Video games with gay content will turn your kids gay

Agreed, but it's immaterial here. I do not regard your statements here as reflexive, but purposeful propaganda. There is a difference.

That would be the one who is so incapable of separating opinions and fictions from fact that they engage in a barrage of propaganda aimed at a particular group of people in an effort to drum up hate against them, encouraging others to adopt delusional opinions. I think you can easily guess which of us I think fits that bill.

The usual tactic of asking us to ignore context and operate in your black and white world. Not going to accommodate you in that.

Disagreeing with you on the details doesn't make us evil people trying to "indoctrinate" youth.

Not going to waste time debunking this again. Get a new argument.

It's all of the above, and then some.

No, it's your propaganda which you claim incessantly to be "documented truth" without the ability to substantiate the claim.

Also not true. A number of us have agreed that Milk had considerable personal flaws, and have likewise stated that we don't consider him a hero. The plain fact is that it doesn't matter what we say about Milk; you have shown that ANY disagreement with you on the subject will be interpreted and regurgitated by you as defending him.

It's also very plainly true that we teach children about the place of many people in history - for good or bad - without teaching them to emulate them. By your apparent standard, Hitler should never be mentioned in a history class. Nor should Washington or Jefferson, since that would be teaching children to emulate ALL of their behavior, including the holding of slaves.

But let's dig a little deeper. Your argument is constructed to imply that GSMs all got together and took a vote, electing/appointing Milk as our "ambassador". It's the spinning of a conspiracy theory, based on a lot of twaddle. It completely disregards the fact that we are diverse individuals, with a diversity of opinions. Anything you read on some organization's or individual's web site or in their literature is an opinion that can only be attributed to that specific organization or individual, not GSMs as a whole.

...because the wording of that statement doesn't represent verifiable fact. It's constructed for the very purpose of provoking disagreement, which you very conveniently re-interpret to mean whatever you want in order to spin more propaganda.

Yours is very clearly not an "unbiased eye". There is no "reverse demonizing" going on here. Just simple disagreement with your statements and observations on the tactics you employ.

Now you've shown your true colors. This is pure demonization. It's an ad hominem only on a broader scale - one aimed at an entire group in an attempt to assign those negatives as traits of same-sex orientation applicable to every member of the group, instead of seeking to understand why these problems exist, and failing to comprehend that this correlates with the stigmatizing of same-sex orientation & behavior. Instead, you would like us to think that same-sex orientation & behavior has a cause & effect relationship with these things.

And how convenient that your link doesn't even work.

 

Of course we agree that's a bad idea, and it's also not what's taking place.

Disagree. The "gay community" encompasses its entire membership. I certainly wasn't consulted, nor did I engage in his "promotion". This is emblematic of what I said in my last post - your constant effort to demonize the entire group, when this can only honestly be laid at the doorstep of the participating organizations and individuals.

No, we don't all know that. You are not in a position to tell other people what they do or don't know.

They aren't, and declaring them to be so doesn't make them so.

Except you won't - you'll be back in short order with more propaganda surrounding Milk - the same BS that has debated in countless other threads. If only you really would give it a rest so that we could debate the actual topics, but no - that doesn't fit in with your obvious plan to demonize GSMs at every opportunity.

 

Well, calm down, I wasn't according all my terminology towards you... was I?

A very black and white question, but based on how hysterical you are as to describe a game featuring homosexual activity as propaganda and indoctrination, I'd say you. Please, tell me what you think the game's creators were thinking, (I haven't played it) and this goes for any art featuring homosexuality; are they thinking "we need to indoctrinate the nations youth into becoming gay because there isn't enough aids in the world" (as you suggest) or are they simply reflecting life, as art invariably does? There's a question of rationality for you.

Of course but here leads me back to the teacher in Donnie Darko, she's trying to protect children, put in doing so in such a hysterical manner what she will inevitably do is scare them, and fill them with prejudice. Simple psychology, overbearing parenting, and overprotection leads to paranoia. The Westboro baptist church are purportedly trying to protect their children.

I don't think Harvey Milk has anything to do with the OP. What I assume is that people are trying to educate children on where the gay community has come from with regards to a struggle for rights. Milk did a lot to fight in the political corner for homosexuals. Let's say you're right and he engaged in questionable sexual activity. The two statements don't obviate each other. I mean he's not the only politician to have questions raised about his sex life is he. They said similar things about Martin Luther King; that he was a pervert etc. So kids can look at what King did, and gain from it, without being compelled to engage in drunken sex parties, again some more rationality for you.

It wasn't a bad idea with regards to picking someone to champion their rights because he did a good job, only in the sense that he wasn't squeeky clean and people like you would dwell on that. Who would - in your opinion - be a more a poignant and acceptable case in point when educating the young about the gay rights movement?

I think the trick is just to tell kids the truth. Paint him as a significant man in American history, not infallible, and not the devil, that would be a good starting point.

The article doesn't negate what I've said. It talks about the problem of drug usage amongst young gay men but doesn't give a reason as to why they are gay in the first place, because their is no definitive reason other than a sexual attraction to the same sex. And for the record these types of figures: "A population-based telephone survey of nearly 3,000 gay men living in urban areas across the United States showed that in the prior 6 months, 90% of respondents had used alcohol, 50% had smoked marijuana, nearly 20% had used cocaine, 10% had used crack cocaine, and 10% had used methamphetamine." Are really tame, take a survey in my city amongst the general population and all usage (except alcohol which seems normal) would be much higher.

 

What "countless hours of subliminal exposure" to gay content are you talking about? I can name two games that have an opportunity for the player to witness about 15 seconds of actual gay content. One of them is included in the OP. Both are rated mature. So what are you talking about? You seem to be railing against a problem that doesn't exist. Kind of like that state congressman in Kansas or where ever who introduced the bill banning the use of human tissue in food.

 

And 99% of those other posts came from just a couple people... And in your case you even believe some of those people to be the same person ( sfjeff and I). I was even one of those people that agreed that harvy milk may be a bad choice, and that if recognizing hiM causes damage to children, then we should not. And if sfjeff and I are the same person, then that eliminates 90% of the posts.

And You can't speak for the people who chose not even to respond the thread. Even if someone doesn't agree that Harvy should be a convicted offender, that doesn't mean try think he should be recognized in a state holiday. And even if they do think he should be recognized in a state holiday, they does not mean they are supporting some conspiracy to promote child molestation.

 

If you want to remove gay content from the world you might as well throw away and destroy all of the art and design work including the sistine chapel from the world. That would be a start...

 

and complete what the the nazi's tired to do, destroy Tchaikovsky music, and also throw out Andy Warhol's work.

 

You are trying to ignore the distinction between what homosexuals have done in art with what they do in their bedroom. Kids cannot tell the difference. I did not know the difference between Andy Warhol, Tchaiskovsky or any other person with homosexual compusions and any other artist until you just now made a point of tying what they do in art to what they do in their bedroom. Seeing two guys groping each other on a video game is much different. And you're also ignoring the hours upon hours of subliminal exposure you know kids will have to the video gaming content. I glanced at the Sistine Chapel for a few minutes and moved on. Staring at a video game's blatant "gay is OK" content for hundreds or thousands of hours and even interacting with it has a whole other level of psychological impact on the developing mind of a child.

But then again you know that. I didn't have to point it out but it stands to be examined in case anyone overlooked the differences..

 

What's wrong with this statement?

Let's say your son is Gay? Would you rather he felt that it was OK or would you want him to be ashamed of and disgusted with himself?

There's a question of morality for you.

 

Neither. And that is an option the gay community hopes nobody brings up. If I had a child who was gay I would neither make them feel bad or good about it but instead would get them into therapy to discover at the very least if they were molested as a child or inappropriately exposed to adult sexuality and then to healthy discussions of options to reparative therapy should they so agree. I would be supportive either way but I would make the option of reparative therapy well known and as non-stigmatized as homosexual compulsions are.

Much like if I discovered my child had OCD. I would neither chastise them about it nor agree that it was normal. I would get them the help they needed and quickly while I gave them emotional support. Got any more easy questions to answer?

 

telling some one their broken seems like shameing are you going to gently nuge them toworeds theropy even if thers no molestation or tramma based cause for their sexuality

 

HAHAHA!!!!

I honestly don't know where to start.

In fact I won't, I'll just ask another one. What if they say, no I wasn't abused, and I don't want to go to therapy.

The answer doesn't matter either being gay is OK or it isn't, so if you were to be "supportive" (even if the dumb-witted way you describe) you suggest being gay is OK. So... happy days, if being gay is good enough for your son then the message that Gay is OK comes from your own mouth.

 

to be fair considering the feelings involved its by far not the worst responce to a child admiting their homoseuality iv heard of

 

Indeed, it's more the amount of contradictions one person can make that amuses me.

 

Every generation complains about the degeneracy of the next generation, but the world keeps spinning and the quality of life just keeps getting better and better.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html

Gay men respond to male pheremones as women do, lesbians respond to female pheremones as males do.

Welcome to the Kinsey Scale my friend.

 

Welcome to Kinsey being but one theory next to more longstanding and tested theories on repressed memories of childhood molestation and the complex ways they can manifest in human adult behavior...

to wit:

Continuing the previous conversation...

JohnConstantine asked a very good question here:

And I responded:

Then stig42 added:

To which I now respond that readers should refer to the top of this post for the answer to that question. Ask any therapist what area of psychological trauma carries the highest rate of blacked-out, blocked or repressed memories and their answer is going to be "a child who was sexually molested". That makes the query into what makes a gay person a bit more intrusive. You really need to get to the bottom of old wounds to find out what is really going on. I would choose an excellent regressive therapist to treat my child, not just some "don't question it, gay is OK" quack. That would be like a therapist telling a woman with hypersexuality to not worry about being molested as a girl, that plenty of people are OK with loose women and she should just embrace it..

JohnConstantine finally got around to responding.. and he said this [surprise surprise...reverse-bashing]

I'll bet you don't know where to start. That's the whole problem. The way I described my answer was not "dumb-witted". Apologize or I will report you to the moderators.

 

Look, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, my attack is towards the posts not you personally. It's a debate, don't be so sensitive, that's just gay (satire).


OCD is, by definition, a disorder. Without upsetting you I have to point out that while you may not wish to chastise your fresh-from-the-closet child, to suggest therapy straight of the bat, and to treat it as a abnormality and a disorder will do just that. There is enough homophobic culture out there without the one person who should offer genuine support and refutation against those who will consider your child inferior, perverted, to be the subject of ridicule and contempt. For any parent who doesn't simply embrace their child for who they are and endeavour to mollify such feelings of undeserved contrition - which society promulgates and your child will most likely be feeling and very much aware of, I say, where is your compassion?


Now let's say you get a note "Dear parent, all my life I have pretended to be something which I was not... (fill in the blanks) all I wanted was your acceptance, yet you greet me with disdain, you think me abnormal, out of order, and so forth." Do you then accept that it's OK for them to be Gay, for what is normal? And what is reality? Reality isn't just stats and figures and tests by white coats... this is a person, now if that person attests that they have always been attracted to the same sex (as most gay people do) who in God's name are you to tell them otherwise? To make some pathetic excuse that it must have been a stupid video game they played... it reminds me of Bill O'reilly when reacting to a Gay couple featured in a French McDonalds advert, he had the gall to say "Well do they have Taliban adverts in France too?" Honestly how that cretin has a job I have no idea... only in America.


It's not reverse bashing (whatever that might be) just objective reason. And then let's say you refuse to accept that this is normal, you continue with your ideas that he is "sick" has a "disorder" which can be "cured"... and then the child commits suicide. Do you blame their death on the society who did not accept him/her for what they were, including you, or do you blame what you consider to be homosexual propaganda?


Another question of morality for you.

 

This thread reminds me of this clip. I grew up with He-man and Thundercats action figures and I turned out straight, but perhaps not every young boy was lucky enough to escape the gay agenda.

[video=youtube;mZDnLUxzk0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZDnLUxzk0w[/video]

 

That movie was such liberal tripe, not to mention an idiotic fantasy full of contradictions which completely ignored the possibility of alternate realities triggered by key time-space points, instead opting for a linear timeline that could be changed simply for the sake of the sophomoric utopian plot and happy ending. It's funny how the conservatives in that film were portrayed as the villains (brainwashing teachers, child pornography sex addicts, etc.) while the liberal teachers and "nonconformist" emo kids were portrayed as the good guys. In trying to show science and metaphysics in some kind of positive light, the film, in the end, defeats itself.

Yet another movie funded by Drew Barrymore that I refuse to watch ever again. I feel 2 hours dumber after watching it.

 

Ahh, yes! 1993! The year that gangsta rap and Mortal Kombat 2 were at an all-time high. Coincidence? I think not!

 

I will believe the statistical, molecular biology, and genetics studies before something like the Kinsey study. I'm not exactly on board entirely with psychology only because of experience I had from independent review boards and other peer reviews. Having been a part of that, although my contributions were not as a scientific SME, I could see the highly politicized nature of many of the protocols and a leaning towards creating a study that will entertain, for lack of a better word.

Review boards don't decided upon goodness, just that certain human rights principles are maintained and if the statistics are enough to proceed.

If you read the protocols of Kinsey (which I laboriously did because of a sidebar discussion during ancient Greek class back in undergrad) there are a lot of suppositions and methods that would just not cut it in the world of more "hard" sciences. For example, response to pornography. People can have a physical response to rape porn, but not also wish to be raped. When discussing sexuality there are neurological responses that are far more important than questionnaires and interviews. In fact, there are studies about studies and the fact that people are responsive chemically to answering questions--even when they are lying.

Most of the studies that I personally can read and then get behind are those that present homosexuality as a strict orientation, not a developed condition.

Now..what the hell does this have to do with Mass Effect?

 

When you're getting behind studies, don't forget to get behind the science of artificial insemination and semen collection. Daily, professionals are working to fixate artificial and permanent sexual arousal responses to any manner of genders or inanimate objects in every domesticated and wild mammalian species there is. It seems there's no exceptions to the ability to imprint a sexual orientation of a whole host of directions after an animal is born. Once oriented in the artificial way, the animal then becomes instantly aroused at the chosen stimuli paired with the orgasm reward. If they could speak they would insist they were "born that way". We know better.

Humans are animals. They are mammals. If this didn't apply to them they would be the singular exception in the animal kingdom to this rule.

 

there are literally MILLIONS of examples of animals being born gay in the wild. there are even examples of non mammals that are born gay. From bunny's to chickens, to even lizards.
The giraffe species is pretty extreme about this. Male giraffes are born bi-sexual and actually have sex with other male giraffes more than they do with females.

 

I was just about to play that game. Now I'm afraid that I'll turn into a lesbian.