Homosexuality In Media

[why me]

That's no kidding but you could replace the word homosexuality with sexuality. I happened to watch the Grammys for the first time in many years. What a disgusting display of sexuality right from the starting gun at 7pm in my TV viewing area. It led up to a wedding where many SSM were wedded before the camera with Queen Latifa and Madonna presiding. 

 

We just bought our TV right after Christmas. It was our first TV since 2006. What a waste of money. Between that and the news pounding at you for 24/7 I'm ready to repair that TV with a baseball bat.

The ssm agenda is to turn the hearts and minds of the americans to the ssm cause. It has been going on for years now. The plan was simple: show gays in hetero normal circumstances in sitcoms, have them have hetero monogamous moral values and be the guy next door type. What was missing from the sitcoms was the deviant version of homosexuality. This was not permitted to have in the sitcoms. No homosexual promiscuity was allowed. Gay men were monogamous and funny. And the strategy worked.

[why me]

Exactly! We as a society are robbing our children of their childhood by prematurely sexualizing them--including, though not exclusively, through exploitative gay indoctrination. in fact, hetero-sexualization of our children may even be worse because it is so pervasive.

 

So, my answer to the poll would be an emphatic, no. Let kids be kids, and leave adult issues of sexuality of any orientation to adults.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

America is not the only country with such a problem. Take a look at this and weep:

 

http://yle.fi/uutiset/out_of_the_mouths_of_babes_gay_lesbian_beer_cider/6461916

 

Such is childhood today in the western world.

[jkwilliams]

The ssm agenda is to turn the hearts and minds of the americans to the ssm cause. It has been going on for years now. The plan was simple: show gays in hetero normal circumstances in sitcoms, have them have hetero monogamous moral values and be the guy next door type. What was missing from the sitcoms was the deviant version of homosexuality. This was not permitted to have in the sitcoms. No homosexual promiscuity was allowed. Gay men were monogamous and funny. And the strategy worked.

 

So, you're criticizing gays for promiscuity, yet you want to deny them the right to enter into legally supported, long-term, committed relationships. That makes a whole lot of sense. 

[rockpond]

The ssm agenda is to turn the hearts and minds of the americans to the ssm cause. It has been going on for years now. The plan was simple: show gays in hetero normal circumstances in sitcoms, have them have hetero monogamous moral values and be the guy next door type. What was missing from the sitcoms was the deviant version of homosexuality. This was not permitted to have in the sitcoms. No homosexual promiscuity was allowed. Gay men were monogamous and funny. And the strategy worked.

 

Really?  You mean sitcoms don't show sexual deviancy?  Gee, imagine that!

 

FYI... There are sitcoms with monogamous and promiscuous homosexual characters.  There are also sitcoms with monogamous and promiscuous heterosexual characters.  But they are sitcoms so they don't really focus on the "deviant version" of anything.  That, of course, is part of the problem with sitcoms is that they are unlikely to show the real life negative results of certain decisions but that holds true regardless of the sexual orientation of the couples.

 

The "SSM agenda" thing cracks me up.  You really think that the writers of the sitcoms are out there referring to some "agenda" when they create/write these shows?  Who compiles and publishes the "agenda" to all of the varied individuals and agencies that produce the TV shows?

[rockpond]

So, you're criticizing gays for promiscuity, yet you want to deny them the right to enter into legally supported, long-term, committed relationships. That makes a whole lot of sense. 

 

Yes, that is the entire point of the "Anti-SSM Agenda*":  Tell gay people to stop being promiscuous while also telling them that their committed relationships are not worthy of recognition.  

 

* <tongue in cheek> in case that wasn't clear

[Stone holm]

The ssm agenda is to turn the hearts and minds of the americans to the ssm cause. It has been going on for years now. The plan was simple: show gays in hetero normal circumstances in sitcoms, have them have hetero monogamous moral values and be the guy next door type. What was missing from the sitcoms was the deviant version of homosexuality. This was not permitted to have in the sitcoms. No homosexual promiscuity was allowed. Gay men were monogamous and funny. And the strategy worked.

Why call it an agenda. When used in that manner it implies some kind of covert conspiracy.

[jkwilliams]

Why call it an agenda. When used in that manner it implies some kind of covert conspiracy.

 

I'm pretty sure Wade thinks it does involve a covert conspiracy.

[Stone holm]

Exactly! We as a society are robbing our children of their childhood by prematurely sexualizing them--including, though not exclusively, through exploitative gay indoctrination. in fact, hetero-sexualization of our children may even be worse because it is so pervasive.

 

So, my answer to the poll would be an emphatic, no. Let kids be kids, and leave adult issues of sexuality of any orientation to adults.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Really, robbing them of their childhood. Am thinking that screening kids from sexual activity is probably a fairly modern concept.

[subgenius]

I don't see anything wrong at all with that Good Luck Charlie scene. It's not about sex, sexuality isn't even an issue. When two hetero parents are shown, the scene isn't necessarily about sex.

 

Two Moms and Two Dads is a reality of life. Kids encounter it. No value was presented on the show except "this happens" - your kid may be friends with a kid with two moms and two dads. That is true.

 

Note the kid didn't even note it, double-take, talk about, or anything. She was just excited her friend was there.

 

The question above in the OP is loaded.

 

I 'm not interested in kids shows where sexuality in general is a theme. Dora The Explorer has parents, and new babies show up. That doesn't mean it's introducing kids to sexuality as a theme. 

"Note the kid didn't even note it..."

really?

you are aware that it was a tv show and that the kid is an "actor".

That you are trying to buttress reality with a Disney show is the most alarming thing i have read on this thread so far. Your "conclusion" is one of the most condemning symptoms of modern society in as much as so many people are unable to discern the difference between a Disney show and reality - which is fertile ground for propagandists...and in your post a seed has obviously taken root.

  

[subgenius]

Yes, that is the entire point of the "Anti-SSM Agenda*":  Tell gay people to stop being promiscuous while also telling them that their committed relationships are not worthy of recognition.  

 

* <tongue in cheek> in case that wasn't clear

Ironically, "we" as a society tell all sorts of people that their relationships are not "worthy" of recognition...but that does not equate to a deprivation of civil rights or even basic human rights. For example, we tell 8 year old boys and girls that they cannot be married...we tell a Father and his Daughter that they cannot be married...we also tell 12 year old children that they cannot vote for President - Yet all these examples are without doubt not a violation of the 14th Amendment....por que?

One glaring reason is that while we recognize marriage as being a civil right there is no empirical case that supports homosexual relationships as being indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships. One cannot simply make laws from an arbitrary position - which is exactly what the increased political power of the LGBT is - arbitrary and being this increase of power is confused for something that may be right or just - much like how the majority of voters may vote for something but this something is overturned because of legal considerations.

So, have the current marriage laws overlooked or omitted something necessary?, not likely given the current points of assault by the LGBT...rather they are trying to make the necessary case...the necessary empirical case...that their relationships are indistinguishable from a marriage - and this has not been accomplished - nor will it likely be accomplished. The success that many SSM cases have had is primarily reliant on the notion that many local Constitutions do not allow for SSM to be banned in some manner or another. None of this qualifies for the larger 14th amendment argument that the LGBT community is so desperate for - mainly because they are not a protected class and the empirical case cannot be made.

While there is a lot more contributing money behind this latest SSM fad, it is simply that..a fad.

[rockpond]

Ironically, "we" as a society tell all sorts of people that their relationships are not "worthy" of recognition...but that does not equate to a deprivation of civil rights or even basic human rights. For example, we tell 8 year old boys and girls that they cannot be married...we tell a Father and his Daughter that they cannot be married...we also tell 12 year old children that they cannot vote for President - Yet all these examples are without doubt not a violation of the 14th Amendment....por que?

One glaring reason is that while we recognize marriage as being a civil right there is no empirical case that supports homosexual relationships as being indistinguishable from heterosexual relationships. One cannot simply make laws from an arbitrary position - which is exactly what the increased political power of the LGBT is - arbitrary and being this increase of power is confused for something that may be right or just - much like how the majority of voters may vote for something but this something is overturned because of legal considerations.

So, have the current marriage laws overlooked or omitted something necessary?, not likely given the current points of assault by the LGBT...rather they are trying to make the necessary case...the necessary empirical case...that their relationships are indistinguishable from a marriage - and this has not been accomplished - nor will it likely be accomplished. The success that many SSM cases have had is primarily reliant on the notion that many local Constitutions do not allow for SSM to be banned in some manner or another. None of this qualifies for the larger 14th amendment argument that the LGBT community is so desperate for - mainly because they are not a protected class and the empirical case cannot be made.

While there is a lot more contributing money behind this latest SSM fad, it is simply that..a fad.

 

Yes, as a society we distinguish between minors and consenting adults.

 

The 14th amendment argument in favor of equality and legal recognition for gay marriage has been made at all levels of our judicial system and has won, over and over again.

[subgenius]

Yes, as a society we distinguish between minors and consenting adults.

 

The 14th amendment argument in favor of equality and legal recognition for gay marriage has been made at all levels of our judicial system and has won, over and over again.

1. Yes, we distinguish between minors and consenting adults - but that was not your point. Besides I also noted other "relationships" that may be comprised solely of "consenting" adults - such as a Father marrying his own daughter, or perhaps a Mother marrying her son, nephew, and uncle - or perhaps a man marrying 4 women of no relation. Your only argument against these  examples would be about the "empirical case" made about birth defects and/or social impropriety based on tradition. The former argument being disputed by the LGBT justification that all marriages do not have to be procreative and the latter argument is simply lost on the LGBT.

 

2. The 14th amendment argument has not been successful at all levels with regard to SSM - as is obvious by reality and by the court record. If SSM were qualified by the 14th then we would not be having this discussion - for example slavery and women voting is not currently being argued in the court system or being legislated (successfully) selectively by individual states.

 

• I recommend you review the legal "tests" of strict scrutiny and rational basis (i.e. Lindsley Test) - currently the courts have only been applying the lowest levels, yes lowest, of legal scrutiny.
• I would also review SCOTUS being very clear that the 14th amendment does not mean that governments cannot treat people differently (as evidenced by my more obvious examples above)

You may also want to understand that the courts do not recognize the LGBT as being an immutable position, such as being black, white, or female - which is the reality that SCOTUS does not consider the LGBT a suspect class - soooo...your 14th amendment argument has so far failed. (spoiler alert: SCOTUS and the Constitution do currently hold that 'religion' is a suspect class).

Edited February 24, 2014 by subgenius

[Stone holm]

1. Yes, we distinguish between minors and consenting adults - but that was not your point. Besides I also noted other "relationships" that may be comprised solely of "consenting" adults - such as a Father marrying his own daughter, or perhaps a Mother marrying her son, nephew, and uncle - or perhaps a man marrying 4 women of no relation. Your only argument against these  examples would be about the "empirical case" made about birth defects and/or social impropriety based on tradition. The former argument being disputed by the LGBT justification that all marriages do not have to be procreative and the latter argument is simply lost on the LGBT.

 

2. The 14th amendment argument has not been successful at all levels with regard to SSM - as is obvious by reality and by the court record. If SSM were qualified by the 14th then we would not be having this discussion - for example slavery and women voting is not currently being argued in the court system or being legislated (successfully) selectively by individual states.

 

• I recommend you review the legal "tests" of strict scrutiny and rational basis (i.e. Lindsley Test) - currently the courts have only been applying the lowest levels, yes lowest, of legal scrutiny.
• I would also review SCOTUS being very clear that the 14th amendment does not mean that governments cannot treat people differently (as evidenced by my more obvious examples above)

You may also want to understand that the courts do not recognize the LGBT as being an immutable position, such as being black, white, or female - which is the reality that SCOTUS does not consider the LGBT a suspect class - soooo...your 14th amendment argument has so far failed. (spoiler alert: SCOTUS and the Constitution do currently hold that 'religion' is a suspect class).

 

It was interesting when it came out in Gospel Doctrine class on Sunday that Abraham married his half-sister Sarah.  Nobody seemed to have an issue with that.

[rockpond]

1. Yes, we distinguish between minors and consenting adults - but that was not your point. Besides I also noted other "relationships" that may be comprised solely of "consenting" adults - such as a Father marrying his own daughter, or perhaps a Mother marrying her son, nephew, and uncle - or perhaps a man marrying 4 women of no relation. Your only argument against these  examples would be about the "empirical case" made about birth defects and/or social impropriety based on tradition. The former argument being disputed by the LGBT justification that all marriages do not have to be procreative and the latter argument is simply lost on the LGBT.

 

2. The 14th amendment argument has not been successful at all levels with regard to SSM - as is obvious by reality and by the court record. If SSM were qualified by the 14th then we would not be having this discussion - for example slavery and women voting is not currently being argued in the court system or being legislated (successfully) selectively by individual states.

 

• I recommend you review the legal "tests" of strict scrutiny and rational basis (i.e. Lindsley Test) - currently the courts have only been applying the lowest levels, yes lowest, of legal scrutiny.
• I would also review SCOTUS being very clear that the 14th amendment does not mean that governments cannot treat people differently (as evidenced by my more obvious examples above)

You may also want to understand that the courts do not recognize the LGBT as being an immutable position, such as being black, white, or female - which is the reality that SCOTUS does not consider the LGBT a suspect class - soooo...your 14th amendment argument has so far failed. (spoiler alert: SCOTUS and the Constitution do currently hold that 'religion' is a suspect class).

 

1.  I agree that there is empirical evidence to deny incestuous marriages.  And yes, there is also an element of societal/cultural disdain or impropriety for such relationships.  I am not arguing in favor of legal recognition for incestuous marriages whether they be gay or straight.  But if you wish to make a case for such a marriage, go for it.

 

2.  Our judges don't seem to concur... Here's a quote from David S. Cohen is an associate professor at the Drexel University School of Law regarding all of the gay marriage/rights cases since SCOTUS stuck down portions of DOMA in US v Windsor.

 

Since Windsor, in these 18 decisions, 32 different judges have considered whether Windsor is merely about the relationship between the state and federal governments or whether it is about equality. And all 32 of them have found for equality. In other words, 32 accomplished, intelligent lawyers, appointed by Democrats and Republicans, whose job it is to read precedent, have ruled for equality. Not a single one has disagreed.

Source:  Slate.com, 14-Feb-2014

[jkwilliams]

Since Windsor, in these 18 decisions, 32 different judges have considered whether Windsor is merely about the relationship between the state and federal governments or whether it is about equality. And all 32 of them have found for equality. In other words, 32 accomplished, intelligent lawyers, appointed by Democrats and Republicans, whose job it is to read precedent, have ruled for equality. Not a single one has disagreed.

Source:  Slate.com, 14-Feb-2014

 

18 rulings, and they all ended up before activist judges. What are the odds?

Edited February 24, 2014 by jkwilliams

[cinepro]

It was interesting when it came out in Gospel Doctrine class on Sunday that Abraham married his half-sister Sarah.  Nobody seemed to have an issue with that.

 

I guess we can be thankful that not everything was restored in this dispensation...

[Bikeemikey]

1. Yes, we distinguish between minors and consenting adults - but that was not your point. Besides I also noted other "relationships" that may be comprised solely of "consenting" adults - such as a Father marrying his own daughter, or perhaps a Mother marrying her son, nephew, and uncle - or perhaps a man marrying 4 women of no relation. Your only argument against these  examples would be about the "empirical case" made about birth defects and/or social impropriety based on tradition. The former argument being disputed by the LGBT justification that all marriages do not have to be procreative and the latter argument is simply lost on the LGBT.

 

2. The 14th amendment argument has not been successful at all levels with regard to SSM - as is obvious by reality and by the court record. If SSM were qualified by the 14th then we would not be having this discussion - for example slavery and women voting is not currently being argued in the court system or being legislated (successfully) selectively by individual states.

 

• I recommend you review the legal "tests" of strict scrutiny and rational basis (i.e. Lindsley Test) - currently the courts have only been applying the lowest levels, yes lowest, of legal scrutiny.
• I would also review SCOTUS being very clear that the 14th amendment does not mean that governments cannot treat people differently (as evidenced by my more obvious examples above)

You may also want to understand that the courts do not recognize the LGBT as being an immutable position, such as being black, white, or female - which is the reality that SCOTUS does not consider the LGBT a suspect class - soooo...your 14th amendment argument has so far failed. (spoiler alert: SCOTUS and the Constitution do currently hold that 'religion' is a suspect class).

 

Unfortunately this post only reaffirms your user handle: subgenius 

 

Don't insult others.

[Stone holm]

I guess we can be thankful that not everything was restored in this dispensation...

Do you think prior dispensations were as obsessed with sex when it came to religion as ours seems to be becoming?

[wenglund]

So, you're criticizing gays for promiscuity, yet you want to deny them the right to enter into legally supported, long-term, committed relationships. That makes a whole lot of sense. 

 

If homosexual promiscuity were procreative in nature, then your response might make sense within the context of legalized marriage (or other forms of legalized relationships, like domestic partnerships and civil unions), since government sanctioning of marriage is the social means for legitimizing births and encouraging the same.

 

Even out of context, your comment would only make sense were homosexuals generally inclined to avail themselves of the so-called "right," and were such availing to diminish homosexual promiscuity.

 

According to the studies I am familiar with, homosexual are relatively disinclined to "marry," and significantly less inclined to remain monogomist when "married."

 

The sad reality is, the movement to legalize SSM hasn't reduced the negative consequences of homosexual promiscuity. Quite the contrary, As expected of most every liberal cause, it has made matters worse.

 

Mangling the traditional definition of marriage, and engaging in this unprecidented social experiment, has, in part, seen such a rise in STDs and other promiscuity-related health and social issues among homosexuals, that it is now being consider the new gay epidemic.

 

Granted, this may not be the legacy intended by many good and decent people who supported gay marriage, but it is their's to own nevertheless.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gray]

 

The sad reality is, the movement to legalize SSM hasn't reduced the negative consequences of homosexual promiscuity. Quite the contrary, As expected of most every liberal cause, it has made matters worse.

 

 

CFR

[wenglund]

I'm pretty sure Wade thinks it does involve a covert conspiracy.

 

I don't know about "covert," but the intentions were clearly disclosed years ago in various proclimations and manifestos (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and the PR blueprint was skillfully laid out in detail by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (a.k.a. "Erastes Pill"), by way of their 1987 article in Guide Magazine, "The Overhauling of Straight America," and their 1989 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s."

 

As indicatred in my blog, it isn't just Right-wingers making the claim about gay agendas and public school indoctrination. Homosexual activists have also owned up to it (see HERE and HERE)

 

One may easily peruse the last several decades to see ample instances where most, if not all the Kirk and Madsen PR strategies have been adeptly employed, and even less unmistakably the intended results of escalated favorable opinions (see HERE), particularly among young people. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I don't know about "covert," but the intentions were clearly disclosed years ago in various proclimations and manifestos (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and the PR blueprint was skillfully laid out in detail by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (a.k.a. "Erastes Pill"), by way of their 1987 article in Guide Magazine, "The Overhauling of Straight America," and their 1989 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s."

 

As indicatred in my blog, it isn't just Right-wingers making the claim about gay agendas and public school indoctrination. Homosexual activists have also owned up to it (see HERE and HERE)

 

One may easily peruse the last several decades to see ample instances where most, if not all the Kirk and Madsen PR strategies have been adeptly employed, and even less unmistakably the intended results of escalated favorable opinions (see HERE), particularly among young people. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes, not hating people is a terrible consequence.

[rockpond]

If homosexual promiscuity were procreative in nature, then your response might make sense within the context of legalized marriage (or other forms of legalized relationships, like domestic partnerships and civil unions), since government sanctioning of marriage is the social means for legitimizing births and encouraging the same.

 

Even out of context, your comment would only make sense were homosexuals generally inclined to avail themselves of the so-called "right," and were such availing to diminish homosexual promiscuity.

 

According to the studies I am familiar with, homosexual are relatively disinclined to "marry," and significantly less inclined to remain monogomist when "married."

 

The sad reality is, the movement to legalize SSM hasn't reduced the negative consequences of homosexual promiscuity. Quite the contrary, As expected of most every liberal cause, it has made matters worse.

 

Mangling the traditional definition of marriage, and engaging in this unprecidented social experiment, has, in part, seen such a rise in STDs and other promiscuity-related health and social issues among homosexuals, that it is now being consider the new gay epidemic.

 

Granted, this may not be the legacy intended by many good and decent people who supported gay marriage, but it is their's to own nevertheless.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So your claim here is that legally married gay couples are more promiscuous than non-married gay couples?

[jkwilliams]

So your claim here is that legally married gay couples are more promiscuous than non-married gay couples?

 

That seems to be what he's saying.

[wenglund]

Really, robbing them of their childhood. Am thinking that screening kids from sexual activity is probably a fairly modern concept.

 

What you just said is certainly the sentiment, and oft stated argument of pedophilia organizations. Like with the homosexual movement, pedophiles are fond of harking back to ancient cultures, particularly the Greeks.

 

I, on the other hand, welcome social evolution, and would just as soon not revert to times when what is generally consider today as child abuse (sexual or otherwise) was considered the norm way back when.

 

You, of course, are free to think otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 25, 2014 by wenglund