What is this "gay agenda" that I've heard so much about?

[Stile]

Nice try, I tried posting links to New scientists about homosexuality, they wouldn't read it even though it showed that it lead to higher birth rates (I had to keep pointing it out no one would read it) In women who had homosexuals in their familly and explained why it existed despite there arguments of it being detrimental to human development, it seems God placed a system in our survival mechanism that lead to more births, those who read it will deny it or ignore it, science is not something they want to indulge in; I support your effort, but your talking to people to who opinion matters more than science. though.

Reason means nothing to fools, and science means nothing to God

Yeah, there are gay dolphins. Dolphins also kill their young when they are inconvenient, just like us. What else does New Science say we should learn from dolphins and livestock?

 

[croxis]

Sidhe, I know. I know of the study youa re talking about too. I searched for the author in my university journal database, and hes done a lot of work on homosexuals. (apparently homosexual men are, erm, bigger on average than there heterosexual male counterparts)

I think the big reason why I posted it was to provide more information for us and a guiding path as the last paragraph or two that I quoted.

Wow I did not construct that last sentence well...

 

[croxis]

The argument of gay animals is to point out that non-heterosexuality is, indeed natural. It doesn't (and shouldn't) make any value claim.

 

[Masquerouge]

Yeah, there are gay dolphins. Dolphins also kill their young when they are inconvenient, just like us. What else does New Science say we should learn from dolphins and livestock?

Again, I ask you: what do you want? You keep criticizing anything that tends to support the view that gay people are just people. But what's your take on the issue? What would your ideal world be like?

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah, there are gay dolphins. Dolphins also kill their young when they are inconvenient, just like us. What else does New Science say we should learn from dolphins and livestock?

It shows us that making analogies to dolphins are irrelevant, it shows us the humans are in their own category, it shows us that science will triumph over ignorance, if nothing else, it shows us that some people will try and use animal society as a comparisson for something else, when human based research actually shows human society: and human based research is much more telling; I refer the honourable gentleman to the arguments someone actually stated some moments ago, that you ignored in favour of a species that has no relevance; cmon stop launching into straw man argument, your not going to convince anyone of anything unless you use Homo Sapiens as a basis, and not religion, opinion, or ill concieved trite nonsense. Let's see your scientific reasoning? Can you show links? Or is this just some ill educated bias based on opinion, sounds like a straw man, smells like a strawman, looks like a strawman, hell it friggin is a strawman.

 

[MobBoss]

Show me anyway, if I'm wrong it'll be an education, links.

Hell I'm used to being wrong, at least this day would of been worth it, I'd of learnt something I didn't already know

Heres are a few: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3482169.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1134291.stm

A few snippets:

Highest levels

New diagnoses among gay men are now at the highest level since tests became widely available in the 1980s.

HIV statistics
Gay and bisexual men are at the greatest risk
Out of the 2,868 new diagnosis last year 1,315 were heterosexually obtained

Plenty more out there on the net about it as well. Not hard to find.

 

[croxis]

Risk and probably assumes the behavior of all individuals are the same, which is very much not true.

1) Being gay has nothing to do with the probability, only the act puts person at risk.

2) Do not treat this like quantum uncertainty principle.

3) Origonally condoms were mostly used to prevent pregancies, therefor homosexual males had no need of it.

4) When HIV was introduced into the gay population in propagated quickly because of this.

5) All other factors equal (number of parterns, duration of relationships, network theory model used, whatever you want), a homosexual male will be at higher risk than a heterosexual femal simply because the proportions of infected homosexual males is higher than heterosexual males.

6) All of this is HIV discussion is irrelevant. The probability of a monogamous homosexual male with no other sexual history from another monogamous homosexual male with no other sexual history, both having no drug use, infected mother, and no transfusion will always have a probability of 0 of contracting HIV.

 

[MobBoss]

6) All of this is HIV discussion is irrelevant. The probability of a monogamous homosexual male with no other sexual history from another monogamous homosexual male with no other sexual history, both having no drug use, infected mother, and no transfusion will always have a probability of 0 of contracting HIV.

How much does his risk rise if he runs off to Hampton Heath at 3 am for anonymous gay sex with a stranger?

 

[croxis]

You set up my next point very well and exactly as I expected.

Thee issue is not about sexual orientation but promiscuousness, which, while related, is another seperate issue altogether.

Source of quote

Part of what amplified the penetration of the US by HIV/AIDS was the distinctly promiscuous, multiple partner sexual subculture of homosexuals in the US. IN this setting, a relatively small number of cases could rapidly and profoundly spread AIDS/HIV by sheer numbers of encounters and multiple partners, who then infect more people in the same fashion.

This model in the early US outbreak of HIV/AIDS had a few unfortunate consequences:

(1) it amplified the stereotype of the promiscuous gay male/bathhouse subcultre of gay men as being the principal model for sexual mores among gay men;

(2) it allowed a mischaracterisation of AIDS/HIV as a "gay disease", both as what was demographic reality in the early stages of the US outbreak, and it gave a pseudo-empirical basis for those who didn't like or approve of male homosexuality in the first place (this despite the fact that AIDS/HIV is a primarily heterosexual pandemic in Africa)

 

[Stile]

So what do you want?

The end of special interest groups joining together to influence society (not individuals) would be nice. They never end as they have a life of their own, stir up discontent, and generally magnify our differences even if they originally had a purpose. (EX: NARP, NAACP, aspects of NEA or GSLU or pro-family associations) This thread to me isn't about gays; it's about the gay agenda, and contrary to many posters, gay groups do form agendas. I'd rather us all just be individuals than joining groups.

Tolerance: I reserve the right to make irrational judgements on any group that decides to be a group as long as I don't discriminate against an individual. For instance I don't like Texans, French Canadians, police officers, people with mohawks or piercings not on the ear (punks), women with fake breasts, and gays; it doesn't have to make sense. Generally I'll ignore them and I resent when their identity gets shoved in my face. I give individuals the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure someone doesn't like Christians, handsome staight men, or witty posters. Fine, go ahead and dislike me, when I force it on you.

Gay marriage: I don't care. I'd just assume government get out of the marriage business, but for simplicity sake, fine do it, I don't think it is going to be very popular by most homosexuals anyway. Marriage couldn't get more meaningless on the national stage anyway.

Private stuff stays private: A person's sex life should be the last thing I know about them, even if they do define themselves by their sexuality.

Children: When it comes to anything controversial, keep things transparent in schools.

OK, so I don't have many opinions on gays.

 

[sysyphus]

Tomorrow tolerance and progressiveness will require I join in.

If anybody ever expects you to actually become involved in a homosexual act, then PM me. I will be there in the shortest amount of time possible and the most vocal person advocating your right as a human being to not take part in any activity you wish not to be part of.

 

[croxis]

The problem with your argument is that individuals do not fit the stereotypes you try to force onto them, which is really what you are doing.

The argument for a strong government is based on people are irrational, while a small weak government is based in the argument that humans are rational and can take care of themselves.

Your argument about small government (getting out of marriage) and that you want to be irrational is a contradiction of what the founding fathers established.

 

[mdwh]

Turns out that includes things such as gay parades. It worked for the Irish in NY in the 1800's, why not homosexuals? Of course the Irish didn't dress as the opposite sex and wear sex toys outside their clothing (atleast to my knowledge, I wasn't there).

Um, homosexuality has nothing to do with cross-dressing or sex toys. You are confusing it with other issues such as transgenderism and BDSM.

The confusion may be down to the fact that in some cases, there are parades which feature many groups - gay, bisexual, transgender, BDSM, polyamory and so on. These are all different concepts, though they all share the need of wanting to raise awareness and so on.

Of course, you also have to reach the next generation. Now a child can't be expected to know if they are gay, and if they are gay they shouldn't be put in a situation where they are treated differently. Parents can't be trusted here. Therefore, there must be mandatory gay sex education for all children in public school. Everyone confortable with this?

There should be safe sex education full stop, it doesn't have to be biased towards a particular sexuality. So you have "use a condom, whether it's vaginal or anal sex" (straight people have anal sex too by the way, and some gay people don't, so the idea of teaching "gay sex" is nonsensical in the first place). I don't see anyone arguing for teaching kids the details on how to have good anal sex, or how to have specifically boy-on-boy action.

Also, the military figures prominently. Gays should be able to serve openly and equally is what the gay agenda says. To the typical person this might not seem like a big deal. To someone in the military, the problems with this are very evident and include the extremely close quarters and lack of seperate showers in most situations. Able to be overcome? Maybe. Worth it? I doubt it.

What's to overcome - some people's homophobic idea that gay people are going to rape them in the showers? I'd hope it is worth it.

Well, in the gay community you get multiple short-lived sexual partners evidenced by the horrific spread of AIDS through said community. In the hetero community you get adultery and families torn apart from divorce. The gay community (atleast not the current one) didn't create this myth, but they certainly have done their share to promote it, as excepting the recent drive for gay marriage (which I doubt is that supported in the gay community), it is a core part of their lifestyle. One which they seek to make near universal and therefore without critics.

Are you pretending to play the part of one of the "there's an evil gay agenda" people, like some of the rest of the replies, and I've been fooled, or are you serious here? Last time I looked you get multiple short-lived sexual partners in the straight "lifestyle" too. Make near universal - what's that supposed to mean?

 

[mdwh]

I think the problem is that if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (as a lot of people against homosexual rights seem to believe) then the gay agenda could also be seen as gay people turning your kids and our society into MORE gay people!

Yeah, that's ridiculous, but not if you believe that being gay is a choice.

True, though I still see it as ridiculous even then, since being straight would also be a choice, and so it would still be symmetric.

They seem to want to have it both ways - that somehow being gay specifically is a choice, but sexuality in general isn't (I'm not sure whether they think bisexuality is a choice - oh wait, of course, bisexuality doesn't exist).

 

[Stile]

Um, homosexuality has nothing to do with cross-dressing or sex toys. You are confusing it with other issues such as transgenderism and BDSM.

Accepted, I'm no expert.

The confusion may be down to the fact that in some cases, there are parades which feature many groups - gay, bisexual, transgender, BDSM, polyamory and so on. These are all different concepts, though they all share the need of wanting to raise awareness and so on.

Why do they want to raise awareness? I can see raising awareness of prejudiced action against them or something similar, but why raise awareness of their lifestyle.

What's to overcome - some people's homophobic idea that gay people are going to rape them in the showers? I'd hope it is worth it.

I meant overcome the logistics of different quartering similar to that of women and men.

Are you pretending to play the part of one of the "there's an evil gay agenda" people, like some of the rest of the replies, and I've been fooled, or are you serious here? Last time I looked you get multiple short-lived sexual partners in the straight "lifestyle" too. Make near universal - what's that supposed to mean?

I've gotten a little carried away in this thread, but not here. I admit the popular straight lifestyle is multiple short-lived partners, with the added effect of destroying families. I don't participate in that lifestyle and I think it is wrong and harmful to those who do. For gays, atleast in America, AIDS makes it more harmful. I guess I mentioned HIV here to counter an argument I expected: most gays are monogamous.

 

[sysyphus]

Why do they want to raise awareness? I can see raising awareness of prejudiced action against them or something similar, but why raise awareness of their lifestyle.

They want raise awareness that their love lives are not creepy or disgusting as many people believe. It's for the very reason you state: to end the prejudices against them.

 

[Stile]

It shows us that making analogies to dolphins are irrelevant, it shows us the humans are in their own category, it shows us that science will triumph over ignorance, if nothing else, it shows us that some people will try and use animal society as a comparisson for something else, when human based research actually shows human society: and human based research is much more telling; I refer the honourable gentleman to the arguments someone actually stated some moments ago, that you ignored in favour of a species that has no relevance; cmon stop launching into straw man argument, your not going to convince anyone of anything unless you use Homo Sapiens as a basis, and not religion, opinion, or ill concieved trite nonsense. Let's see your scientific reasoning? Can you show links? Or is this just some ill educated bias based on opinion, sounds like a straw man, smells like a strawman, looks like a strawman, hell it friggin is a strawman.

It's not a strawman because I didn't mention dolphins first, the article did. The cause is irrelevant to me. I have no reason to prove it one way or another. Some people are prone to cowardice, others to bravery, some to alcoholism, others to over-working. I could go on. To me, it could be natural/genetic, it wouldn't change my opinions of things, because whether we, homosapiens, are at our best or at our worst, whatever we do is still the product of a choice. As far as cause, science may have the only answer, but it's still the wrong question.

 

[GenMarshall]

What's to overcome - some people's homophobic idea that gay people are going to rape them in the showers? I'd hope it is worth it.

What ever you do, dont drop the soap .

They want raise awareness that their love lives are not creepy or disgusting as many people believe. It's for the very reason you state: to end the prejudices against them.

Um, ok. They want to raise awareness about their sexual lifestyle by parading around wearing flamboyant clothing and wearing and waving around dilldos. It only makes their love lives more creapyer as well as reenforce the negative steryotypes towards them.

 

[Cuivienen]

Um, ok. They want to raise awareness about their sexual lifestyle by parading around wearing flamboyant clothing and wearing and waving around dilldos. It only makes their love lives more creapyer as well as reenforce the negative steryotypes towards them.

Yes, well, all the drunk people of Irish ancestry out in New York on St. Patrick's Day aren't really all that comforting, either, and they don't do much to dispell stereotypes. To some extent, I think it's about embracing the stereotype and making it your own: maybe it's not so bad to be that stereotype.

 

[MobBoss]

Um, homosexuality has nothing to do with cross-dressing or sex toys.

I would say a lot of lesbians would disagree with you.