Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays. Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.[/quote]

Keep reading your far right websites and stop wasting our time pretending you aren’t a homophobe.

[/quote]

Okay so I used a derogatory term once. Don’t you have anything better to do than search my old posts? How about contributing to the discussion?
[/quote]

I could remember that off the top of my head it wasn’t that long ago.

Don’t YOU have anything better to do than post articles from far right websites on topics you have no idea of actually changing your thoughts on?

How is showing that you flat lie about things not contributing to the discussion?

You don’t actually want me to go through your old posts because it hasn’t been once and you probably know it. I’ll save you the embarrassment though as long as you don’t pretend your history is different. [/quote]

It’s a term I almost never use and shouldn’t have used. However I don’t think anyone has been harmed by the fact that I said ‘faggotry’ once.[/quote]

I didn’t say anyone had been. I’m just saying you can’t really run around and say you haven’t said spiteful things towards homosexuals because you have. And that’s just the one off the top of my head. I won’t go searching through your other posts, but I’d be surprised if it’s the only one given the venom in those posts.

62

[quote]H factor wrote:
Serious question:

Why when talking about “homosexual propaganda” do you quote a far right confirmation bias that IS propaganda to the right wing ideals which you want to believe. What about your own propaganda you’re reading? A website with a link on the main page to an article about what same sex marriage has done to Mass. isn’t propaganda?

Or is bias only a problem when you can blame it on the left wing? Is propaganda only bad when it’s different from what you want to believe? [/quote]

So what’s your argument? That everything constitutes propaganda?

63

You can’t really ward off all of us at the same time, so I’m going to come back later and pick up where I left off.

64

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.[/quote]

This is really the big one, the one that’s driving your position, isn’t it? [/quote]

It’s the one that all the rest will reduce to, in the end. I will challenge assumption after assumption after assumption, and, finally, the entire argument will be exposed as an outgrowth of this glaringly unproved assumption.[/quote]

Sorry, I forgot to mark it with a spoiler alert. Carry on.

65

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.[/quote]

This is really the big one, the one that’s driving your position, isn’t it? [/quote]

It’s the one that all the rest will reduce to, in the end. I will challenge assumption after assumption after assumption, and, finally, the entire argument will be exposed as an outgrowth of this glaringly unproved assumption.[/quote]

Sorry, I forgot to mark it with a spoiler alert. Carry on.
[/quote]

Hahaha.

I don’t mean that I actually will. I doubt very much that we make it that far.

I should have said, “I would.”

So, you haven’t spoiled anything.

66

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Serious question:

Why when talking about “homosexual propaganda” do you quote a far right confirmation bias that IS propaganda to the right wing ideals which you want to believe. What about your own propaganda you’re reading? A website with a link on the main page to an article about what same sex marriage has done to Mass. isn’t propaganda?

Or is bias only a problem when you can blame it on the left wing? Is propaganda only bad when it’s different from what you want to believe? [/quote]

So what’s your argument? That everything constitutes propaganda?
[/quote]

My argument is that your “exposing” article about homosexuality was from a website that makes no attempt to hide its biases.

You regularly post from websites that make no attempt to hide the political agenda they have and yet you have a problem with other points of view.

Your article about homosexual propaganda was a link to a website with it’s own propaganda on the opposite view. Why does one bother you and not the other?

67

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You can’t really ward off all of us at the same time, so I’m going to come back later and pick up where I left off.[/quote]

No, no, please, carry on. I’ll step out.

68

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And you think that scripture is the go to source for right and wrong?!?

[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Why?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’d like to see you prove that absolute right and absolute wrong actually exist. And if you can prove that, then I’d like to see how you will prove that scripture is the path to that idea of absolute right and wrong.
[/quote]

I can’t prove it. However it is self evident that right and wrong cannot be determined by individuals as this would preclude universality.[/quote]

So then, give me a list of absolute right’s and absolute wrong’s.

69

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Eh, there are some theories as to why homosexuality occurs, and why it’s attached to the x chromosome. One explanation, with more male children it’s already known that the likelihood for women to have gay children is increased exponentially.

How would this benefit a social species like humans? I don’t know, maybe having a young man in your clan, who wont run off and marry, and actually stay home would be a boon for a mothers survivability? This is an anthropological explanation as to why it could be a relatively normal thing to happen.

[/quote]

But not a very good one as a gay man would be just as likely to run off with another man. And in biological terms a young man is more valuable to the species than a menopausal woman.

It doesn’t increase survivability. Quite the contrary. And overpopulation is dealt with by famine, plague and war.

It seems to me that you’re grasping at straws.
[/quote]

The thing about gay men running off together. Generally what happens with men and women is they have children, the man has to do his share in providing for that woman.

Such a thing doesn’t happen with gay men and offspring, so that aspect of resource, protection, and provisions can stay with a family or clan unit. It seems to make sense when you simply think out the mechanics of social animals.

[/quote]

If what you are suggesting is true then one would expect to see more gay men living with their mothers than straight men. I have not seen any evidence of that. And it doesn’t explain lesbianism either.

70

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Serious question:

Why when talking about “homosexual propaganda” do you quote a far right confirmation bias that IS propaganda to the right wing ideals which you want to believe. What about your own propaganda you’re reading? A website with a link on the main page to an article about what same sex marriage has done to Mass. isn’t propaganda?

Or is bias only a problem when you can blame it on the left wing? Is propaganda only bad when it’s different from what you want to believe? [/quote]

So what’s your argument? That everything constitutes propaganda?
[/quote]

My argument is that your “exposing” article about homosexuality was from a website that makes no attempt to hide its biases.

You regularly post from websites that make no attempt to hide the political agenda they have and yet you have a problem with other points of view.

Your article about homosexual propaganda was a link to a website with it’s own propaganda on the opposite view. Why does one bother you and not the other?

Take your blinders off and realize THIS is also propaganda.

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts - 2012 [/quote]

Morality by its very nature must discriminate. If you want to call it propaganda then do so by all means. However the article I linked to does not advocate Goebbels’ ‘big lie.’ The book in question does. It reads like one of Goebbels’ diatribes on propaganda techniques.

71

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Why?

[/quote]

Because I believe in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

So then, give me a list of absolute right’s and absolute wrong’s.
[/quote]

Absolute right: Obeying G-d.

Absolute wrong: Disobeying G-d.

72

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Morality by its very nature must discriminate. If you want to call it propaganda then do so by all means. However the article I linked to does not advocate Goebbels’ ‘big lie.’ The book in question does. It reads like one of Goebbels’ diatribes on propaganda techniques.[/quote]

You need to look into what Goebbels actually said about Big Lies, and in what context.

73

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. The biological and social function of sex is procreation. Homosexuality subverts this function.
    [/quote]

Well, that is one hell of a collection of assumption and fallacy. Let’s start at beginning.

“The biological and social function of sex is procreation.” According to whom? Do you mean that sex is intended for procreation? Intended by whom?

Or are you simply making the rather banal observation that certain kinds of sex lead to procreation? It does not follow from this that other kinds are immoral.[/quote]

So your argument is that procreation is not the function of sex but merely an incidental biproduct of a certain type of sex? That argument is entirely devoid of reason.

74

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Morality by its very nature must discriminate. If you want to call it propaganda then do so by all means. However the article I linked to does not advocate Goebbels’ ‘big lie.’ The book in question does. It reads like one of Goebbels’ diatribes on propaganda techniques.[/quote]

You need to look into what Goebbels actually said about Big Lies, and in what context.[/quote]

I am fully aware of what Goebbels said and what Hitler said about big lies. Hitler coined the phrase first in Mein Kampf alleging Jews lied about Ludendorff losing the First World War. Goebbels used the phrase in two contexts:

  1. Churchill’s alleged lies.

and

  1. How to lie to your own people and have them believe you.

The second use of the phrase by Goebbels is the one commonly referred to when using the expression ‘big lie.’

75

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3. [/quote]

Not really. The only people I bear hatred towards are evil people such as murderers. And as I’ve said before I don’t believe that gays are any more evil than the rest of the population. What I do believe is that they are suffering from an illness. And I have sympathy for people who are sick.
[/quote]

Like being born deaf or blind? On some levels, I agree with you. On other levels, I suspect society labeling them as “defective” contributes to the suicide and drug statistics you cited.

[/quote]

If that were the case we should expect to see a significant decline in those numbers over the last 20 years owing to the increasing acceptance and normalisation of homosexuality in society.
[/quote]

Causation on things like that are tough to assess. I also think that the significant increase in acceptance and normalization are much more recent, as there still isn’t even one openly gay NFL player. In any event, I haven’t seen any evidence that treating homosexuality as a defect helps improve the suicide rate or drug-use rate either, so what is the point of demonizing it?

As a personal analogy, I’m left handed. Being left handed used to be viewed as a defect and the powers that be tried to “fix” lefties, even in my lifetime, by making us “learn” how to be right handed. Of course I could pretend to be right handed and learn how to do things right handed out of necessity, but on my best day I still threw the ball like a proverbial girl when I was forced to wear a right-handed baseball glove. At some point I got fed up and simply refused to participate in any activities if I couldn’t do it as a lefty and I made a point never to capitulate on this issue for fear that I would underperform on basic tasks for the rest of my life if I didn’t demand to be recognized as a lefty. As far as I was concerned you could shove that snowflake art project and those useless right-handed scissors where the sun don’t shine if I wasn’t allowed to use left handed scissors.

The point being–at the risk of trivializing the issue, and recognizing the analogy isn’t perfect–given my stance on left-handedness and my personal experience, I’m pretty sure if I were gay I’d be militant about it not being considered a defect as well, and I mean in-your-fucking-face militant about it, and I can understand why homosexuals employ “tactics” to gain acceptance and to try and normalize their “illness,” “condition,” or “defect.”
[/quote]

Left handedness is not immoral, does not harm society or individuals, is not an illness or defect, does not upturn established norms and mores and is not a public health problem. Apples and oranges.

76

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3. [/quote]

Not really. The only people I bear hatred towards are evil people such as murderers. And as I’ve said before I don’t believe that gays are any more evil than the rest of the population. What I do believe is that they are suffering from an illness. And I have sympathy for people who are sick.
[/quote]

Like being born deaf or blind? On some levels, I agree with you. On other levels, I suspect society labeling them as “defective” contributes to the suicide and drug statistics you cited.

[/quote]

If that were the case we should expect to see a significant decline in those numbers over the last 20 years owing to the increasing acceptance and normalisation of homosexuality in society.
[/quote]

Causation on things like that are tough to assess. I also think that the significant increase in acceptance and normalization are much more recent, as there still isn’t even one openly gay NFL player. In any event, I haven’t seen any evidence that treating homosexuality as a defect helps improve the suicide rate or drug-use rate either, so what is the point of demonizing it?

As a personal analogy, I’m left handed. Being left handed used to be viewed as a defect and the powers that be tried to “fix” lefties, even in my lifetime, by making us “learn” how to be right handed. Of course I could pretend to be right handed and learn how to do things right handed out of necessity, but on my best day I still threw the ball like a proverbial girl when I was forced to wear a right-handed baseball glove. At some point I got fed up and simply refused to participate in any activities if I couldn’t do it as a lefty and I made a point never to capitulate on this issue for fear that I would underperform on basic tasks for the rest of my life if I didn’t demand to be recognized as a lefty. As far as I was concerned you could shove that snowflake art project and those useless right-handed scissors where the sun don’t shine if I wasn’t allowed to use left handed scissors.

The point being–at the risk of trivializing the issue, and recognizing the analogy isn’t perfect–given my stance on left-handedness and my personal experience, I’m pretty sure if I were gay I’d be militant about it not being considered a defect as well, and I mean in-your-fucking-face militant about it, and I can understand why homosexuals employ “tactics” to gain acceptance and to try and normalize their “illness,” “condition,” or “defect.”
[/quote]

Left handedness is not immoral . . . does not upturn established norms and mores . . . Apples and oranges.
[/quote]

I’ll spot you this one.

77

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?

78

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So what are your facts, logic and proof for not accepting their behavior and lifestyle?[/quote]

See related citations as well. There’s also the facts that they regularly bring up themselves of high suicide rates and drug use.[/quote]

So this is what you call good science? How can you seriously accept stuff like this and ignore things like global warming studies?[/quote]

Lol!

79

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. The biological and social function of sex is procreation. Homosexuality subverts this function.[/quote]

Do you oppose anal and oral intercourse? Because those sure as hell do not lead to procreation, and are the only ways that homosexuals can have intercourse with one another…

Btw. The use of “intercourse” is absolutely intentional.

Your sentence is problematic because it precludes the belief that intercourse can be for fun. I realize that you’re footing the Christian line that intercourse must be for creating babies and that only.

And the fundamental issue is that the only support you have for the above belief is that God wills it. And some of us disagree with that notion.

So all of this really just goes back to theology.

Since virtually all of your beliefs just lead back to your belief in God, and some of us do not, there is no way to reconcile this without dealing with God. Which is a topic that people have tried since Christianity existed and have failed to convince one side or another conclusively.

In short, this entire debate is pointless. There is no way either side can convince the other, and so the only thing people strive to achieve here are ego-stroking and just hardening of opinions.

Unfortunately, I really do not like the hardening of opinions. So I step out now.

80

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Morality by its very nature must discriminate. If you want to call it propaganda then do so by all means. However the article I linked to does not advocate Goebbels’ ‘big lie.’ The book in question does. It reads like one of Goebbels’ diatribes on propaganda techniques.[/quote]

You LINKED to a far right propaganda website in order to attack the other sides propaganda? How are you not getting this? You constantly link to far right websites which help confirm stuff you already believe to be true. They back up your thinking.

This is why the “discussion” is a waste of time. The entire “mass resistance” website is pushing an agenda and you have the gal to call out something else pushing an agenda? Really? Do you honestly feel as if the website you linked is not pushing an agenda? It’s not like it is trying to hide it.

You just happen to agree with what they are pushing so it doesn’t bother you.

You can choke on this type of irony.