosexuality" or "live under a rock." :roll:
 
Last edited:
It's never really come up. I also don't remember ever saying that I "loved" the show.

but you're not going to deny it

TNG's endless pacifist and anti-capitalist rants were often groan inducing to say the least.


I honestly prefer my science fiction to be more in the vein of such media as Warhammer 40,000.

Most science fiction and fantasy stories have a moral theme to them. You have only complained about the gay themes.

That was an isolated incident

Stonewall riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard


that occurred forty years ago. It has no bearing on today.

But it's OK when you referenced racial events that occurred fifty years ago :roll:



Right, because the only options available to the average citizen should totally be "unconditionally accept homosexuality" or "live under a rock." :roll:

Of course! After all, it's not like you're allowed to stop watching TV! :lamo
 
A lot of male homophobia seems to come from misogyny, too. The idea of men receiving sex from other men makes them feel too much like women, and of course being a woman is a terrible notion for these men. That's why a lot of homophobia, specifically from males, tends to center around male/male anal sex.
And also why homophobia is a women's issue.
 
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.

Every man who has had homosexual sex since 1977 (I think it's 1977, could be a couple of years before that) is banned from giving blood. Not based on evidence of having an illness, but merely for being homosexual. Not because they actually have HIV, but merely because the government has decided that they might.
 
An interesting take on the causes of homophobia

Here's one list of haters who were outed
Not surprising. If you interact with enough people, you'll realize that people often despise in others what they despise in themselves. When my great-grandfather encountered someone he didn't like, he would say, "There's something about that man/woman I don't like about myself." Even further, I didn't realize until recently how much of the stuff people say is them trying to convince themselves of something under the guise of some other aim. It makes sense that that would apply to homophobia.
 
but you're not going to deny it

It's not my favorite, but it's alright. Frankly, why does it matter whether or not I "love" Star Trek?

Most science fiction and fantasy stories have a moral theme to them.

You clearly don't know 40K. :lamo

You have only complained about the gay themes.

I complained about environmental themes as well, and I just complained pacifist and anti-capitalist themes in my last post.

You were saying?


I see smallish riots that happened almost fifty years ago and a single hate crime.

The New Orleans firebombing would still appear to be an isolated incident.

But it's OK when you referenced racial events that occurred fifty years ago :roll:

Where, exactly?

Of course! After all, it's not like you're allowed to stop watching TV! :lamo

I already avoid watching shows that take the homosexual trend to insufferable extremes (Modern Family, Glee, etca).

Every man who has had homosexual sex since 1977 (I think it's 1977, could be a couple of years before that) is banned from giving blood. Not based on evidence of having an illness, but merely for being homosexual. Not because they actually have HIV, but merely because the government has decided that they might.

It would appear to be a perfectly reasonable precaution, given the higher HIV infection rate suffered by the homosexual community.

I'm actually fairly sure that I'm disqualified from giving blood now as well due to my travels in the Middle East and Europe.
 
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.
No, gay men - whether or not they have a blood-borne illness - are banned from giving blood. It's discrimination purely based on sexual orientation, not on health.
 
You continue to ignore the issue of screen time and content.

Actually I'm not. White males are even more overrepresented in lead roles, while gay roles tend to be side characters. As a result, the numbers are more skewed away from gays in screentime rather than by role.


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.

Tyrell's sexuality is quite relevant in the latest season. Baelish uses his spy to determine his inclinations which is used as political leverage during the showdown between Tywin and the Tyrell Matriarch.



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.

On the contrary, a very significant portion of HBO's viewing audience found those scenes quite arousing. HBO has a very large percentage of gay viewers as well as women who lust after that sort of thing. Its programs aren't exactly aimed that the prudish conservatives who have problems with homosexuality. Game of thrones isn't exactly lacking sex scenes utterly devoid of plot.


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.

No, what is forced and artificial is pretending that homosexuals don't exist at all in the world of television.



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?

Its quite telling that you consider the existence of minorities at all on television to be some kind of special treatment. You are so laughably entitled you think that every character on television is automatically a white heterosexual by default and any alternatives are upsetting the natural order of things.

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

Shockingly enough there are more black characters than gay characters on television as well.
 
Actually I'm not. White males are even more overrepresented in lead roles,

Well'p, guess what? We're overrepresented in society as well.

Such a state of affairs would naturally lead to the majority of media being aimed at catering to our needs.

while gay roles tend to be side characters. As a result, the numbers are more skewed away from gays in screentime rather than by role.

The example provided by GoT would seem to disprove this notion.

Tyrell's sexuality is quite relevant in the latest season. Baelish uses his spy to determine his inclinations which is used as political leverage during the showdown between Tywin and the Tyrell Matriarch.

Which was something they made up completely out of whole cloth in order to give Tyrell something to do, and in order to have excuse to air another completely superfluous gay sex scene. :roll:

They might've actually been able to fit Joffery's assassination in this season if they had skipped over such pointless pandering.

On the contrary, a very significant portion of HBO's viewing audience found those scenes quite arousing.

Lets see the figures then.

HBO has a very large percentage of gay viewers as well as women who lust after that sort of thing

I highly doubt that.

No, what is forced and artificial is pretending that homosexuals don't exist at all in the world of television.

Because God knows that I just have homosexuals pouring out of the wood works in my every day life, amirite?

I can't take three steps without being positively knee deep in teh gay! Television needs to reflect this reality, damnit! :roll:


Its quite telling that you consider the existence of minorities at all on television to be some kind of special treatment. You are so laughably entitled you think that every character on television is automatically a white heterosexual by default and any alternatives are upsetting the natural order of things.

It's quite telling that you continue to avoid the subject of homosexual characters and story lines being given blatant preference over other minority groups on television.

Shockingly enough there are more black characters than gay characters on television as well.

Yup. The difference is that they have their own television shows (and even their own channel) devoted to that kind of thing.

They aren't being needlessly tacked on to television programs primarily targeted at completely different demographics simply because liberal writers and producers feel the perverse need to propagandize their audience and deliberately alienate Conservative viewers.
 
Last edited:
This is a known phenomenon affecting some people.


Some people.


The problem comes in when certain people start trying to equate having ANY reservations about SSM or indeed any notions regarding homosexuality OTHER than total unconditional acceptance as if it were "homophobia" of this sort.... which is bull****.

That's what it is. It doesn't matter how you try to sugarcoat it.
 
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.

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.

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.


Really? The media should only make movies, music, books, etc. that caters to the majority’s taste and the news should only show news stories that pertain to the majority’s interests? How egocentric can a person get? Ever heard of a thing called diversity? Not everything put out there is custom designed to please or interest you, me, the majority, or anyone. Have you ever thought that maybe the stuff the media presents that involve homosexuality was made with a homosexual audience in mind to view or read it?

Also, if you’re gripe is about how every time a celebrity comes out it’s all over the news, then yeah, I agree with you, it is attention whoring. But it is no more so than when the media covers any other celebrity’s private life. For example, I’ve seen more “news” stories about the Kim Kardashian and Kanye West baby or the Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez break up then I’d ever care to hear. But as long as the tabloid rags are going to keep churning out garbage like that, then I wouldn’t call news stories about homosexual celebrities as “attention whoring” as much as I would a “display of equality”.
 
Really? The media should only make movies, music, books, etc. that caters to the majority’s taste and the news should only show news stories that pertain to the majority’s interests? How egocentric can a person get? Ever heard of a thing called diversity? Not everything put out there is custom designed to please or interest you, me, the majority, or anyone. Have you ever thought that maybe the stuff the media presents that involve homosexuality was made with a homosexual audience in mind to view or read it?

It called business sense. They are trying to reach the largest audience possible to make as much as they can. To cater to a small part of the population is no way going to maximize your profits.
 
Well'p, guess what? We're overrepresented in society as well.

No, there are proportionally more white guys on television than there are in the real United States.

Such a state of affairs would naturally lead to the majority of media being aimed at catering to our needs.

You are assuming that white people are insecure losers who can't watch a television show unless the main character is also white. Maybe it was true in the past, maybe its still true with you, but everyone else is moving on.

The example provided by GoT would seem to disprove this notion.

If one of the Starks or Lanisters were gay that might be true. Tyrell and Renly had less that half and hour of screen time combined in 30 hours of show.

Which was something they made up completely out of whole cloth in order to give Tyrell something to do, and in order to have excuse to air another completely superfluous gay sex scene.

Keeping characters fresh in the viewers mind requires they appear on screen. Pretty much all the sex scenes in GOT are superfluous, but superfluous sex scenes are how HBO earns that premium channel pricing.

Lets see the figures then.

Television ratings track age and gender, not sexual orientation. Its quite clear that HBO has a significant gay audience however based on the success of the Liberace movie and their green-lighting of a new gay dramedy show.

I highly doubt that.

If you really want proof look search for "Loras/Renly slashfic" to find horribly written sex stories created by woman about the pair.

Because God knows that I just have homosexuals pouring out of the wood works in my every day life, amirite?

I can't take three steps without being positively knee deep in teh gay! Television needs to reflect this reality, damnit!

Having 1 in every 25 people on a show be gay is hardly "pouring out of the woods".

It's quite telling that you continue to avoid the subject of homosexual characters and story lines being given blatant preference over other minority groups on television.

You are so prejudiced you think there is some kind of hard limit on the number of non-white non-hetero characters and that one minority can only replace another minority during the casting. Its especially stupid given that sexuality has nothing to with ethnicity and one could even be both Latino and gay simultaneously.

Yup. The difference is that they have their own television shows (and even their own channel) devoted to that kind of thing.

You seriously just implied that black characters should be segregated to their own channels. Way to live the Carolina stereotype.

They aren't being needlessly tacked on to television programs primarily targeted at completely different demographics simply because liberal writers and producers feel the perverse need to propagandize their audience and deliberately alienate Conservative viewers.

Are you really so narcissistic that you think gay characters are put on shows just to spite you?
 
Really? The media should only make movies, music, books, etc. that caters to the majority’s taste and the news should only show news stories that pertain to the majority’s interests? How egocentric can a person get?

My complaint is not that there is homosexual programing on the air, but that things have gotten to the point where it is almost impossible to escape from it.

There shouldn't be a deliberate push across virtually all aspects of the mainstream media to force certain worldviews and political agendas upon the viewing public regardless of whether audiences want to hear about them or not, and regardless of whether or not the agendas in question even make for high quality entertainment.

I shouldn't have to basically give up watching television entirely simply to get away from left wing propaganda pushing the homosexual agenda.

Ever heard of a thing called diversity?

I don't watch television or movies for "diversity." I watch them for entertainment. They are consumable goods like any other.

Frankly, from a business perspective, it makes absolutely no sense that the mainstream media would so completely change itself to cater to such an extreme minority audience.

This is exactly why I said that today's current homosexual trend in media was primarily politically motivated. It doesn't make the least bit of sense in any other context.
 
Last edited:
No, there are proportionally more white guys on television than there are in the real United States.

You are absolutely correct. On television shows written for and by "white guys," there tend to be more "white guys."

Shocking, innit?

This still doesn't explain why it's basically become required that these same shows now toss "token gay guys" into the mix all of the sudden.

The vast majority of us "white guys" would prefer that they not be there.

You are assuming that white people are insecure losers who can't watch a television show unless the main character is also white. Maybe it was true in the past, maybe its still true with you, but everyone else is moving on.

Right, because I'm not just dying to watch a television show about a Satan worshiping lower class lesbian black woman named Zooboomafu, I'm a backwards bigot.

Gotcha. :roll:

If one of the Starks or Lanisters were gay that might be true. Tyrell and Renly had less that half and hour of screen time combined in 30 hours of show.

He has roughly the same amount of screen time or more than the character represented by my own avatar. A character, I might add, who just so happens to actually have a fully fleshed out role in the book, and who actually is central to the story without anyone needing to rewrite the plot in order to justify his continued presence on the show.

What has Ser Loras' expanded role contributed to the story other than sweaty gay sex scenes meant to serve as award bait for P.C. critics?

He's not even an especially good actor, for crying out loud.

Keeping characters fresh in the viewers mind requires they appear on screen.

Which totally explains why the Mountain has been completely screwed out of his role in the story, right?

Easily one of the most memorable and frightening characters in the entire series is basically treated by the writers as being an expendable extra, while the totally superfluous gay sex scenes that roughly 90% of the audience has no interest in seeing are allowed to remain.

Yup. I can totally see why that change needed to be made. :roll:

Pretty much all the sex scenes in GOT are superfluous, but superfluous sex scenes are how HBO earns that premium channel pricing.

I actually agree here. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was no need for such a large degree of emphasis to be put on Renly an Loras' relationship in the first place.

It was done pretty much exclusively because it was the "politically correct" thing to do.

Television ratings track age and gender, not sexual orientation. Its quite clear that HBO has a significant gay audience however based on the success of the Liberace movie and their green-lighting of a new gay dramedy show.

In other words, you have no evidence to present.

Having 1 in every 25 people on a show be gay is hardly "pouring out of the woods".

Having a "token gay" character on almost every new show on television certainly is. I'm sorry, but that is simply more "gay" than is strictly necessary or called for.

Do you think Friends would've been much improved by the addition of such a character, or Seinfeld? What about the new Battlestar Galactica?

The absence of gay characters certainly wasn't missed on any of those shows. As a matter of fact, it honestly would've felt out of place if they had been present.

You are so prejudiced you think there is some kind of hard limit on the number of non-white non-hetero characters and that one minority can only replace another minority during the casting. Its especially stupid given that sexuality has nothing to with ethnicity and one could even be both Latino and gay simultaneously.

You continue to miss the point.

The fact that producers insist on shoehorning homosexuals into mainstream television, but no other minority group, simply highlights the political nature of the movement.

The primary concern is pressing the homosexual agenda, not promoting "diversity."

You seriously just implied that black characters should be segregated to their own channels. Way to live the Carolina stereotype.

The simple fact of the matter is that most black audiences and white audiences come from completely different backgrounds and cultural frames of reference, and so have completely different tastes in television programing.

As such, it makes sense, from a marketing and consumption standpoint, to specifically tailor programing to either one audience or the other, and not crap out horrible franken-shows which ineffectually attempt to pander to both at the same time.

Think back to my comparison between Seinfeld and Will and Grace. Both were great shows, and they catered to entirely different audiences. That was perfectly fine.

The reason the producers of today insist on combining the two in horrible abominations like Glee is precisely because they don't want viewing audiences to be able to escape from homosexual media messages. They want their audience to have to deal with homosexuals regardless of whether they want to or not.

That is what I object to.

Are you really so narcissistic that you think gay characters are put on shows just to spite you?

No, but I think that left wing television writers and producers are narcissistic enough to view it as being some kind of sacred duty to push such characters onto viewing audiences as often as possible in the interests of promoting some misplaced notion of "equality."
 
Last edited:
No, but I think that left wing television writers and producers are narcissistic enough to view it as being some kind of sacred duty to push such characters onto viewing audiences as often as possible in the interests of promoting some misplaced notion of "equality."

You are obviously young because they have done this with just about every minority group over the last few decades. Gays are just in fashion right now. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, etc. have all had their moment of being crammed into living rooms. The media loves to have a token minority character so that it can come off as hot and fresh or better yet, as controversial. Heck, Star Trek is known for having the first interracial kiss on TV.
 
Sorry, but I think the whole "he really hates gays, he must be closeted" schtick is just sensationalistic. I won't say that it's always unfounded, but I do think that the cases of it happening is a very small percentage.

I also think that misogyny has very little to do with it. I have streaks of misogyny and I am - in no way, shape, or form - homosexual.

No gripper, they aren't referring to just your average guy that doesn't like gay people, this is the phobia, the irrational fear of homosexuals, that is manifested in people. The crusaders against it, the ones that want laws on the books to detain suspected homosexuals. These people exist. And they are typically huge closet cases.
 
You are obviously young because they have done this with just about every minority group over the last few decades. Gays are just in fashion right now. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, etc. have all had their moment of being crammed into living rooms. The media loves to have a token minority character so that it can come off as hot and fresh or better yet, as controversial. Heck, Star Trek is known for having the first interracial kiss on TV.

Of course. That's exactly my point. It's a politically correct fad, and one that's already starting to wear rather thin.

The liberal media outrage machine was obsessed with environmentalism during the 1990s, war during the 2000s, and it looks like the 2010s are going to be all about gays.

You will have to excuse me if I am not seen to be absolutely brimming with excitement at the idea. :neutral:
 
It's not my favorite, but it's alright. Frankly, why does it matter whether or not I "love" Star Trek?



You clearly don't know 40K. :lamo

Doesn't matter. Your postings in the TV forum makes it clear that you don't have any big problems with stories that have a social agenda

I see smallish riots that happened almost fifty years ago and a single hate crime.

"smallish" :lamo

The New Orleans firebombing would still appear to be an isolated incident.

Kibbles ‘n’ Bits 6/6/2013: Real life superhero squad fighting gay bashing

I could go on posting evidence of regular and frequent violence against gays, but bigots will continue to deny that it happens frequently



Where, exactly?

Here

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.

I already avoid watching shows that take the homosexual trend to insufferable extremes (Modern Family, Glee, etca).

So who is forcing you to watch the other shows on TV?

This is the 3rd time I'm asking you this question. For some reason, you keep avoiding answering it.
 
Sorry, but I think the whole "he really hates gays, he must be closeted" schtick is just sensationalistic. I won't say that it's always unfounded, but I do think that the cases of it happening is a very small percentage.

I also think that misogyny has very little to do with it. I have streaks of misogyny and I am - in no way, shape, or form - homosexual.

Certainly unfounded much,much more often than founded.

I object much more strongly to murder than I do to homosexuality. Does anyone want to claim that this means that deep down, I really want to be a murderer?

I object much more strongly to sexually-abusing children, than I do to homosexuality. Who wants to tell me that this means that deep down, I am a closet pedophile?

I could ignore homosexuality, if they weren't always in my face, demanding that I treat their sickness as if it is normal and proper, and calling me a bigot when I decline to do so; and especially if they weren't openly trying to insert their sickness into the very foundation of our society in a manner that can only have a destructive effect on all of us who must be part of this society.l
 
Doesn't matter. Your postings in the TV forum makes it clear that you don't have any big problems with stories that have a social agenda

That depends upon the social agenda in question, and how well it is handled.

I'm also legitimately curious as to which posts you are referring to.


It certainly sounds gay. I'll give it that much.


I'm still confused as to how you think posting a link to a forty year old firebombing case in any way refutes my claim that homosexuals are massively better off than African Americans were during the 1960s.

So who is forcing you to watch the other shows on TV?

This is the 3rd time I'm asking you this question. For some reason, you keep avoiding answering it.

It is spreading beyond those shows, which is making it harder and harder to avoid.

One of the more recent examples that comes to mind is the new show on Sci Fi channel, Defiance. Not ten minutes into the episode I watched, there was an extremely boring and uncomfortable five minute long love scene involving a lesbian couple, and not even of the supposedly "sexy" variety either.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no freaking reason whatsoever that a damn sci fi show about an alien occupied earth should need to have a "token gay couple" in the first place, let alone take that much time out of the plot to develop their relationship.

It's simply asinine pandering.
 
Last edited:
I could ignore homosexuality, if they weren't always in my face, demanding that I treat their sickness as if it is normal and proper, and calling me a bigot when I decline to do so; and especially if they weren't openly trying to insert their sickness into the very foundation of our society in a manner that can only have a destructive effect on all of us who must be part of this society.l

:fart
 
Back
Top Bottom