Gay stuff

Topics which don't quite fit into any other category

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Nathan » 12 May 2013, 20:21

Elliott - I definitely agree with you in liberalism being a religion in itself. If it's the case that religion or dogma is an inevitable feature of any society to serve as the bedrock for its values - and there are very few, if any societies throughout history that have not some kind of belief system that doesn't tolerate dissent easily - then it is worrying what will replace it when liberalism comes crashing down. Especially considering what the other game in town is, I'd suggest a Christian revival as in the mid-nineteenth century would serve us well like it did last time, but we've been so severed from our cultural roots I just can't see that happening.

As for the gay adoption thing, I don't really have strong opinions either way. I'm glad I was raised the 'proper way' by two biological parents who were married and who stayed married, and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way, but couldn't think of my own reasons why gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt other than a fairly weak 'because it's always been that way' and the religious argument, which likely would not have any meaning to the person arguing in favour of gay adoption anyway. Perhaps I would feel confident in saying two women shouldn't be allowed to adopt a boy or two men a girl because they were incapable of providing a gender-appropriate role model, but that's as far as I would go.

I personally would put an asterisk next to a gay marriage or a non-biological family as 'not quite the real thing', but wouldn't felt I had any right to project my views onto those who think entirely differently. Likewise, if I had to give up children for adoption and had the option to choose for them to be brought up by a straight couple or a gay couple I'd go with the straight couple any day, but again, wouldn't feel that my way was the only way.

I'd like to play devil's advocate again and throw a liberal spanner into your arguments to see what you come up with in response.

Elliott wrote: It totally rewrites and undermines what it is to be "a family"

It rewrites your old-fashioned idea of what it is to be a family. Things change. Vikings used to send boys away to be brought up by other families, rich people used to send their children away to be brought up in boarding schools or by nannies. Bringing up children in Africa is the responsibility of the whole village.

Who says being brought up by two biological parents is any more 'right' than any other kind of family, particularly considering how many children are being brought up by step-parents or single mothers anyway and turn out perfectly OK and how many who are brought up by two biological parents but end up going off the rails?

Elliott wrote:Two lesbians trying to teach their "daughter" about men when they often will know very little about men and often will be quite suspicious about men, and may consider men to be outmoded, obsolete, laughable, etc.

That's just a stereotype. Besides, how is this any different to chauvinistic fathers teaching their sons negative attitudes towards women or abandoned single mothers giving their daughters negative, embittered attitudes towards men?

Elliott wrote:Gay culture (and this was said to me at the age of 17 by a middle-aged gay man) is basically shallow, selfish and materialistic. It does not inculcate or encourage the qualities that one needs to be a parent; in fact it routinely and implicitly derides them. Frankly, I don't think that anyone who was plugged into mainstream gay culture would be a good parent; they've spent 10 or 20 years being told to think about themselves, be selfish, be shallow, be happy, be carefree, etc.

It's so hard to be accepted to be a foster parent - so hard that to get through the selection process you'd have to be in it for the right reasons, not just doing it as some fashion statement. That's such a stereotypical view of gay people anyway - personally I doubt the kind of gay person who'd want to adopt children would be "plugged into gay culture" in any case.

Somebody like Baden-Powell was supposed to have been gay and perhaps would have been open about it had he lived in a more tolerant era, yet he was a principled, dutiful man with genuine, perfectly innocent paternal instincts who wanted to do best for children in setting up the Scouting Association. Hardly some flaming homo like what you'd have him typecast as.
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Elliott » 29 Jun 2013, 21:07

This story could have been tailor-made for my thesis...

Boy was adopted at age 2 by a pair of lesbians. Now age 11, he believes he is a girl trapped in a male body and is on hormone suppressants to delay puberty. His lesbian parents believe he will undergo a sex change to become female.

What are the odds? Statistically, what are the odds of two lesbians adopting a child who just happens to have transgender issues? It would even be more plausible if the child was a girl who believed she was a boy, but this is a boy who, surprise surprise, is aligning with his two parents. I can't believe it's just a coincidence.
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Paul » 29 Jun 2013, 22:17

My God, it's like something out of Brave New World. I wonder what his 'parents' are? Delta minuses (oh go on, pluses then) I would presume.

Gallows humour aside, what an utter tragedy. Poor lad. Who in their right minds sanctions an adoption for 2 lesbians? They should be put on trial - Crimes against Nature or even Humanity, something of that order.
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Connor » 05 Aug 2013, 05:19

Lately, I've been having a rather frightening experience on Facebook. This thread seems like the right place to talk about it.

You see, dear readers, I can't bear to even look at Facebook anymore. Now, granted, I've always somewhat hated Facebook, but it now appears to be worse than ever. That's because there is something... some dreaded symbol that seems to haunt me everywhere I go on that website. Brace yourself, because here it is below:


Perhaps you recognize it yourself. This thing, whatever we may call it, now appears as the profile picture for countless people on Facebook.

In the past, you would look at your list of Facebook friends and see the faces of your friends, families and co-workers. Now, you're met with a bunch of red squares with equal signs imposed on them. Your loved ones' previous faces - which were unique, familiar and (sometimes) lovely - have all vanished. They've been replaced by this...this thing!

What does it all mean? What treachery is afoot?

Apparently, this image shows a person's support for "Marriage Equality," which means support for homosexual marriage. A broader interpretation would be that this little square displays one's support for "Gay Rights" in general, and maybe a handful of other trendy Progressive causes.

Yet, am I the only one who is reminded of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

People are wilfully replacing their individual pictures for this bland, featureless, uniform symbol which represents "equality." By doing so, they are certainly making a statement - just not the one that they think.
Unwittingly, they are exposing the banal groupthink that lies at the heart of modern Progressivism. In the mad race for "equality," Progressives are attempting to erase all the distinctions and differences amongst people. The result will not be Utopia, but a far blander world. It only makes sense, then, for obedient Progressives to surrender their profile picture for this equality symbol. The individual personality has been traded in for an Orwellian badge of honor, which marks one as another drone in the hivemind. Hence, we have Pod People for the Internet Age. Or am I getting a bit too dramatic here?

Furthermore, I've noticed one group of people on Facebook who seem to be particularly enthusiastic about the symbol: young, heterosexual women. When I scroll through my list of Facebook friends, almost every profile that sports the equality symbol fits that description. Keep in mind, though, that I do know a fair number of gay people where I live. Last time I checked, not a single one of them has used the equality symbol on Facebook.

This might confirm something that I've suspected for a while: the whole "Gay Marriage" debate, paradoxically, does not seem to be a big issue for the gay community. Somehow, it has become a cause that heterosexual progressives have naively taken up by themselves. I think the latter group simply fails to grasp that the gay lifestyle is different from the straight lifestyle, and therefore we can only talk about "equality" to a limited extent in that context.

So ultimately, those little red squares on Facebook might not add up to anything (get it?). Red Scares sure aren't what they used to be...
Posts: 113
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 03:54
Location: New York, NY, USA

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Nathan » 09 Feb 2014, 12:57

I've been watching some of the Winter Olympics today, but have managed to block out most of the sermonising about Russian attitudes towards homosexuality until I read this article in the Spectator about the smugness of the anti-Sochi protests.

I'm aware of an overall hostility towards homosexuality in Russian society, which I personally find quite irrational, but didn't actually know the ins and outs of this new law that's caused such a furore - correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it solely about banning the teaching of homosexuality, more or less the same as Section 28, passed in this country no more than about 25 years ago?

Love this comment!

When homosexuality was legalised in private for consenting adults aged 21 and over in 1967, the co-sponser of the bill in the Upper House Lord Arran said: “I ask those [homosexuals] to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity… any form of ostentatious behaviour now or in the future or any form of public flaunting would be utterly distasteful…”
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Elliott » 10 Feb 2014, 01:39

That's a very interesting quote, Nathan. It's fascinating how one thing leads to another, with the proponents at each stage often unaware that their work is merely one stage in a continuum, which will eclipse them and their ideas.
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Mike » 10 Feb 2014, 05:43

Just saw that rainbow thing on the Guardian website. Nauseating.

How could anyone seriously think that such a smug, vapid gesture (a) does the remotest bit of good for homosexuals in Russia, (b) does anything to change the mind of anyone in the west?

I'm also interested to know where all these posers were during the Soviet days, when persecution of homosexuals was just as bad if not worse.
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 11:08
Location: Australia

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Andrea » 10 Feb 2014, 19:16

Personally, I don't care whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual or whatever (we should all try to be 'gay' as in happy, blithe), but I can't stand having anyone's sexual orientation made a big song and dance about. I don't want to know about anyone else's sex life! That's private!
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 21:55
Location: England

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Gavin » 10 Feb 2014, 19:52

I was thinking about that too. Not long ago I said how I have no problem with homosexuals but I wish they would stop going on about it because it, yawn.. accepted now. But then I thought there are really two kinds of gays. Some are known as "straight acting", I gather (which seems slightly insulting because they're probably not acting, that's just how they are) but then for others their gayness is actually involves flamboyance. It's part and parcel of it, so they can't stay quiet! These can be somewhat aggravating, but then so can a lot of ostentatious, showy people.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Gay stuff

Postby Andreas » 11 Feb 2014, 22:48

I've been watching some of the Winter Olympics today, but have managed to block out most of the sermonising about Russian attitudes towards homosexuality

How could anyone seriously think that such a smug, vapid gesture (a) does the remotest bit of good for homosexuals in Russia, (b) does anything to change the mind of anyone in the west?

I understand the comments here but I think one should be careful not to end up endorsing Putinism. My overwhelming impression is that he is a thug (like many Russian rulers before him) and his actions are not motivated by any concern or desire for the general good. Russia has many talented, outstanding individuals, but as a society it is repressive and stifling--I thought this was borne out by the opening ceremony at the Olympics, which had moments of beauty contrasting with moments of militaristic lockstep (in its own way, it was as interesting as the London ceremony in the way it misrepresented history). In spite of all the bad things we observe around us in society nowadays, we should not want Western countries to resemble Russia.

In any case, the anti-gay law or laws in Russia are not really going to protect children or anyone else, but more likely to be vaguely phrased and useful against enemies of Putin or his apparatus, in the way that almost any independent art in Soviet times could be denounced as "anti-Soviet propaganda."
Posts: 195
Joined: 04 Sep 2012, 22:31


Return to Other Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.