Homosexual TV shows, movies

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If the representation of different groups in media has no effect on anyone's thinking, what difference does it make what groups are on TV and how they are portrayed? 

A leading question considering I never said that what's shown on media doesn't make any difference. Maybe you want to address your question to someone who did say that?

 

But I will say I think representation of all kinds of people on tv is a good thing and also that when there lots of representation it frees up producers to show all kinds of characters good and bad from all groups.

 

Cheers.

[thaicurious]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I could give a sh*t less what the "gay community" thinks is or is not cool. 

It is as much a distorting perversion of thought to on the one hand claim you don't care what gay people think is cool while simultaneously complaining that gays portrayed as cool are so important to you as to make you paranoid that being thought cool has the power to change a heterosexual's sexual orientation as it is a perversion of thought for you to try to convince others that fostering an atmosphere of honesty & acceptance of human nature causes humans to lie to themselves and others about their own sexual nature.

 

Perhaps you are afraid that your hate is all that keeps you from turning into a fag?

Edited January 5 by thaicurious

[scottiejohn]

40 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I made a post.

It didn't say what you say it said.

Read your post that I quoted

Do you deny posting it?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Read your post that I quoted

Do you deny posting it?

i deny your misrepresentation of what I wrote.

I'm certain your misrepresentation is INTENTIONAL.

Find someone else to harass.

Edited January 5 by Jingthing

[BobBKK]

On 12/16/2023 at 1:44 PM, Fairynuff said:

It never takes long for the bigots to show themselves and talking utter nonsense 

It never takes long for the 0.0001% to whine at every perceived injustice. Poor thing, and with such ad hominem - I must go and lie down and call my therapist right away! 

[JBChiangRai]

There are 2 very good reasons why I believe showing homosexuality as normal on TV is a good thing.

 

My eldest son who went to a public all-boys school (that means private in the UK) didn't feel comfortable telling his classmates he was gay, if portraying homosexuality as normal helps other kids with that then it's a good thing.

 

He came out to his mother before me.  He dreaded doing it and she did completely the wrong thing.  She cried and said how disappointed she was and it was an aberration and he had just given her the worst day of her life.  He was scarred from that.  If portraying homosexuality as normal helps other parents deal with their children coming out in a constructive and helpful manner, than that is good thing too.

 

When my son came out to me, I just said "Oh, I thought you wanted to tell me something important, it makes no difference to me, nothing you could do or say would make me love you any less, do you have a boyfriend yet?".

Edited January 6 by JBChiangRai
spelling

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, thaicurious said:

It is as much a distorting perversion of thought to on the one hand claim you don't care what gay people think is cool while simultaneously complaining that gays portrayed as cool are so important to you as to make you paranoid that being thought cool has the power to change a heterosexual's sexual orientation as it is a perversion of thought for you to try to convince others that fostering an atmosphere of honesty & acceptance of human nature causes humans to lie to themselves and others about their own sexual nature.

 

Perhaps you are afraid that your hate is all that keeps you from turning into a fag?

I never claimed did not care what gay people think. I said I don't care what the gay community thinks. 

 

Most of the hate I see comes from the left. 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

53 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

There are 2 very good reasons why I believe showing homosexuality as normal on TV is a good thing.

 

My eldest son who went to a public all-boys school (that means private in the UK) didn't feel comfortable telling his classmates he was gay, if portraying homosexuality as normal helps other kids with that then it's a good thing.

 

He came out to his mother before me.  He dreaded doing it and she did completely the wrong thing.  She cried and said how disappointed she was and it was an aberration and he had just given her the worst day of her life.  He was scarred from that.  If portraying homosexuality as normal helps other parents deal with their children coming out in a constructive and helpful manner, than that is good thing too.

 

When my son came out to me, I just said "Oh, I thought you wanted to tell me something important, it makes no difference to me, nothing you could do or say would make me love you any less, do you have a boyfriend yet?".

I don't see anything wrong with showing gays on TV as normal. 

 

Congratulations on your son. 

[Ben Zioner]

On 12/14/2023 at 10:51 PM, KhunLA said:

What's not normal ...

... gay people existing ?

... gay people having sex ?

... gay people kissing ?

Since you have used the word I'll tell you: there is nothing normal about homosexuality, heterosexuality is the foundation of life and evolution.

 

Now should we tolerate it? I'd say yes, unless it become militant to the point where our society is at risk.

[Jingthing]

54 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

Since you have used the word I'll tell you: there is nothing normal about homosexuality, heterosexuality is the foundation of life and evolution.

 

Now should we tolerate it? I'd say yes, unless it become militant to the point where our society is at risk.

Sounds like you're saying that gay people are inferior human beings because they don't breed.

So are lesbians who have kids from a turkey baster the same value as straights or are they still inferior?

Maybe if they got the sperm delivered straight from a dick that would up their worth?

What about straight people who choose not to or can't reproduce?

Are they as inferior as gay people on your pecking order?

 

Was Michelangello inferior to some random straight gang banger because he didn't fancy vag?

Edited January 6 by Jingthing

[Ben Zioner]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds like you're saying that gay people are inferior human beings because they don't breed.

Where did I say this? I wanted to say the Heterosexuality is the only "normal" sexuality. Anything else is "different". But feel free to "differ" as much as you want. I "differ" too occasionally, going to the wrong orifice, not the wrong gender, mind you.

 

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds like you're saying that gay people are inferior human beings because they don't breed.

So are lesbians who have kids from a turkey baster the same value as straights or are they still inferior?

Maybe if they got the sperm delivered straight from a dick that would up their worth?

What about straight people who choose not to or can't reproduce?

Are they as inferior as gay people on your pecking order?

 

Was Michelangello inferior to some random straight gang banger because he didn't fancy vag?

Was he normal? He was not. He was much more than that.

[Fairynuff]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

It never takes long for the 0.0001% to whine at every perceived injustice. Poor thing, and with such ad hominem - I must go and lie down and call my therapist right away! 

Took you a while to come up with that little side splitter paps. Still with the therapist?

[Flyguy330]

I'm interested in this issue on a more scientific level, as in, what is the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality? Since male/male sex does not lead to reproduction, how can a 'gene for gayness' be passed on? One of the central arguments gays make is that they didn't choose to be gay, that it is biologically 'forced' on them, ergo it is 'natural'. So it's genetic in nature.

There is clear evidence of homosexuality dating back to the dawn of civilisation. But if its genetic, but cannot reproduce itself, how does it get passed on over millenia? Evolution has pretty effective methods of eliminating 'unproductive traits' from the genome, naturally. One postulation is that it is a mutation, a kind of glitch, which is in fact the very essence of the evolutionary process. But why would this 'glitch' keep recurring with such high frequency in the population? Is there a statistical method which can identify how often a mutation would occur in a population? Does it add up with the mutation theory for gayness?  

If it is not a statistically explicable genetic mutation 'event', what is it? 

I've read some recent theories which put a more 'social' causation on gayness. The theory says that low status males could raise their status in certain communities by being gay, or at least swinging both ways. But the problem I see with that argument is that it means the inferred conclusion that gayness is in fact a 'lifestyle choice', and not a natural imperative.

I once asked this question of a gay acquaintance of mine. What do you think made you gay? He burst into tears and yelled 'I didn't choose this life'. So I believe him. I believe he can't help himself. I don't have a problem with it - in fact, after that encounter, I can feel nothing but pity for gays. That's why I would not be happy with my son being gay - because it results in a lot of prejudice and aggro, and leads to a more difficult and unhappy existence.

Edited January 6 by Flyguy330

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, Flyguy330 said:

That's why I would not be happy with my son being gay - because it results in a lot of prejudice and aggro, and leads to a more difficult and unhappy existence.

You are right, it does result in a lot of prejudice and it’s a hard life to live, most gay people spend the majority of their adult lives as singletons as relationships rarely last.

 

What matters is not whether you are not happy with your son being gay, what matters is how you react to it. How would you react to it?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

You are right, it does result in a lot of prejudice and it’s a hard life to live, most gay people spend the majority of their adult lives as singletons as relationships rarely last.

Maybe 20-30 years ago.

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

What matters is not whether you are not happy with your son being gay, what matters is how you react to it. How would you react to it?

No, what matters is how happy your son is.

[Flyguy330]

I'm sure you know that many countries are still not open to gayness in their population? Indeed in many it could mean a death sentence.

Even in Western nations which are supposedly 'enlightened' there are still plenty of events of gay bashing. And that's just the visible 'headline news' prejudice.

 

I would still love my son, but would fear for him. But so what? I'm just one person - don't draw societal conclusions from my reaction.

Try to focus on 'the big picture'.

Edited January 6 by Flyguy330

[jvs]

16 minutes ago, Flyguy330 said:

I'm interested in this issue on a more scientific level, as in, what is the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality? Since male/male sex does not lead to reproduction, how can a 'gene for gayness' be passed on? One of the central arguments gays make is that they didn't choose to be gay, that it is biologically 'forced' on them, ergo it is 'natural'. So it's genetic in nature.

There is clear evidence of homosexuality dating back to the dawn of civilisation. But if its genetic, but cannot reproduce itself, how does it get passed on over millenia? Evolution has pretty effective methods of eliminating 'unproductive traits' from the genome, naturally. One postulation is that it is a mutation, a kind of glitch, which is in fact the very essence of the evolutionary process. But why would this 'glitch' keep recurring with such high frequency in the population? Is there a statistical method which can identify how often a mutation would occur in a population? Does it add up with the mutation theory for gayness?  

If it is not a statistically explicable genetic mutation 'event', what is it? 

I've read some recent theories which put a more 'social' causation on gayness. The theory says that low status males could raise their status in certain communities by being gay, or at least swinging both ways. But the problem I see with that argument is that it means the inferred conclusion that gayness is in fact a 'lifestyle choice', and not a natural imperative.

I once asked this question of a gay acquaintance of mine. What do you think made you gay? He burst into tears and yelled 'I didn't choose this life'. So I believe him. I believe he can't help himself. I don't have a problem with it - in fact, after that encounter, I can feel nothing but pity for gays. That's why I would not be happy with my son being gay - because it results in a lot of prejudice and aggro, and leads to a more difficult and unhappy existence.

Very interesting.

Yes why does evolution not eliminate homosexuality?

I have never looked at it that way.

Quick detour,many elephants in Africa were being poached for their ivory.

How did they respond?By not growing big tusk or any tusks at all.

That is one way of nature dealing with things.Is the world (nature) doing the same kind of thing with people?Stop the over population?

Do gay people have more gay children then not gay parents?

Does it run in families?

So many questions .

I was raised in a pretty liberal country but i do not remember any gay guys in school(besides some teachers)

I have no problem with gay people at all,never have.

Genetics are pretty complicated and i deal with it on a hobby level a lot.

The more you learn the more you realize you don't know anything!

What i see a lot is people over reacting.

A few weeks ago i was wearing rainbow colored clothing for a special occasion and people

had the idea i was gay?

What?Because of some colors?

 

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Maybe 20-30 years ago.

No, what matters is how happy your son is.

I think even today, a gay relationship is harder to keep going than a straight one. Promiscuity, lack of children, and many other factors make relations easy-in, easy-out.

 

On your other point, both how you react to him coming out and how he happy he is are both important, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

1 minute ago, Flyguy330 said:

I'm sure you know that many countries are still not open to gayness in their population? Indeed in many it could mean a death sentence.

Even in Western nations which are supposedly 'enlightened' there are still plenty of events of gay bashing. And that's just the visible 'headline news' prejudice.

 

You are right, and it’s very sad.

 

I wanted to fly my 2 sons and wife/grandkids/boyfriend to Dubai for a short break.  Dubai being half way between Manchester and Thailand.  My gay son refused to go on principle. They could have shared a room, but it would put them at risk.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think even today, a gay relationship is harder to keep going than a straight one. Promiscuity, lack of children, and many other factors make relations easy-in, easy-out.

 

On your other point, both how you react to him coming out and how he happy he is are both important, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

You are right, and it’s very sad.

 

I wanted to fly my 2 sons and wife/grandkids/boyfriend to Dubai for a short break.  Dubai being half way between Manchester and Thailand.  My gay son refused to go on principle. They could have shared a room, but it would put them at risk.

I was talking about the part where you said: "You are right, it does result in a lot of prejudice and it’s a hard life to live..."  

[JBChiangRai]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I was talking about the part where you said: "You are right, it does result in a lot of prejudice and it’s a hard life to live..."  

 

Then I agree with you.

 

My son has been in a long term relationship for about 15 years now, I would say he is happy with his sexuality.

[JBChiangRai]

4 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

Since you have used the word I'll tell you: there is nothing normal about homosexuality, heterosexuality is the foundation of life and evolution.

 

Now should we tolerate it? I'd say yes, unless it become militant to the point where our society is at risk.

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#:~:text=Homosexuality is not a mental,a form of sexual expression.

 

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation

Edited January 6 by JBChiangRai

[Ben Zioner]

21 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology#:~:text=Homosexuality is not a mental,a form of sexual expression.

 

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have suggested for many years now that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation

Fairy nuff. But "empirical evidence" isn't overwhelmingly convincing. My guess is that they wrote that just to be fashionable. I wonder why? What does anyone have to gain from such "normal deviances"? At at time where it is understood that being deviant doesn't always make one a criminal.

[Yellowtail]

The same American Psychiatric Association that supports gender reassignment surgery for children. 

 

 

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, Flyguy330 said:

I'm interested in this issue on a more scientific level, as in, what is the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality? Since male/male sex does not lead to reproduction, how can a 'gene for gayness' be passed on? One of the central arguments gays make is that they didn't choose to be gay, that it is biologically 'forced' on them, ergo it is 'natural'. So it's genetic in nature.

There is clear evidence of homosexuality dating back to the dawn of civilisation. But if its genetic, but cannot reproduce itself, how does it get passed on over millenia? Evolution has pretty effective methods of eliminating 'unproductive traits' from the genome, naturally. One postulation is that it is a mutation, a kind of glitch, which is in fact the very essence of the evolutionary process. But why would this 'glitch' keep recurring with such high frequency in the population? Is there a statistical method which can identify how often a mutation would occur in a population? Does it add up with the mutation theory for gayness?  

You're assuming there's only 'one way to be born with' a particular characteristic ie it must be genetic.

 

But there's another way to be 'born with': that is, something unusual that happens in the womb. You are then 'born with' whatever the effect is but it's not genetic.

 

In the case of male homosexuality, there's plenty of statistical evidence that the more male babies a woman produces over time, the more likely the boy is to be homosexual. That doesn't mean that a single male produced (such as me) cannot be homosexual or that any younger son will necessarily be homosexual. It means that the likelihood is greater and gets bigger and bigger with each successive boy that a given woman produces. The reasons are hypothesised to relate to fetal development of the embryo at the stage - a few weeks after fertilisation - when the original 'female' embryo (which all embryos start out as) undergoes the processes to become male. In a small number of instances the process is not completed for a variety of reasons and a homosexually-oriented baby results. The baby may be male or female according to the particular 'irregularity' that has occurred.

 

For those who are interested in actual information - as opposed to nonsense and prejudice - a good starting point would be to browse the Wikipedia entries for 'Sexual differentiation in humans' and 'Biology and sexual orientation'. There are a hundred and one scientific books and papers to read on the subject.

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

You're assuming there's only 'one way to be born with' a particular characteristic ie it must be genetic.

 

But there's another way to be 'born with': that is, something unusual that happens in the womb. You are then 'born with' whatever the effect is but it's not genetic.

 

In the case of male homosexuality, there's plenty of statistical evidence that the more male babies a woman produces over time, the more likely the boy is to be homosexual. That doesn't mean that a single male produced (such as me) cannot be homosexual or that any younger son will necessarily be homosexual. It means that the likelihood is greater and gets bigger and bigger with each successive boy that a given woman produces. The reasons are hypothesised to relate to fetal development of the embryo at the stage - a few weeks after fertilisation - when the original 'female' embryo (which all embryos start out as) undergoes the processes to become male. In a small number of instances the process is not completed for a variety of reasons and a homosexually-oriented baby results. The baby may be male or female according to the particular 'irregularity' that has occurred.

 

For those who are interested in actual information - as opposed to nonsense and prejudice - a good starting point would be to browse the Wikipedia entries for 'Sexual differentiation in humans' and 'Biology and sexual orientation'. There are a hundred and one scientific books and papers to read on the subject.

 

Yet women seem to be having fewer and fewer babies, and more and more of them seem to be homosexuals. 

 

[mfd101]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yet women seem to be having fewer and fewer babies, and more and more of them seem to be homosexuals.

The obvious demographic effect of fertility rates dropping below 2.1 all around the world (Africa hasn't got there yet) is that - assuming the broad accuracy of the statistics re numbers of sons and incidence of homosexuality - the number of homosexuals should already be reducing steadily everywhere.

 

So the golden 'gay' years of the Western world may be receding. And the 'more and more seem to be homosexuals' is an effect of liberalizing social attitudes, which obscures the actual reduction - if that's what it is - in overall numbers.

 

In about 20 years the picture should be clearer. Meanwhile the homophobes will be waiting breathlessly.

[GinBoy2]

Well this thread turned out pretty toxic.

 

Never quite got the real hatred some seem to feel towards homosexuality.

 

Like I've said earlier my best friend in HS was gay. Somehow he he didn't seem to able to convert me to his 'team' even though back in the day we spent every waking hour together.

 

I also find it perplexing that many of the zealots will decry male anal sex as a sin, whereas the biggest market for female anal porn is from men!

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

The obvious demographic effect of fertility rates dropping below 2.1 all around the world (Africa hasn't got there yet) is that - assuming the broad accuracy of the statistics re numbers of sons and incidence of homosexuality - the number of homosexuals should already be reducing steadily everywhere.

 

So the golden 'gay' years of the Western world may be receding. And the 'more and more seem to be homosexuals' is an effect of liberalizing social attitudes, which obscures the actual reduction - if that's what it is - in overall numbers.

 

In about 20 years the picture should be clearer. Meanwhile the homophobes will be waiting breathlessly.

Right

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Well this thread turned out pretty toxic.

 

Never quite got the real hatred some seem to feel towards homosexuality.

 

Like I've said earlier my best friend in HS was gay. Somehow he he didn't seem to able to convert me to his 'team' even though back in the day we spent every waking hour together.

 

I also find it perplexing that many of the zealots will decry male anal sex as a sin, whereas the biggest market for female anal porn is from men!

So rather than discuss something, you call everyone haters and or zealots. Typical. 

 

I never said homosexuals were sinners. 

 

Nice to have a porn expert here, but did that really surprise you? It would surprise me if gay men and lesbians have any interest female anal porn at all.