[Days of Broken Arrows]

Individual gay people aren't the problem -- although the activists can be unbearable. But gays are a small percentage of the population.

It's the mindless-robot straight foot soldiers that create the cultural atmosphere of repression. Most of these are straight, white women which is why it's a problem to us.

I look at it this way: there have always been groups of women who go completely insane at the thought (insert high voice here) of...of...of a man checking out a woman (GASP!!!).

These women were hella influential in the Victorian Era, re-appeared as Catholic Nuns in the '50s, took the form of anti-sex feminists in the '80s and HR directors in the 2000s.

Each of these groups used a different reason to repress men's sexuality. For some it was a "sin," for others it was that "men objectified women." And so on.

So now, we've come to the place where their newest incarnation is the "caring," so-called liberal woman who wants to shame male sexuality as inferior to homosexuality. Gay men sometimes have hundreds of sexual partners and it's **bad to judge** but if a straight guy makes a dongle joke...off with his head!!!

The only way I can think to beat this back is call them what they are. The new nuns. The new Church Ladies. In church, they also shame straight men while turning a blind eye to all manner of same-sex sins the clergy engage in. I see a comparison to this now.

[Checkmat]

(12-02-2013 01:12 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  

It's over. Next generation has already been indoctrinated.

I watched the video and their reactions. What exactly is your problem with it?

"Indoctrination",...give me a break.

The kids responses:

"I don't care"

"If two people like each other, they should be allowed to get married"

"It kind of goes against the whole 'freedom' thing [to not allow gay marriage]"

"I don't think it should be any different than [normal] marriage"

I'm pretty much on board with these kids' attitudes. What kind of reactions would you prefer they had?

[VincentVinturi]

Some guys like to bone other guys in the privacy of their own homes. Fine.

But what I've noticed is that a lot of gay guys get a kick out of subtly dominating straight guys.

Especially in the US, gay dudes will hit on you on the street or make really suggestive eye contact with you. And that puts you in a predicament. Because if you look away, you feel dominated, which your aggressive instincts probably recoil against. And if you keep eye contact, you provoke further staring which grosses probably grosses you out.

The thing is, I think a lot of gay guys get a thrill out of this kind of subtle domination. Because what are you going to do, fight the guy for staring even though it's fucking obnoxious and grounds for an ass whooping from a straight guy? So you look away, and he punks you. You keep looking, and he makes his glance even more suggestive, which makes you want to look away. Punked again. And I think they KNOW that to be the case, which is why they seem to get such pleasure out of doing it. We are, after all, hierarchical creatures who need to establish dominance, gay or straight.

I've lived in some the fruitiest places on earth: San Francisco, Miami Beach, New York, Bangkok, and have had dudes stare me down and make sexual comments to me. My instinct is turn around and fuck the guy up but that would make me some kind of gay hating homophone and (in the US), a great target for some kind of lawsuit. Plus, some of those guys are huge and I don't want to mess with them.

All I'm saying is, if you're gay, God bless, who cares? But staring me down, rubbing my nose in your fabulousness and shit...just doesn't sit right with me.

[Checkmat]

(12-02-2013 01:26 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

Some guys like to bone other guys in the privacy of their own homes. Fine.

But what I've noticed is that a lot of gay guys get a kick out of subtly dominating straight guys.

Especially in the US, gay dudes will hit on you on the street or make really suggestive eye contact with you. And that puts you in a predicament. Because if you look away, you feel dominated, which your aggressive instincts probably recoil against. And if you keep eye contact, you provoke further staring which grosses probably grosses you out.

The thing is, I think a lot of gay guys get a thrill out of this kind of subtle domination. Because what are you going to do, fight the guy for staring even though it's fucking obnoxious and grounds for an ass whooping from a straight guy? So you look away, and he punks you. You keep looking, and he makes his glance even more suggestive, which makes you want to look away. Punked again. And I think they KNOW that to be the case, which is why they seem to get such pleasure out of doing it. We are, after all, hierarchical creatures who need to establish dominance, gay or straight.

I've lived in some the fruitiest places on earth: San Francisco, Miami Beach, New York, Bangkok, and have had dudes stare me down and make sexual comments to me. My instinct is turn around and fuck the guy up but that would make me some kind of gay hating homophone and (in the US), a great target for some kind of lawsuit. Plus, some of those guys are huge and I don't want to mess with them.

All I'm saying is, if you're gay, God bless, who cares? But staring me down, rubbing my nose in your fabulousness and shit...just doesn't sit right with me.

Welcome to the life of an attractive woman living in the hood or any underdeveloped place. It is what it is. What do you want to do, cut off the gay guys' balls? We have whole threads on here about how to make attractive eye contact with women.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed about it. I would be/am too if it happens to me. But what do you want to be done about it?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(12-02-2013 12:47 PM)soup Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 12:29 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Soup, certainly the line is thinner and more malleable with sexual orientation than it is with preferences within an orientation. Isn't that explanation enough? We are talking two different preferences her, it's no wonder that one is "softer" than the other.

So, you are saying that you could have been convinced to be gay if you had grown up in a culture that pushed you towards it?

I think about sex as food. I get hungry when I see see good food and my stomach is empty.

Looking at a bicycle doesn't make me hungry. It never will.

It's same with pussy. I get physically turned on when I see good pussy. A man's dick is not only not a turn on for me (like I don't want to take it my mouth or ass), a dick near me get me angry.

Nope, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that the line between heterosexual and bi/homosexual is not as strong as the the line between attraction to signs of physical virility and signs of physical decay.

For example, when I am aroused, occasionally I get some "gay" thoughts. I am not turned on by anything homosexual in general - I find it unattractive and slightly repulsive - but when I am turned on, my disgust threshold is lowered a lot and the idea actually seems appealing (for that moment). I'd never actually do it, but I could occasionally (like once a year) fantasize about it if I was sufficiently turned on. Was this Beta?

I believe that most people of both genders are the same way, perhaps women a bit more (just look at the current explosion of "bi" women). With the right kind of encouragement and discouragement, especially since it takes skill for a man to experience love and sex with the opposite gender, but not the same, I don't find it unimaginable that many otherwise perfectly straight men could be turned to become gay or at least experiment with it. Especially in harsh environments where there are no women (prisons, monasteries) or few women (USA or China's sexual market for the average man who lives in perpetual sexual wasteland).

However, my sexual attractiveness threshold is lot stronger when it comes to what excites me within the gender. I can't get it up for fatties unless I'm in an extreme dry spell, and my disgust for them is strong. I like signs of health like toned bodies, long hair, healthy skin, facial symmetry, etc. Even if I were gay by some chance, I would still have an immensely strong preference for healthy, muscular dudes. There's no way I'd bang an old, wrinkled or obese guy.

Thus, it is a lot easier for the straight man to turn gay than for a man who likes indicators of health and beauty (in the gender that he prefers) to start preferring indicators of decay and ugliness.

[eradicator]

VV, that is hilarious, and I think you are over thinking that gay men are trying to establish dominance on you. They are horny and hoping you are gay. That is it. When a gay man is checking me out, I have the same reaction as to when a really obese woman is checking me out: I laugh.

[scorpion]

Normal people (heterosexuals) have no moral obligation to support the homosexual agenda. Homosexuals do not have the "right" to inflict their deviant sexual fetishes on the rest of society. The issue is not what people do in their bedrooms, but rather what they want to normalize in society. This is the reason homosexuals insist on promoting gay marriage, allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, flood the media with sympathetic portrayals of homosexual characters and engage in debaucherous displays of public homosexuality with their parades. They don't simply want the right to engage in homosexual behavior (which they already have, and have had for centuries - homosexuality has always existed as a minority sexual perversion behind closed doors), rather they want homosexuality to be considered just as acceptable as heterosexuality. This was the point of Roosh's piece.

Obviously, this is insane. There is absolutely no moral or logical argument to be made that society should regard homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. The best analogy is to consider hardcore BDSM. A minority of people have that sexual fetish. Could you imagine if there was a movement to make hardcore BDSM mainstream? Would you like your children indoctrinated in school thinking that that was normal sexual behavior? Or bestiality? Or pedophilia? Does society owe every sexual deviant public acceptance and approval of his or her particular perversion?

If men want to fuck each other, that is their own private business. It is deviant sexuality by definition (falling outside the norm) and therefore should not be widely promoted in society, just as other sexual perversions aren't (until very recently at least). The major reason for this is, as Roosh points out, to protect children.

Children are incredibly sensitive to messages they receive from the media, society and their environment when they are developing. They rely on society to teach them norms of behavior. Flooding the media and culture with homosexuality confuses their understanding of what constitutes normal human sexuality. It's bad enough that families themselves have been destroyed by feminism, and that boys and girls are growing up without good relationships with their fathers. But now we are indoctrinating children with the idea of homosexuality being equal to normal sexual behavior. Quite frankly, this is child abuse. It's no different than telling children it's normal behavior to fuck dogs or horses. The children grow up with a warped view of sexuality that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Normal people are falling into the guilt trap with homosexuality. They're falling for the propaganda that homosexuals are this terribly oppressed minority that just wants to be left alone. But that's bullshit. They don't want to be left alone. They want to take over your culture. They want your children to become homosexual. They want to destroy traditional values and norms regarding sexuality. They are using your guilt as a weapon against you.

Do not fall for it. You owe these people nothing. You are the normal person. They are the ones attacking your culture and values. The next time someone starts promoting homosexual tolerance, ask them why. Why should I support the public approval of your sexual deviance? What the fuck does society stand to gain from doing so?

Absolutely nothing. We only lose.

Fuck these people. If you're a man and want to suck a cock, go ahead. But don't try to hijack my culture and create a new social norm that says sucking cocks is normal sexuality, and indoctrinate children into thinking that. Take your sexual fetish behind closed doors, where it belongs. The public arena should be reserved for the approval of traditional sexuality, because that's what children need to grow up seeing, not all kinds of degenerate homosexual propaganda like they see in the media now.

[Luvianka]

The issue here is that 'Marriage' is a legal concept or contract which was created to have two heterosexual adults to raise children in an environment of economic and emotional stability. This is truer than ever since sex (the comodity a woman exchanges inside marriage for getting economic and emotional support from a man to raise their children) is now available everywhere.
Now, do same sex couples have a right to have a legal concept to live under to get the benefits of the Law (welfare, social security, inheritances, etc.)? Yes, of course, but it shouldn't be called 'Marriage'.
Finally, all these pretentiousness around this corny gay marriage proposals and ceremonies is simply ridiculous. The knee-bending heterosexual scene is already ridiculous enough; but when two gays do it, copying (or mocking) the hetero tradition, just shows how childish American society is these days.

[The Beast1]

(12-02-2013 01:26 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

Some guys like to bone other guys in the privacy of their own homes. Fine.

But what I've noticed is that a lot of gay guys get a kick out of subtly dominating straight guys.

Especially in the US, gay dudes will hit on you on the street or make really suggestive eye contact with you. And that puts you in a predicament. Because if you look away, you feel dominated, which your aggressive instincts probably recoil against. And if you keep eye contact, you provoke further staring which grosses probably grosses you out.

The thing is, I think a lot of gay guys get a thrill out of this kind of subtle domination. Because what are you going to do, fight the guy for staring even though it's fucking obnoxious and grounds for an ass whooping from a straight guy? So you look away, and he punks you. You keep looking, and he makes his glance even more suggestive, which makes you want to look away. Punked again. And I think they KNOW that to be the case, which is why they seem to get such pleasure out of doing it. We are, after all, hierarchical creatures who need to establish dominance, gay or straight.

I've lived in some the fruitiest places on earth: San Francisco, Miami Beach, New York, Bangkok, and have had dudes stare me down and make sexual comments to me. My instinct is turn around and fuck the guy up but that would make me some kind of gay hating homophone and (in the US), a great target for some kind of lawsuit. Plus, some of those guys are huge and I don't want to mess with them.

All I'm saying is, if you're gay, God bless, who cares? But staring me down, rubbing my nose in your fabulousness and shit...just doesn't sit right with me.

Use this as an opportunity to sharpen your own skills. Gay dudes are the ultimate example of brinksmanship.

There's a gay guy at my office that gets his jollies by saying outrageous things to me. I agree and amplify and say, "Look I know you love (my hair, swag, etc etc), but you need to woo me more better than that.

If they stare at you with f*ck me eyes, stare back. But give them the type of, "You're a freak" shaming stare of subtle disgust. You'll notice that ironically they will submit to you in the same way that chicks do.

I do a lot of agreeing and amplifying with that, but I understand your annoyance. I hate it when they come onto me as well.

Probably answered my own question as to why people think I am gay. No matter, I will never submit to anyone. Especially a gay guy.

[J.J.]

(12-02-2013 01:42 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Normal people (heterosexuals) have no moral obligation to support the homosexual agenda. Homosexuals do not have the "right" to inflict their deviant sexual fetishes on the rest of society. The issue is not what people do in their bedrooms, but rather what they want to normalize in society. This is the reason homosexuals insist on promoting gay marriage, allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, flood the media with sympathetic portrayals of homosexual characters and engage in debaucherous displays of public homosexuality with their parades. They don't simply want the right to engage in homosexual behavior (which they already have, and have had for centuries - homosexuality has always existed as a minority sexual perversion behind closed doors), rather they want homosexuality to be considered just as acceptable as heterosexuality. This was the point of Roosh's piece.

What do you consider "normal"? If they are born gay, how is that not normal?

[scorpion]

(12-02-2013 02:18 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

What do you consider "normal"? If they are born gay, how is that not normal?

Why were you born? Was it because your father stuck his dick in your mother's pussy, or because he fucked another man's asshole?

Normal sex is man-woman sex. It's biological.

Humanity would not survive if homosexuality was normal.

Do I believe that homosexuality has a partial genetic component? Yes. Do I think that is sufficient excuse to allow homosexuals to propagandize society for acceptance of their sexual fetish? No. Because I also believe that pedophilia, bestiality and other abnormal sexualities are also partially genetic. That means nothing about whether we should tolerate their promotion in society.

I don't believe that human sexuality is binary, i.e. that a person is born either "straight" or "gay". It's much more complicated than that. Allowing the developing minds of children to be flooded with degenerate sexual propaganda is therefore incredibly damaging to them. It's the reason that so many victims of pedophiles become pedophiles themselves: their idea of normal sexuality is altered as children, and they are fucked up for life.

[soup]

(12-02-2013 01:41 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 12:47 PM)soup Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 12:29 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Soup, certainly the line is thinner and more malleable with sexual orientation than it is with preferences within an orientation. Isn't that explanation enough? We are talking two different preferences her, it's no wonder that one is "softer" than the other.

So, you are saying that you could have been convinced to be gay if you had grown up in a culture that pushed you towards it?

I think about sex as food. I get hungry when I see see good food and my stomach is empty.

Looking at a bicycle doesn't make me hungry. It never will.

It's same with pussy. I get physically turned on when I see good pussy. A man's dick is not only not a turn on for me (like I don't want to take it my mouth or ass), a dick near me get me angry.

Nope, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that the line between heterosexual and bi/homosexual is not as strong as the the line between attraction to signs of physical virility and signs of physical decay.

For example, when I am aroused, occasionally I get some "gay" thoughts. I am not turned on by anything homosexual in general - I find it unattractive and slightly repulsive - but when I am turned on, my disgust threshold is lowered a lot and the idea actually seems appealing (for that moment). I'd never actually do it, but I could occasionally (like once a year) fantasize about it if I was sufficiently turned on. Was this Beta?

I believe that most people of both genders are the same way, perhaps women a bit more (just look at the current explosion of "bi" women). With the right kind of encouragement and discouragement, especially since it takes skill for a man to experience love and sex with the opposite gender, but not the same, I don't find it unimaginable that many otherwise perfectly straight men could be turned to become gay or at least experiment with it. Especially in harsh environments where there are no women (prisons, monasteries) or few women (USA or China's sexual market for the average man who lives in perpetual sexual wasteland).

However, my sexual attractiveness threshold is lot stronger when it comes to what excites me within the gender. I can't get it up for fatties unless I'm in an extreme dry spell, and my disgust for them is strong. I like signs of health like toned bodies, long hair, healthy skin, facial symmetry, etc. Even if I were gay by some chance, I would still have an immensely strong preference for healthy, muscular dudes. There's no way I'd bang an old, wrinkled or obese guy.

Thus, it is a lot easier for the straight man to turn gay than for a man who likes indicators of health and beauty (in the gender that he prefers) to start preferring indicators of decay and ugliness.

Interesting. I've never had the desire to fuck a man, even when I'm aroused.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't imagine turning gay over going for an ugly chick.

Ha- I think you are wrong about this, man. If I had to chose between a man's asshole and dick vs. an obese woman, I'd go for the obese woman.

I believe it is easier for girls to be gay, but straight men don't have that kind of flexibility (or at least I don't feel like I could ever do that).

[lskdfjldsf]

Orientation from an evolutionary standpoint is binary, but attraction and the outward presentation of sexuality are dynamic.

That final second before you bust a nut - I mean, the final, split second - is it a dude, or a girl, on your mind? It's a moment of complete honesty. Anything else before or after is the result of society and what's pushed onto us.

[All or Nothing]

(12-02-2013 02:34 PM)soup Wrote:  

Interesting. I've never had the desire to fuck a man, even when I'm aroused.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't imagine turning gay over going for an ugly chick.

Ha- I think you are wrong about this, man. If I had to chose between a man's asshole and dick vs. an obese woman, I'd go for the obese woman.

I believe it is easier for girls to be gay, but straight men don't have that kind of flexibility (or at least I don't feel like I could ever do that).

This is actually backed by scientific studies. I remember an news article linked on here awhile ago that discussed this. Did a little searching, and I found a scientific study backing your observations:

"Men and postoperative male-to-female transsexuals
preferring men showed substantially higher subjective and
genital responses to male-male than to female-female stimuli,
and men and transsexuals preferring women showed the opposite
pattern."

"Although our results suggest that women have a nonspecific
pattern of arousal to sexual stimuli, they do not imply that women’s
sexual orientation is inherently bisexual. For example, despite
their capacity to become sexually aroused by both male and female
sexual stimuli, women do not have higher rates of same-sex
sexual activity than men (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels,
1994)."

http://www.canyons.edu/faculty/labriem/p...rousal.pdf

This is a study that tested purely for sexual arousal, rather than what the person consciously believe their sexual preferences are. Women were shown to have bisexual leanings whereas men had either purely heterosexual or homosexual.

[Dusty]

I experienced Heterophobia last night.

I was meeting a friend at the bar at a hotel. As I am walking into the hotel, a girl with a nice figure wearing a tight dress is eye balling me and smiling. She says "hi, I'm so excited." I go, "great ...why are you so excited?" She's very friendly and engaged with me. She goes "about the ceremony." I said "what ceremony?" She goes "your not part of the ceremony?" I said "I guess not."

She breaks eye contact and becomes real cold and I try to talk more and she gives me the cold shoulder.

I find out later that some homosexual men were getting married in one of the conference rooms.

She was a heterosexual female who was happy to engage with me and be friendly and nice when she thought I was a homosexual. Once she figured out I was heterosexual, and that I would likely want to fuck her, I became persona non grata.

[j r]

(12-02-2013 03:11 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

I experienced Heterophobia last night.

I was meeting a friend at the bar at a hotel. As I am walking into the hotel, a girl with a nice figure wearing a tight dress is eye balling me and smiling. She says "hi, I'm so excited." I go, "great ...why are you so excited?" She's very friendly and engaged with me. She goes "about the ceremony." I said "what ceremony?" She goes "your not part of the ceremony?" I said "I guess not."

She breaks eye contact and becomes real cold and I try to talk more and she gives me the cold shoulder.

I find out later that some homosexual men were getting married in one of the conference rooms.

She was a heterosexual female who was happy to engage with me and be friendly and nice when she thought I was a homosexual. Once she figured out I was heterosexual, and that I would likely want to fuck her, I became persona non grata.

More likely that she was being nice to you when she thought that you were a pre-approved mber of her social circle. When she realized that you were just some "random," she went cold. If she was single, she was probably very receptive to straight men at the wedding.

[soup]

(12-02-2013 03:11 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

I experienced Heterophobia last night.

I was meeting a friend at the bar at a hotel. As I am walking into the hotel, a girl with a nice figure wearing a tight dress is eye balling me and smiling. She says "hi, I'm so excited." I go, "great ...why are you so excited?" She's very friendly and engaged with me. She goes "about the ceremony." I said "what ceremony?" She goes "your not part of the ceremony?" I said "I guess not."

She breaks eye contact and becomes real cold and I try to talk more and she gives me the cold shoulder.

I find out later that some homosexual men were getting married in one of the conference rooms.

She was a heterosexual female who was happy to engage with me and be friendly and nice when she thought I was a homosexual. Once she figured out I was heterosexual, and that I would likely want to fuck her, I became persona non grata.

Ha, she wasn't being heterophobic, you just made a misstep in your game.

One thing I've learned is that when a girl asks you about anything you don't know about, just say "yes."

An example would be a girl asking you about some obscure band. Don't say "no, I haven't heard them", say "yes".

[Libertas]

(12-02-2013 12:00 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

I have no problem with homosexuality.

I have a problem when otherwise genetically normal boys are getting pushed around to become and act gay. My own family tried to shove this down my throat and I resent it whole heartily. If I had come out gay, there would have been a huge party and everyone would be "so proud" of my decision.

It's annoying, infuriating, and pulls the rug from underneath me. In all honesty, I probably have some form of bisexuality going on because of all of the upbringing. It's made me hella charming, a decent dresser, and regardless of my red pill ways societally acceptable.

I don't see the point in engaging in it because: 1. I have yet to meet any man where that sexual "spark" is ignited. For women, the spark is almost immediate.
2. I want to see my genetic lineage extended on to the next generation. I don't see the point in wasting my time with a dude just to end it with him while I go back to women.
3. The health risks are obscene. HIV is in fact a homosexual disease.

I always have people asking me if I am gay. I personally can't stand it and frankly I find it insulting. I wish I lived in a time where that rampant narcissism was shamed and people would call me eccentric instead of "gay".

Damn man, this sounds like it would make for a good article or blog post.

No problem with homosexuality here and I believe they should be entitled to the same respect and legal rights as anyone else. My problem comes when they become obnoxious about it and start trying to normalize and promote it. They make a big deal about it.

The biggest reason for all this hooplah is because homosexuals want the subsidies that come from government recognition of marriages. Get government out of that game and this will all likely go away.

But alas, it won't happen.

[eradicator]

(12-02-2013 05:21 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 12:00 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

I have no problem with homosexuality.

I have a problem when otherwise genetically normal boys are getting pushed around to become and act gay. My own family tried to shove this down my throat and I resent it whole heartily. If I had come out gay, there would have been a huge party and everyone would be "so proud" of my decision.

It's annoying, infuriating, and pulls the rug from underneath me. In all honesty, I probably have some form of bisexuality going on because of all of the upbringing. It's made me hella charming, a decent dresser, and regardless of my red pill ways societally acceptable.

I don't see the point in engaging in it because: 1. I have yet to meet any man where that sexual "spark" is ignited. For women, the spark is almost immediate.
2. I want to see my genetic lineage extended on to the next generation. I don't see the point in wasting my time with a dude just to end it with him while I go back to women.
3. The health risks are obscene. HIV is in fact a homosexual disease.

I always have people asking me if I am gay. I personally can't stand it and frankly I find it insulting. I wish I lived in a time where that rampant narcissism was shamed and people would call me eccentric instead of "gay".

Damn man, this sounds like it would make for a good article or blog post.

No problem with homosexuality here and I believe they should be entitled to the same respect and legal rights as anyone else. My problem comes when they become obnoxious about it and start trying to normalize and promote it. They make a big deal about it.

The biggest reason for all this hooplah is because homosexuals want the subsidies that come from government recognition of marriages. Get government out of that game and this will all likely go away.

But alas, it won't happen.

Married couples actually pay higher income taxes now than if the same two people filed as 2 single people. Sure it was different 25 years ago but that is no longer the case.

One less reason to get married. How exactly are you thinking that married couples(gay or straight) subsidized by the government?

[Libertas]

Didn't know that actually. Although there is probably some other stuff lurking in the tax code benefiting married couples- maybe home deductions or something.

One less reason to get married indeed.

[Que enspastic]

This may sound self-serving (because it is) but...

I actually wouldn't mind if the population of men who are gay increased from 8-10% to 50%

I would prefer the most physically attractive and accomplished guys are the ones who are gay too.

As long as the numbers of heterosexual women stay the same it just leads to a massive reduction in competition and facilitates a huge shift in power towards straight men.

Thailand is the classic case example. There are way more than 10% of guys in that country who are gay. There are a huge number of women who are left single as a result and they resent it bitterly.

It's a sexual marketplace.

As long as I kept the same mates I would not give the slightest fuck. I don't care much for society or country. Otherwise I would sacrifice my pleasure in sleeping around to marry a woman and raise model children who would be good citizens. For the greater good, a noble pathway.

I only care about my family and mates and myself. And that is it.

[Slim Shady]

I posted something in relation to that earlier in the thread, but yes this makes perfect sense. Pure homosexuality is a genetic failure and so straight men are not threatened by it. We get ti dominate more of the female market. The percentage of women who are bi is much higher in history anyways, and usually this has not been a problem in terms of us getting laid. Obviously the effects of modern chemicals, hormones etc butching up girls and making them exclusive prefer girls is a different story. Regardless, I have good friends who are gay, and I don't mind them, but there are two problems with anyone of this nature -though I won't necessarily bring it up to their face in today's world .

1) The will be very deluded liberals, even though they may think what they are doing is for the 'right cause' - and this will naturally hurt heterosexual males who are not afraid of behaving like men.
2)The prospect of their lifestyle being seen as an ideal place to raise children and families.With today's technology, gay's need not be sexual failures, since surrogates and donors can be used to still reproduce. The first issue is that is their progeny sound? What are the genetic effects of gays reproducing. This is probably not a big deal because closeted gays have been reproducing since the beginning of humanity. The truer problem is that what is the effect on their kids. This is a problem, and is creating an environment where heterosexual kids with all their cisgendered priviledge are being tormented, or will be tormented, for their "hate speech". That will then go towards creating the horror society outlined in the video I posted in starting the thread, which is actually a pro-gay video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ROXTFfkcfo

[Slim Shady]

Also, other animals have shown to turn gay in times of stress. Male rats for example show a large percentage of the male population turning gay when food is scarce, etc. A very good evolutionary defense mechanism for the species, but this may be what is happening to the humans now.

[Que enspastic]

All the books on early Australian history reveal Australia was perhaps one of the most homosexual countries of all time in its opening decades. Buggery, as it was known then, was ubiquitous and the authorities were aghast at how to stop it. Turned out their solution was to import massive numbers of single women into the country at a subsidy.

Men will have sex whether there are women or not. They will also have sex to dominate others as well as for their own enjoyment and release.

[Grit]

(12-02-2013 05:46 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

This may sound self-serving (because it is) but...

I actually wouldn't mind if the population of men who are gay increased from 8-10% to 50%

I would prefer the most physically attractive and accomplished guys are the ones who are gay too.

As long as the numbers of heterosexual women stay the same it just leads to a massive reduction in competition and facilitates a huge shift in power towards straight men.

Thailand is the classic case example. There are way more than 10% of guys in that country who are gay. There are a huge number of women who are left single as a result and they resent it bitterly.

It's a sexual marketplace.

As long as I kept the same mates I would not give the slightest fuck. I don't care much for society or country. Otherwise I would sacrifice my pleasure in sleeping around to marry a woman and raise model children who would be good citizens. For the greater good, a noble pathway.

I only care about my family and mates and myself. And that is it.

So you are really saying you don't care if 5% much less 50% go gay. since you don't care about anyone but yourself, why don't you suggest you coulndn't care if .001 percent of society is gay, thats a win win. Win you don't care, win you make guys like rooshvers happy.

ps if you care so much about yourself, I guess paying all those taxes for liberal baby mommas pisses you off, and you would never vote liberal, amiright?