How to Be Gay

[m0dd3r]

From what I’ve read the course seems to really be a study in gay culture. And honestly, if you’ve ever hung out with some gay guys or gone to a gay bar, you should know that their world can be very different, culturally, than the straight one. If you think they’re evil (or what they do is evil) then so be it, you’re entitled to your opinion. But I hardly see any problems with offering a class on the subject at a public university.

If you’re not interested, don’t take it, simple as that. I fail to see how this constitutes a “nest of evil” though HH, care to expound on that a bit? (forgive me if you already have, I sort of skimmed the thread when it turned into a bunch of flames).

Jay

[Headhunter]

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:
From what I’ve read the course seems to really be a study in gay culture. And honestly, if you’ve ever hung out with some gay guys or gone to a gay bar, you should know that their world can be very different, culturally, than the straight one. If you think they’re evil (or what they do is evil) then so be it, you’re entitled to your opinion. But I hardly see any problems with offering a class on the subject at a public university.

If you’re not interested, don’t take it, simple as that. I fail to see how this constitutes a “nest of evil” though HH, care to expound on that a bit? (forgive me if you already have, I sort of skimmed the thread when it turned into a bunch of flames).

Jay[/quote]

When we tribalize education, black studies, women’s studies, gay lifestyle, and all that, it leads people to adopt a tribal outlook. America is an individualist country. When we become warring tribes, we’re done.

That being said, universities are being corrupted by a very left wing agenda. This instills anti-american values in impressionable young people. Those are the nests I was referring to. Its time to return to OBJECTIVE and IMPARTIAL education based upon FACTS, not someone’s gay agenda, or belief in how evil America is, or some other such evil shit.

[m0dd3r]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

When we tribalize education, black studies, women’s studies, gay lifestyle, and all that, it leads people to adopt a tribal outlook. America is an individualist country. When we become warring tribes, we’re done.

That being said, universities are being corrupted by a very left wing agenda. This instills anti-american values in impressionable young people. Those are the nests I was referring to. Its time to return to OBJECTIVE and IMPARTIAL education based upon FACTS, not someone’s gay agenda, or belief in how evil America is, or some other such evil shit.

[/quote]

Interesting point of view, and I agree with you to a point. But I see it as happening the other way around. I think the tribalization of education is more a reflection on the tribalization in our culture as a whole. America is a melting pot, always has been, diversity is one of the things that makes this country great, or at least it should be. Unfortunately a lot of the ethnic, social, and cultural groups in this country have a very xenophobic point of view.

This is nothing new though, look at the barrios and ghettos and ethnic neighborhoods throughout the past several hundred years of our history. Like people gravitate towards each other, whether it be because of a linguistic compatibility, cultural or religious similarities, or even sexual preference, I hardly think it can be blamed on the education system.

However, I will agree that there does exist a tendency to promote this kind of mentality in educational institutes. There are all sorts of ethnic groups, gay pride groups, religious groups, etc… that for the most part have good intentions, i.e. to share their cultures and beliefs and celebrate them. Unfortunately they can very easily cross the line from sharing and celebrating, to excluding and condescending. I think the idea of these classes in black history or cultures, womens studies, gay and lesbian studies, etc… is really done with the intention of informing people not familiar with those cultures and attempting to cross the borders between these tribes.

Regarding the nests of evil, I totally agree that education should be for the most part objective and based on facts. Although I don’t necessarily agree that a left-wing agenda is by nature anti-American, just a different way of looking at things. That’s one of my biggest problems with both parties these days, this notion of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” has been taken one step further to “if you’re not with us, you hate freedom and America”. Frankly it’s just not true. I tend to be rather middle of the road politically, mostly libertarian, but I agree with the gop on some issues and the dems on others. I’m not a big fan of the current administration, even though I voted bush over kerry in '04. But god help the next person to look me in the eye and call me anti-american (not saying you did, just a general observation).

Jay

[lucasa]

[quote]m0dd3r wrote:
From what I’ve read the course seems to really be a study in gay culture. And honestly, if you’ve ever hung out with some gay guys or gone to a gay bar, you should know that their world can be very different, culturally, than the straight one. If you think they’re evil (or what they do is evil) then so be it, you’re entitled to your opinion. But I hardly see any problems with offering a class on the subject at a public university.

If you’re not interested, don’t take it, simple as that. I fail to see how this constitutes a “nest of evil” though HH, care to expound on that a bit? (forgive me if you already have, I sort of skimmed the thread when it turned into a bunch of flames).

Jay[/quote]

This hearkens back to HH’s question about the title, ‘How to Be Gay’. If it were gay figures in cultural/political history, why is the title so askew (unless there’s an agenda and/or politicizing)?

And IMO, ‘gay culture’ is a misnomer for promiscuity. There are plenty of homosexuals who don’t partake of ‘gay culture’, unlike something like black culture or American culture.

[lucasa]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

You do know that almost every man in ancient Rome was bisexual? That only one Roman emperor liked women and only women?[/quote]

Yeah, we should model our society after Rome instead of extracting the best parts.

That plenty of animals have gay sex for no good reason?

They also consume their young and reproduce through forcible rape.

They go a little far sometimes, but in general, Americans can be biggoted about homosexuality. It is an unfair, and largely disgusting bias.

Is it bigoted and unfair if you aren’t discriminating against someone, but nor are you discriminating for?

[Brad61]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That being said, universities are being corrupted by a very left wing agenda. This instills anti-american values in impressionable young people. Those are the nests I was referring to. Its time to return to OBJECTIVE and IMPARTIAL education based upon FACTS, not someone’s gay agenda, or belief in how evil America is, or some other such evil shit.
[/quote]

This is just as much of a Kooky Cosnspiracy Theory as anything else floating around out there. You could just replace HOMOSEXUAL with COMMUNIST or LIZARD PEOPLE. Why hold back go for the Trifecta: “Our universities are being corrupted with a Gay Communist Lizard agenda!!!”

By the way, you realize that the Washington Times is owned by the kook Reverend Moon?

Anyway, I guess this line of crap is okay, if it scares rabid right wingers away from going to college. After all, America needs ditch diggers, too.

[bigflamer]

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Anyway, I guess this line of crap is okay, if it scares rabid right wingers away from going to college. After all, America needs ditch diggers, too.[/quote]

So, by not going to college, you end up a ditchdigger?

WTF?

[Sloth]

Can one find homosexual affection and sex repulsive without being:

A) A self denying homosexual.

or

B) Violent or rude to homosexuals

In short, can not one be repulsed by homosexuality, yet remain both cordial and heterosexual?

[Taran]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Lefties are silly and they have no power. Their ideas have never been realized because they contradict nature. There has never been a true “communist nation”. Every such state was nothing more than a totalitarian dictatorship, using left-wing ideology as it’s propaganda. [/quote]

While I agree with the idea of “left” contradicting “nature” I beleive it applies just as easily to the “right” (“” signifies stupid words that mean almost nothing and shouldn’t exist). I don’t think associating the american left with communism is accurate. Most of the main concerns of the american left are not possible under communism, and the left knows it.

The Soviet Union was right wing. So is Red China, and Cuba. They’re all statist regimes. Left-wing ideologies are anti-statist. Indeed, communism is simply one variation of anarchist doctrine.

I think you are getting some of your terms messed up here. Firstly, the left is not anti-state in fact it is conservatives who traditionally appose “big gov’t”. Anarchism and communism have nothing to do with each other…zero zilch nada etc. Anarchism is MORE fundamentally opposed to communism than than conservativism could POSSIBLY be. Anarchism is the complete rejection of the state. You cannot reject the state AND be a communist.

Stop worrying. The left will never win because it CAN’T win. On any issue. The conservatives have always been in charge and always will be. What, do you think everyone will become a fag all of a sudden because of some left-wing propaganda? It’s not going to happen. Nature has made us heterosexual, and human ideology isn’t going to overrule that. So long as boys have dicks, the majority of them will chase after girls.

At this point I am not really sure what you mean when you are refering to “the left”. There are states that currently exist that are defined by most as left wing. So in many places the left has “won”.
It is falicious to associate homosexuality with a political ideology. Traditional conservativism does not in any way oppose homosexuality. Were it not for a couple lines in the bible the homosexual community would probably get more support from conservatives than it does from liberals. As conservitism beleives more strongly in freedom and small gov’t.
Nature has made YOU heterosexual and it has made other homosexual. As someone mentioned previously nature has also made many dolphins, chimps, etc homosexual. If you want to discuss the posibility of a homosexual dolphin community actively brainwashing converts…I suggest you create a post to that end. Saying “animals eat their babies” does in no way invalidate this point.

[quote]The left will never win.
The left cannot win.
Because left-wing ideas violate the basic edicts of nature. These laws cannot be overruled.
The entire “left vs right” paradigm is a complete hoax, put on by the establishment to fool people into misdirecting their anger. [/quote]

I think you should elaborate on “left-wing ideas” and how they violate nature. I am not saying that you are wrong. It is important to be clear when making such broad statements. I agree completely that the left-right paradigm is a farce. It seems to be the worst in the US, undoubadly b/c the US only has 2 parties. Multi-party states seem to have an easier time seeing outside that box.

[quote]There’s no such thing as a “liberal establishment”. Never has been, never will be. The conservatives will stay in charge until the end of human history.
[/quote]

There will be no such thing as conservatives long long before the end of human history. Conservativism as an ideology only exists in the context of civilization, and industrialised civilization at that. I wouldn’t put my money on it as a relevant issue 100 years from now.

[quote]Humans will never be born equal, or at peace with one another, or respectful of different races, or homosexual, or any other idiotic left-wing fantasy. These notions are simply impossible. They contradict everything we know about the natural order of the world.

So let’s just forget about this shit.[/quote]

Its funny because thats pretty much a list of things people ARE born as. Two babies are completely equal until the state says otherwise. Two babies will not war until the state has told them too. Two babies don’t give a shit about race until their culture tells them too. I know that no matter what i say you won’t beleive this last bit, but some babies are born gay. I have no clue what anthropology/biology texts you have been reading…but i suggest you update your library.

[Taran]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can one find homosexual affection and sex repulsive without being:

A) A self denying homosexual.

or

B) Violent or rude to homosexuals

In short, can not one be repulsed by homosexuality, yet remain both cordial and heterosexual?
[/quote]

Yeah, I think so. That is a conditional “i think so” though. My guess would be that you (and many many other people) find it replusive b/c its something we are, largely, told is wrong. We are told its wrong and most of us never see homosexual affection. I think that its something people just need to “get used to” (i realize how messed up that sounds). I went through a similar process. I used to find homosexual affection, not disgusting, but it made me uncomfertable. After spending more time around my gay friends I just became comfertable with it. Thats for affection though not hardcore assbanging. Quite frankly I don’t really want to see most hetero people sexing it up, same goes for gay couples.

[Smitty88]

[quote]Taran wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Can one find homosexual affection and sex repulsive without being:

A) A self denying homosexual.

or

B) Violent or rude to homosexuals

In short, can not one be repulsed by homosexuality, yet remain both cordial and heterosexual?

Yeah, I think so. That is a conditional “i think so” though. My guess would be that you (and many many other people) find it replusive b/c its something we are, largely, told is wrong. We are told its wrong and most of us never see homosexual affection. I think that its something people just need to “get used to” (i realize how messed up that sounds). I went through a similar process. I used to find homosexual affection, not disgusting, but it made me uncomfertable. After spending more time around my gay friends I just became comfertable with it. Thats for affection though not hardcore assbanging. Quite frankly I don’t really want to see most hetero people sexing it up, same goes for gay couples.[/quote]

LOL asswipe post of the week.

[Shoebolt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can one find homosexual affection and sex repulsive without being:

A) A self denying homosexual.

or

B) Violent or rude to homosexuals

In short, can not one be repulsed by homosexuality, yet remain both cordial and heterosexual?

Undoubtedly. I don’t agree with homosexuality at all. However they are still people, have their own values and human rights nevertheless. Plus most are really nice people when you talk to them. I’m still heterosexual. Just because I don’t agree with something and vote against it, doesn’t mean I can impose it on the person.

And we so…SO need to start a Photoshop thread for Headhunter.

[/quote]

[steveo5801]

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
OK, so would you be in favor of a course in “How to Become A Christian” in a public University as long as people aren’t forced to take it?

Do you guys realize that the course isn’t literally “How to Become Gay”. The course is designed for gay men. Gay men, you see, are already homosexual.

As I’m about to submit this, I realize some of you will still be confused about the course. If you need help try the Google. It took me 10 seconds.[/quote]

Fine. Then I will re-phrase my question. To those who are in favor of such a “course” in a university setting, would you all be in favor of a course titled “The Principles of Fundamental, Bible-Believing Christianity?”

yes or no…?

[Taran]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Fine. Then I will re-phrase my question. To those who are in favor of such a “course” in a university setting, would you all be in favor of a course titled “The Principles of Fundamental, Bible-Believing Christianity?”

yes or no…?
[/quote]

Of course. A course like that has just as much a right to exist in a Religious Studies program as “How to be Gay” does in Womens Studies.

[Brad61]

After reading this thread, I’m guessing some of you guys never went to college, and don’t have a clue how it works.

First of all, nobody makes you go to college. So nobody is forcing an ideology on you. You go to college because you want to go.

Second of all, these are not kindergardeners, they are adult students. What kind of dope gets brainwashed in a class? If that is possible, then these people should be prevented from watching TV or going to the movies, where they might be brainwashed even further. Anybody who is that suggestible, that they have no character or opinions of their own, and just become a reflection of their surroundings… well you would have to wonder about their upbringing.

Third, college classes are mostly electives. Certain core classes are requirements, such as math or science. In the category that you would have broadly called ‘social studies’ in high school, the college student can pick and choose classes on topics that he is interested in.

Anybody who is that worried about this non-issue of ‘indoctrination’ should call their local university and ask them to send you a catalogue of their upcoming semester. You’ll see that there is a broad range of subject choices for most students, especially in the the ‘humanities’ or social studies.

And if the local university is still too liberal for your tastes, students can always go to conservative schools like Bob Jones University, BYU, and a whole bunch of other conservative colleges. That’s how the free market works. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone, at college… you’re paying a fortune to be there. If you don’t like that class, then pick classes you do like. If you don’t like that school, then go to a school you like.

[Michael570]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
OK, so would you be in favor of a course in “How to Become A Christian” in a public University as long as people aren’t forced to take it?

Do you guys realize that the course isn’t literally “How to Become Gay”. The course is designed for gay men. Gay men, you see, are already homosexual.

As I’m about to submit this, I realize some of you will still be confused about the course. If you need help try the Google. It took me 10 seconds.

Fine. Then I will re-phrase my question. To those who are in favor of such a “course” in a university setting, would you all be in favor of a course titled “The Principles of Fundamental, Bible-Believing Christianity?”

yes or no…?
[/quote]

Definitely yes. Why wouldn’t we?

[TNRANDY]

" Brad61 wrote:
Anyway, I guess this line of crap is okay, if it scares rabid right wingers away from going to college. After all, America needs ditch diggers, too.

bigflamer wrote:
So, by not going to college, you end up a ditchdigger?

WTF? "

By not going to college, you end up in Vietnam / Iraq.

"Sloth wrote:

Can one find homosexual affection and sex repulsive without being:

A) A self denying homosexual.

or

B) Violent or rude to homosexuals

In short, can not one be repulsed by homosexuality, yet remain both cordial and heterosexual?
"

Maybe you should ask Rev. Ted Haggard.

[Sloth]

[quote]randycamtn wrote:

In short, can not one be repulsed by homosexuality, yet remain both cordial and heterosexual?
"

Maybe you should ask Rev. Ted Haggard.[/quote]

Hmm, not sure why you answered like that. I’m talking about Heterosexuals. Haggard, having employed at least one male hooker, is hardly a heterosexual. No matter what he claimed.

[ALDurr]

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
After reading this thread, I’m guessing some of you guys never went to college, and don’t have a clue how it works.

First of all, nobody makes you go to college. So nobody is forcing an ideology on you. You go to college because you want to go.

Second of all, these are not kindergardeners, they are adult students. What kind of dope gets brainwashed in a class? If that is possible, then these people should be prevented from watching TV or going to the movies, where they might be brainwashed even further.

Anybody who is that suggestible, that they have no character or opinions of their own, and just become a reflection of their surroundings… well you would have to wonder about their upbringing.

Third, college classes are mostly electives. Certain core classes are requirements, such as math or science. In the category that you would have broadly called ‘social studies’ in high school, the college student can pick and choose classes on topics that he is interested in.

Anybody who is that worried about this non-issue of ‘indoctrination’ should call their local university and ask them to send you a catalogue of their upcoming semester. You’ll see that there is a broad range of subject choices for most students, especially in the the ‘humanities’ or social studies.

And if the local university is still too liberal for your tastes, students can always go to conservative schools like Bob Jones University, BYU, and a whole bunch of other conservative colleges. That’s how the free market works.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone, at college… you’re paying a fortune to be there. If you don’t like that class, then pick classes you do like. If you don’t like that school, then go to a school you like. [/quote]

Thank you! Finally, someone who gets it!

[jsbrook]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
OK, so would you be in favor of a course in “How to Become A Christian” in a public University as long as people aren’t forced to take it?

Do you guys realize that the course isn’t literally “How to Become Gay”. The course is designed for gay men. Gay men, you see, are already homosexual.

As I’m about to submit this, I realize some of you will still be confused about the course. If you need help try the Google. It took me 10 seconds.

Fine. Then I will re-phrase my question. To those who are in favor of such a “course” in a university setting, would you all be in favor of a course titled “The Principles of Fundamental, Bible-Believing Christianity?”

yes or no…?
[/quote]

Yes. Both would be fine as electives. There already religious studies programs at most universities. I can’t imagine many students who are not gay who’d be interested in taking the gay course. For that matter, few who aren’t fundamentalists would likely be interested in the Fundamental Chrisitan course.

And those who aren’t gay will not ‘turn’ gay at the age of 18 by being exposed to it. That’s not how it works. There is an environmental aspect to homsosexuality though it’s largely genetic. But there are no knowledgeable people-scientists or psychologists-who believe that homosexuality develops after the age that normal sexual desires and preferences assert themselves, well before the age of 18.

To the extent homosexuality is environmentally influenced and the latent genetic proensity expressed it occurs in youth.