Lion of the Blogosphere

How the gays won

I was never a big fan of gay marriage. Why do gay people need to get married? But it’s over. The gays won. Conservatives and Republicans should give up on this issue and move on.

Rather than read today’s Supreme Court opinions, let’s examine the much more important reason why gays won.

Thirty to forty years ago, gays were seen as disgusting perverts. No one would have ever supported gay marriage. There was a big brouhaha about whether gays should even be allowed to be school teachers.

But what gays did to change all this was that they took over Hollywood. Just about every single popular TV show had one or more cool and sympathetic gay characters. It’s impossible to watch any decent TV today without watching gays. Even TV shows aimed at young people have gay characters in them. Shows like Gossip Girl or Pretty Little Liars. All these gay people on TV creates powerful social proof that convinces everyone that gays are awesome and should have the same “rights” as straights. Only “haters” could be opposed to gays.

If Republicans and conservatives want to take back the country from the liberals, they need to take over Hollywood, remove the gay and liberal messages from the TV shows, and replace them with conservative messages. But don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Conservatives don’t get what they’re doing wrong. They just want to double down on their loser strategies that aren’t working.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 26, 2013 at 9:06 pm

Posted in News, Television

108 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The thing is, most people who actually know gays and lesbians realize that the vast majority of them are decent people who deserve basic rights.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    June 26, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    • This has nothing to do with opposing individuals; what is opposed is the idea that homosexual marriage should be accorded equal status with heterosexual marriage.

      taj31

      June 27, 2013 at 12:24 am

    • most polygamists are decent people too who deserve basic rights.

      you’re out of your depth. go back to pretending you like big hairy 1970s bushes.

      just another overpriced wedding heralding the fat wife years

      June 27, 2013 at 12:44 am

    • Well, they’ve always had the right to marry just as everyone else. The issue is whether they could re-create marriage as an institution that no longer exclusively propped up a reproductively beneficial relationship between the sperm bearer and the egg bearer. I don’t doubt that marriage, between heterosexuals, in some manner advances adaptive fitness. Homosexual marriage in this regard is irrelevant. Having said that, many if not most people understand that giving Gabourey Sidibe an Oscar didn’t make her a starlet just as calling a homosexual union a marriage doesn’t make it one. Folks will still understand the essential difference between a fitness beneficial relationship and a fitness irrelevant relationship and they will intuit that the two relationships perform two different purposes. I suspect this will end up much like the great social effort to force women into men’s clubs (where most women didn’t want to be anyway). All it did was hasten the decline of the men’s clubs.

      Curle

      June 27, 2013 at 1:08 am

      • Gay have always had the right to marry…just not someone of the same sex. If a gay man married a gay woman, then would a state or the fed deny them a marriage? Of course not. Gays, therefore, have always had the same rights as straights.

        map

        June 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    • so gay marriage is a basic right now?

      ScarletNumber

      June 27, 2013 at 1:38 am

    • Exactly! My best friend is gay, he’s been in a 3-year relationship and he also ants to be able to have children one day. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed to get married and start a family.

      contemplatinglove

      June 27, 2013 at 3:36 am

      • I am fine with granting all the rights of marriage to homosexual couples except for the right to adopt or have children. I think it would be better to grow up in a Catholic orphanage than have two gay parents. Fear of adoption and procreating through test tube babies is the primary reason I do not support same-sex marriage.

        de Broglie

        June 27, 2013 at 10:04 am

      • That’s exactly the problem…

        You “can’t see” and some how your blindness shall be our guide.

        thordaddy

        June 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    • This is a strawman. They never lacked rights afforded to anyone else.

      Prole

      June 27, 2013 at 3:49 am

    • I know some gay people that are decent, but I also know from being in the village that there are a lot of disgusting pervert gays. Any data you look at on the behavior in the gay community will show that the degree of disgusting pervertism is much higher there then in the straight community.

      asdf

      June 27, 2013 at 9:09 am

      • While my first reaction is to say that disgusting pervertism is relative, at least anecdotally, it seems the norm among gay men is what is relegated to the extreme of hetero couples. But that isn’t necessarily an argument against gay marriage. After all, perverted hetero couples can get married. What is an argument against it (in my view) is that a legally recognized marriage is not a civil right on par with other basic human and civil rights.

        islandmommy

        June 27, 2013 at 10:15 am

      • Your typical gay dudes in a “committed” relationship will, on a regular basis, go out on a Saturday night and get buggered by total strangers, come back home and maintain the facade of a committed, marriage-like relationship. You wish to put this relationship on the same plane as heterosexual marriage?

        The norms of gay relationships will affect heterosexual marriage to marriage’s detriment. How could gay dudes ever sue for divorce because of adultery? The case would get laughed out of court because everybody knows that gays bugger like rabbits. Well, if gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage, wouldn’t this fact also affect the expectations and norms of heterosexual marriage regarding fidelity?

        This gay marriage thing is a can of worms that didn’t need to be opened.

        Daniel

        June 28, 2013 at 3:10 am

    • The thing is, most people who actually know gays and lesbians realize that the vast majority of them are decent people who deserve basic rights. — Peter

      Some are decent. Most are degenerates. Think about it. How would men act if women didn’t say “no”? When it’s all men there’s no women to say “no”. And that’s exactly how most act.

      They already have the same right to marry as everyone else. There’s no law against it. What they want is for the state to endorse them. People have a right to practice religion. Should the state endorse that, too?

      destructure

      June 27, 2013 at 11:34 am

      • bullshit, it’s currently illegal in most states for gays to get married

        just in

        June 27, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      • “bullshit, it’s currently illegal in most states for gays to get married”

        Not one state has a law against gays getting married. Most gays, due to their orientation, find marriage unsuitable. but for some reason, instead of embracing their own diversity, they wish to make the rest of us pretend they are married, and alter our institutions to maintain the pretense.

        Prole

        June 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm

      • I don’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed to get married and start a family.

        You haven’t thought about it very hard.

        samsonsjawbone

        June 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm

      • ^ replying in the wrong place. Anyway:

        it’s currently illegal in most states for gays to get married

        No, it is legal in all 50 states for a gay man to get married – to a woman.

        samsonsjawbone

        June 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm

      • “When it’s all men there’s[sic] no women to say “no”.”

        BS. Despite the PUA nonsense women are the aggressors 9 times out of 10.

        Hendrik Verwoerd

        June 28, 2013 at 4:40 am

      • If destructure had a “Freaky Friday” and was switched into the body of the young Monty Clift, wouls she make for the bathhouse that night?

        Hendrik Verwoerd

        June 28, 2013 at 6:08 am

      • “Some are decent. Most are degenerates. Think about it. How would men act if women didn’t say “no”? When it’s all men there’s no women to say “no”. And that’s exactly how most act.”

        True, I learned this by reading gay CL ads in a fit of boredom. Talk about no holds barred (pun?).

        islandmommy

        June 28, 2013 at 10:25 am

    • @Peter: “the vast majority of them are decent people who deserve basic rights.”

      Gay people have the same exact rights as everyone else. Every gay man has the right to marry a woman and only a woman. Every straight man has the right to marry a woman and only a woman. This looks exact equivalent right to me.

      What “basic rights” are they denied? Or are you just making a statement – “gays deserve basic rights” – which is, in fact, true – gays do deserve basic rights. Not only do the deserve them, they have them.

      E. Rekshun

      June 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm

      • “”gays have same right to marry as i do “”

        Every time i hear that crap – that always reminds me of the old Cold War joke –

        An American and a Russian are arguing about freedom and liberty – The Amer. says “”i have free speech – I can go right in front of the White House and call Nixon and asshole and burn the US flag – YOU’D
        get sent to Siberia “”

        The Russian says “”big deal – I got the EXACT SAME RIGHTS – i too can burn the American flag and
        call Nixon an asshole!””

        Thats not what we mean by the same rights and you know it.

        Gay marriage would be an additional right for EVERYONE, not a special right for them alone.
        Aww, pull in that bottom lip – No one will make ya marry a man if you dont want to.

        Tiki Torch

        June 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    • to Peter:
      Assuming your opinion is representative of the norm, unfortunately it probably is, the fact that you believe gays do not currently enjoy basic rights and are under some form of persecution is proof that HollyWood has done a pretty good job of brainwashing the public. Gays have the right to: get a job, go to school, start a company, run for a political office, buy a house, cohabitate, and do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms between consenting adults. I find it laughable how so many people believe gays are persecuted when they get to do 99% of everything that is humanly possible.

      Ode

      June 27, 2013 at 6:37 pm

  2. Did gays take over hollywood, or were they already widespread in influential roles and decided to wield their influence for self-serving objectives? (not just marriage, but to normalize themselves).

    i think conservatives would have a hard time with the sitcom format. it’s hard to imagine the baptist-friendly version of seinfeld. perhaps it would be funny to baptists and incomprehensible to city folk. maybe that’s your point. think about napoleon dynamite. apparently mormons get a real kick out of that movie.

    christopher nolan, and the narnia movies, come to mind as successful “conservative” media. it can certainly do well.

    but as you’ve identified elsewhere, elites tend to be liberals. i think that is just a natural part of being elite – beliefs as conspicuous display (thorstein veblen) and not based in logic, sort of like an hermes bag. so the people who would lead these efforts, finance them, have mostly been corrupted by their rise to the elite. and the rest are just chicken to go against the dominant paradigms of modernity.

    an interesting strategy to go against hollywood might be to start investigating “gossip” news more seriously, and reporting it. there are some pretty crazy rumors about what sanctimonious stars do in their private lives, not to mention widespread exploitation by producers and directors. this might counterbalance the moralizing on, say, global warming if it was public knowledge what scum some of these folks were in their private lives.

    lion of the lionosphere

    June 26, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    • Investigating pedophile rings and molestation of child stars is the way to go and attack Hollywood.

      map

      June 27, 2013 at 10:36 pm

  3. “But what gays did to change all this was that they took over Hollywood.”

    AFAIK, gays have always overrepresented in the entertainment industry. Not so much as actors, but in other jobs. Look at the credits after a TV show or movie. Count the number of actors, and then count everybody else. There are many more jobs behind the camera than in front of it, and gays are overrepresented there.

    “Just about every single popular TV show had one or more cool and sympathetic gay characters.”

    One explanation for this is that TV/film writers have a lot of personal experience (see above) with sympathetic gay people, and they’re writing what they know. That, and taking great satisfaction in pissing off the social conservatives.

    “If Republicans and conservatives want to take back the country from the liberals, they need to take over Hollywood”

    Republicans are supposed to believe in free markets (for purposes of this discussion, let’s ignore the fact that free markets don’t really exist). If there was a huge unserved market for “conservative entertainment”, a bunch of Republicans should be able start their own movie studio and/or cable network, create that type of programming, and make a fortune. Funny how this hasn’t happened.

    John Doe

    June 26, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    • Actually, conservatives have started both very small movie studios (Sherwood Pictures, EchoLight Studios, ect.) and they have started their own TV networks (TheBlaze TV by Glenn Beck), but these are small ventures. In the case of the very small conservative movie studios, these studios only crank out religious based or religious themed movies, which limit their appeal. As for Glenn Beck’s network TheBlaze TV, well it is very small and is going to have a tough time competing against the major networks.

      You see, the problem is conservatives tend to be religious and not hip, so this tends to prevent them from being able to make movies and TV shows that have mass appeal. Sure, every now and then a conservative movie or show will do ok (especially if it is a kids movie or program), but overall conservatives don’t seem that well suited to making entertainment that has mass appeal.

      Jay

      June 27, 2013 at 12:46 am

    • The point. on the free market is totally wrong. Fox news came out of nowhere to be the #1 cable news network. There are 2-3 left-center cable networks to one right-center. Arguably the market could support another conservative network (split the fox audience) but no one is doing so. Even murdoch finds some of the views on fox distasteful and embarassing inhis elite circuits. Think about fox falling in line on immigration reform. Makes no sense for republicans but that’s what murdoch wants.

      lion of the lionosphere

      June 27, 2013 at 7:53 am

  4. So, basically, life imitates art or at least propaganda.

    So, if we have TV shows that only show married intact families, people will think that is just the way life is?

    And if we have shows with stupid rude f-uped losers, people will think that is normal?

    Who knew?

    not too late

    June 26, 2013 at 9:36 pm

  5. “If Republicans and conservatives want to take back the country from the liberals, they need to take over Hollywood, remove the gay and liberal messages from the TV shows, and replace them with conservative messages”

    I’m curious to see how that would happen. Ideas anyone?
    Not that it can’t be done; decades ago, who would’ve thought that gays would make a disproportionate influence in the media.

    markus

    June 26, 2013 at 9:44 pm

  6. Homosexuals have shown that they are the most powerful special interest group in the U.S. The only question for the future is what the very liberal, very militant homosexuals will do with that power as the U.S. becomes a one party state and they are the most powerful block inside the Democratic Party.

    The only thing conservatives should be focusing on is how to survive in the U.S. when the Democrats are the only relevant party, elections are moot, and there is no way for conservatives to actually affect policy or governance.

    superdestroyer

    June 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm

  7. We could make very good TV and movies mocking liberals. Mike Judge’s series “The Goode Family” pulls that off to a degree.

    mindweapon

    June 26, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    • That’s brilliant. Completely made my day.

      Also, a good conservative film is “Apocalypto.” Family man saves his pregnant wife and young son from big government. Then they go live off grid in the jungle. There should be more films like that.

      islandmommy

      June 27, 2013 at 10:18 am

      • Also, a good conservative film is “Apocalypto.”

        I’ll put it on our “to watch” list. I don’t know where this idea comes form that “conservative” media is necessarily unappealing. I agree that at the present time, popular opinion holds “conservatism” to be generally lame, but I believe there is a large, unfilled market for entertainment that upholds genuinely traditional values, as long it’s done tastefully and not preachy.

        samsonsjawbone

        June 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm

  8. “If Republicans and conservatives want to take back the country from the liberals, they need to take over Hollywood, remove the gay and liberal messages from the TV shows, and replace them with conservative messages. But don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Conservatives don’t get what they’re doing wrong. They just want to double down on their loser strategies that aren’t working.”

    The problem with Republicans are they are naturally squares and far too religious.

    I mean, there do exist very small conservative movie studios (Sherwood Pictures, EchoLight Studios, etc.), but these very small movie studios only make religious based or focused movies, which naturally have a limited appeal. Thus, don’t expect these very small conservative movies studios to ever challenge Hollywood.

    Jay

    June 26, 2013 at 9:52 pm

  9. Nicely said.

    “Conservatives don’t get what they’re doing wrong. They just want to double down on their loser strategies that aren’t working.”

    They’re going to die out I guess. Cest la vie.

    DelFuego

    June 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm

  10. Ben Shapiro wrote a book called Primetime Propaganda where he talks about this. He said he’d schedule an interview, he’d show up wearing a Harvard sweatshirt and they’d see his name an automatically assume he was a liberal. And they’d tell him everything.

    He has a lot of audio clips from interviews on his Youtube channel where Hollywood leftists talk about conservatives and manipulating the public on various issues. There’s about a dozen 2 min clips. They stress how subtle they are about it. It’s particularly interesting when they talk about discriminating against conservatives. They don’t actually say they do it themselves. Instead, they sort of acknowledge it as a reasonable consequence of everyone else being liberal and then give a wink and a nod.

    This clip is the creator, producer and writer talking about SSM on Friends
    This clip is the creator, producer and writer talking about SSM on Desperate Housewives

    destructure

    June 26, 2013 at 10:04 pm

  11. “All we have to do is take over Hollywood” is equivalent to the “assume a canopener” economist joke. Since Hollywood is a cartel of sorts, and you’ve discussed cartels in your value transference posts, that’s a tall order by itself.

    Add to that the fact that creative types, such as script writers, tend to be very liberal, and it’s basically impossible.

    Speaking of which, why DO they tend to be liberal?

    Jokah Macpherson

    June 26, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    • “Speaking of which, why DO they tend to be liberal?”

      They tend to be liberal because people who are creative tend to be more “right brain” brain dominant than “left brain” dominant. The right side of the brain tends to be the side that focuses on creative tasks and is also used in expressing emotions, so “right brain” dominant people tend to be more “bleeding heart” types, and that falls in perfectly with liberalism.

      Jay

      June 27, 2013 at 12:53 am

    • Media is mostly about novelty, and people with a strong sense of novelty tend to be “open to experience” types that are liberal.

      asdf

      June 27, 2013 at 9:15 am

    • Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has studied the psychological differences between conservatives and liberals in depth. From Le Wik I quote:

      “Moral Foundations Theory considers the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five (later revised to six) “foundations” that underlie morality in all societies and individuals. He names them using pairs of opposites to indicate that they provide continua along which judgments can be measured.[11] These are:

      – Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
      – Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions, giving them their “just deserts”.[12][13] (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
      – Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
      – Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
      Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
      – Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

      Haidt found that the more politically liberal or left-wing people are, the more they tend to value care and fairness (proportionality), and the less they tend to value loyalty, respect for authority and purity. Conservatives or right-wing people, tend to value all the moral foundations somewhat equally. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.”

      Nyk

      June 27, 2013 at 10:56 am

  12. Also, it confuses me why ordinary heterosexual people CARE so much about gay marriage. I think the stats I’ve seen, from groups with incentives to inflate the numbers, are that .1% of the US population is actually in a same-sex marriage; meanwhile, the original heterosexual institution is rotting out from within…

    Jokah Macpherson

    June 26, 2013 at 10:21 pm

  13. There’s actually a great book on this topic called “FREAKS TALK BACK: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Non-Conformity” by a sociologist from Yale university named Joshua Gamson.

    The book credits Donahue and Oprah with making gays mainstream. For years it was extremely taboo to put gays on TV but Donahue was one of the first talk shows to discuss homosexuality and other taboo topics, but this had limited impact because Donahue was only one show. Then when Oprah got hired to compete against Donahue she doubled his ratings by focusing even more on this taboo topic, and kicked it up a notch by bringing in drag queens and having an entire studio audience confess one after another that they were gay.

    Then when everyone saw how much money Oorah was making hosting this kind of down and dirty talk show, it turned into an entire industry: Jenny Jone, Ricki Lake, Jerry Springer; each show more outrageous than the last until gay one night stand reunions were a common topic, and Oprah herself had to distance herself from her competitors by starting a book club, to avoid getting lumped in with trash TV.

    But after 20 years of gays constantly on daily talk shows, the country (and by extension the world) became desensitized to gay issues, and it became acceptable to have gays on mainstream sitcoms like “Will and Grace” and for presidents to talk about gay rights.

    Bottledwater

    June 26, 2013 at 10:41 pm

  14. It’s ironic because the only reason why a gay population exists is because of closeted, conservative policies. In the past, families discovering a child was gay would simply tell the kid to man or woman up, get married and have grandkids. This policy led to the continued spreading of the gay gene which is why homosexuality keeps appearing within every generation of human beings.

    Now that homosexuality is out in the open, homosexuals can sort assortatively among themselves. The result is an eventual collapse of the gay population due to the collapse in couplings with unwitting heterosexuals. The result is a future with far fewer gay people, at least among whites.

    Who will mourn their disappearance?

    I feel sorry for gays because they do not understand how they are being used. Gay marriage is all about reducing the costs women face from being caught being unfaithful. Gay marriage is supposed to usher in the “no fault” open marriage, where women can take lovers into their marriages all they want and men cannot deny them any resources. Divorce if initiated by a man in such circumstances will never result in a denial of alimony, child support or split assets to the woman. It is the final nail in the coffin of hetero marriages, at least for those still inclined to marry.

    map

    June 26, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    • ON THE GAY GENE: Hemophilia has been passed down genetically forever despite often killing its victims pre-1960’s and again during the height of the AIDS epidemic.

      I don’t know too much about genetics, but perhaps it’s a recessive gene that spreads through straight carriers?

      Again, I’m a total layman here. Please don’t flame me if I’m off base on this one.

      High Prole & Proud

      June 27, 2013 at 12:28 am

    • Someone sees what’s really going on.

      Kyo

      June 27, 2013 at 5:53 am

    • “Gay marriage is all about reducing the costs women face from being caught being unfaithful. Gay marriage is supposed to usher in the ‘no fault’ open marriage,”

      Huh? I do agree that there’s a drive to make marriage ever more amenable to wimmin and oppressive to men, but how does gay marriage facilitate this?

      Allerious

      June 27, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      • Allerious –

        A peculiar feature of gay relationships is the open relationship. Gays are very promiscuous without being serially monogamous. They have multiple partners. This s one of the reasons why AIDS spread so quickly throughout the gay community. In fact, AIDS used to called GRIDS (gay-related immune deficiency syndrome.

        Anyway, gay marriage weakens and destroys marriage as an institution for straight men because liberals are counting on gays to introduce polygamous practices into heterosexual marriages. They are waiting for the case of Ace v. Gary. Gary is angry that Ace keeps stepping out. He wants a divorce, that is, he wants to remove Ace from the relationship without giving Ace any alimony or splitting the assets. Ace counters that his and Gary’s relationship was always “open” and that they had agreed to maintain this even after they were married. Ace produces a string of witnesses testifying to this effect. Court rules that Ace cannot be removed from the properties without being paid what he is equitably owed. The decision becomes a precedent for every other subsequent divorce case.

        This means that a wife can go ahead a bring anyone into the relationship that she wants and the husband would not be able to divorce her in any way that has teeth. That is the ultimate purpose of gay marriage.

        This is something people do not seem to understand. The issue is not deep religious conviction or leading by example. The issue is that equality implies an equivalence. Not only must homosexuals be treated the same way as heterosexuals, but heterosexuals must be treated the same way as homosexuals. This means accommodating yourself to any changes in the marriage law that gays introduce.

        Is that what people want? To be legally treated like a homosexual?

        Liberals operate by subversion and they introduce this kind of destruction in very subtle ways.

        map

        June 27, 2013 at 10:07 pm

  15. I oppose both gay marriage and gay unions because HBD has moved me away from my old libertarianism to a scientifically informed and moderate social conservatism. The vast majority of white people need some threshold of cultural institutions to act as boundaries on their life because they do not have IQs high enough to invent their own novel forms of living. The tattoo epidemic is what’s finally pushed me into the social conservative direction, and I’m an agnostic.

    That said, as a secular con, gay marriage and gay rights are low on my list of priorities. And the whole issue of gays is moot once embryos can be screened for gayness. When that day comes, over 90% of them will be aborted and homosexuality will fade as a concern.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 26, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    • “And the whole issue of gays is moot once embryos can be screened for gayness. When that day comes, over 90% of them will be aborted and homosexuality will fade as a concern”

      Don’t count on it: such an act would be considered a hate crime in the coming future, and it would not be surprising if mainstream (i.e. liberal democrat) parents actually decide to select for a gay offspring, as a “status symbol”, if you will, to be paraded before their peers. Note that children are already being encouraged to experiment with transgenderism at an early age now, and I could not see such parents deciding to screen out gay genes.

      I suppose a few Republican minority remnants would want this option, but don’t count on the establishment throwing them this bone.

      Sanjuro

      June 27, 2013 at 1:04 am

      • The beauty of HBD is that it renders all of this irrelevant. The Republican Party is a 150-year-old institution. Evolution is tens of thousands of years old. Our primal instincts will win over. If parents had the choice to eliminate gayness, 99% would. They wouldn’t be having kids in the first place if they wanted an evolutionary dead end. That’s why I don’t buy the “parental acceptance” feel-good Hollywood nonsense. When was the last time you saw a parent of a physically infertile child exclaim with joy? It’s an absolute tragedy; the lineage is dead. Our basic drives, ingrained in our genes from generations and generations of mating, will always triumph over trivial things like political parties and social norms.

        MCUOfficial

        June 27, 2013 at 8:12 pm

      • Don’t count on it: such an act would be considered a hate crime in the coming future, and it would not be surprising if mainstream (i.e. liberal democrat) parents actually decide to select for a gay offspring, as a “status symbol”,

        Nah. 99% of liberal women would abort a known gay fetus. Liberal generosity starts to come to a screeching halt when it’s their own quality of life that’s impacted.

        The beauty of HBD is that it renders all of this irrelevant.

        Absolutely. Denial of reality can only be popular long term if there’s some positive social payoff for the practitioners. This is why religion has endured for so long. Blank Slatism on the other hand now brings nothing but failure and offers no real benefits except social signalling. But there are other ways to signal status and it’s only a matter of time before the nurturist cult is replaced by a new fad.

        Darwin will triumph in the end.

        White guy with a big tatoo on his shin in the gym last night. Wasn’t surprised when he didn’t re rack his weights.

        Prole white guys have always had a thing for tattoos. But it’s now spread to attractive, seemingly UMC white women. That was the last straw that made me give up on social libertarianism. Though I’m still free market on economics for the most part.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 27, 2013 at 11:07 pm

    • I wonder about the effect of lesbians and their high IQ sperm donor babies. It will be a small effect of course.

      not too late

      June 27, 2013 at 8:27 am

      • There are so few lesbians, and fewer still who have children, and fewer still who have children by donor sperm. It’s not enough to make an impact unless one of them manages to produce an ubermensch who rises to global domination.

        islandmommy

        June 28, 2013 at 7:27 am

    • White guy with a big tatoo on his shin in the gym last night. Wasn’t surprised when he didn’t re rack his weights.

      Dave Pinsen

      June 27, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    • What if gayness is not genetic or only partly genetic (predisposition requiring other triggers)? You might not expect Cochran’s infection explanation for gayness, but his case for why genetic mechanisms don’t explain gayness still stands.

      nebbish

      June 28, 2013 at 12:21 am

      • Please substitute accept for expect above.

        nebbish

        June 28, 2013 at 12:21 am

      • You might not expect Cochran’s infection explanation for gayness, but his case for why genetic mechanisms don’t explain gayness still stands.

        Per Steven Pinker heredity studies point to genetics explaining only 0.35 of homosexuality.

        In addition to a pathogen, the neonatal environmental trigger for homosexuality originate from other disruptions to the embryo such as injury to the mother, drug use, and so on.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 28, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    • Are you familiar with any online commentaries about the tat epidemic, aside from Auster’s? I don’t recall Lion making a post about it, though I know the issue has come up in discussions on this blog (and the one that preceded it) a few times before. I don’t disagree with your assessment of the phenomenon, but I’m just curious: where are you seeing UMC white women who jump on board with it? I think pro sports and hip hop are the major, driving influences behind it.

      Allerious

      June 28, 2013 at 7:30 am

      • Are you familiar with any online commentaries about the tat epidemic, aside from Auster’s?

        No, but it seems to me tattoos began spreading more than usual very recently. Literally like just the past 18 months to 2 years. Other bloggers may not have picked up on it yet since there’s a lag to reporting about cultural changes already underway.

        where are you seeing UMC white women who jump on board with it?

        Wealthy shopping plazas (not malls, those have been taken over by immigrants and proles). I also sometimes see Jewish girls with tattoos.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm

  16. Ever since Watergate, it appears the GOP has gotten less and less subversive while the dems seem to have gotten progressively more subversive when it comes to advancing their agenda.

    I mean the gays infiltrated Hollywood and over a period of decades they painstakingly worked to change the nature of the buggery conversation in the US.

    AIDS couldn’t even wipe them out and in fact I think it’s safe to say that it made the gay community stronger politically, especially after Reagan dropped the ball and ignored it.

    On the other hand, the most subversive thing the GOP’s managed in recent years is the Iraq war, and they burned a helluva lot of political capital on lying about WMD’s.

    Lately the GOP just seems adrift, riding atop a mule in a rusted suit of armor attacking windmills instead of working towards any kind of coherent and attainable goal.

    High Prole & Proud

    June 27, 2013 at 12:39 am

  17. Homosexual marriage is not intrinsically bad. It is merely a symptom from a far graver problem.

    When the media broke the news that the US would be majority-minority by at least 2050, the reaction to this should have been, “get married and have kids, white people.” But, of course, there was no such reaction whatsoever.

    What we have is a government that does not care about preserving its own people. Why, then, should conservatives be surprised that marriage , the only means by which a population can preserve itself, is reduced to ‘love between two people.’

    Marriage is no longer about preserving the founding stock– or any stock, for that matter. Marriage is noting but the recognition of the transient desires of two people and, perhaps, several people; only time will tell.

    taj31

    June 27, 2013 at 1:12 am

  18. I thought identical twin studies do not indicate that being gay is genetic.

    In which case gays will not “breed out.”

    I would hazard a guess that being the victim of childhood sexual abuse is more likely to make a person gay, bisexual, or just confused, than genetics. I believe the one established pattern is that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay. Having more older brothers could increase the risk of sexual abuse either at the hands of an older brother or an older brother’s acquaintance.

    Is legally recognized marriage really a civil right on par with voting, the right to own property, bodily integrity, the right to a fair trial etc, especially when civil unions provide many of the same legal benefits as marriage? That has always been the question in my mind and I’m not convinced legally recognized marriage is a civil right. In which case the gay marriage lobby is more about attitudinal manipulation, and anti-conservative sentiment, than a sincere endeavor to establish a civil right.

    Related, I was watching Mulan with my children last night and in the first 20 minutes there is a joke about cross dressing.

    islandmommy

    June 27, 2013 at 1:41 am

  19. I thought it was the HBD bs, that one is born gay or straight just as one is born black or white.

    Gays want marriage equality, because they hate themselves.

    Whatever, it’s disgusting. It’s too easy to get married, too easy to get divorced, and too little stigma to bastardy. Marriage isn’t for the married. It’s for their issue. Grow up grown ups.

    What about gay divorce and gay alimony?

    Hendrik Verwoerd

    June 27, 2013 at 1:48 am

    • Our rightwad bible spoutin’ flag wavin’ ass scratchin ‘ g-droppin’ redneck state outlawed gay marriage –

      (We used to be #1 in the nation in divorce for a few years
      :: puffs up with pride – it’s nice to excel at SOMETHING, we usually rank #45 , 46 in most
      national stats :: )

      We told gays “” You gays think yer gonna get married HERE – and divorce at our rates and fight
      in court over kids and money like WE do – in your dreams, fairy !”

      Tiki Torch

      June 27, 2013 at 8:39 pm

  20. @Map: The probability that gayness is genetically determined trait is pretty small. There have always been socially acceptable options for men and women who had no desire to procreate to avoid doing so (Clergy, nuns, witches, hermits, eunuchs, outcasts, etc.). There’s very little chance that a trait as negatively associated with reproductive fitness as homosexuality would persist even if we assume the strong social pressures on reproduction that agricultural societies would have.

    @TUJ: Agreed. Your journey mirrors mine. Although I personally find the gay marriage issue repugnant on a moral level: The pseudo-religious concept of “equality” has infected so many minds that people can no longer draw distinctions between qualitatively different things. It also concerns me since I find GCochran’s theory that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen convincing. Liberals will never apologize for pursuing their agenda even if their policies result in millions of lives being scarred irreparably. But yes, within two or three generations there will probably not be any homosexuals left — Why would you willingly choose to be damaged in that way?

    Panther of the Blogocube

    June 27, 2013 at 3:48 am

    • Back in the old days, when father’s were the heads of households, what was a major concern of every family? That the bloodline would be continued. Children suspected of being gay meant the end of the bloodline. They were told to man up and get married. Social pressure was either prison or the monastery. I can totally see how such pressure to marry would cause the spread of the gay gene.

      map

      June 27, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    • Your journey mirrors mine. Although I personally find the gay marriage issue repugnant on a moral level:

      I’m emotionally indifferent to gay marriage and homosexual acts.

      Unlike 99% of Republicans who oppose it for emotional reasons, I oppose gay marriage from a pure cost-benefit policy perspective. However I still don’t think the costs of gay marriage are high enough to warrant moving the issue to the top of my concern list.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      June 27, 2013 at 11:11 pm

      • @TUJ: I feel that your response indicates you misunderstood my position. It is simply that the incarnation of “equality” is morally repugnant since it has transformed of late into a set of mental blinders for people such that they don’t permit themselves to discriminate between obviously different things. Self-lobotomization of this sort is extremely disturbing.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 28, 2013 at 3:29 pm

      • Ok, got it.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 28, 2013 at 9:48 pm

  21. Lion, you are always criticizing fundamentalist Christians for holding society back, and I agree. Once straight parents have moved beyond “pray the gay away” and the majority of people are headed here if they aren’t already here, they realize that they have gay people in their families and their children might turn out to be gay. In that case, they just want stable and happy situations for their children, maybe even some that will produce grandchildren

    Herb Dregs

    June 27, 2013 at 3:56 am

  22. I’ve been in Hollywood many times. The culture of West LA, Hollywood, Little Armenia, Beverly Hills and gay lifestyle/culture are essentially interchangeable. It’s not that gays took over Hollywood, they kind of enhanced what was already there.

    Coasters don’t understand LA. It really is kind of like a foreign country.

    Velvet Contrarian

    June 27, 2013 at 7:18 am

  23. What I meant to say was, LA’s media economy has a lot of soft power of “America.” How many crack-n-heroin NYC “models” or suit-n-skirt talking head girls get as much time on the TV compared to LA’s laid back sun-n-beach girls? NYC isn’t as attractive as it thinks it is. A holes vs cool people… I know how I would rather hang around with.

    Velvet Contrarian

    June 27, 2013 at 7:23 am

  24. Even TV shows aimed at young people have gay characters in them. Shows like Gossip Girl or Pretty Little Liars.

    Pokemon,doesn’t have gay characters, thank God!

    Black_Rose

    June 27, 2013 at 7:27 am

    • I heard a vicious rumor Dick Cheney’s family has a gay character

      (not only him, but Barry Goldwater, Senator Portman, Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, Randall Terry,
      Newt Gingrich, Justice Roberts, I better stop, dont want to use up all the bandwidth !)

      Tiki Torch

      June 27, 2013 at 8:46 pm

  25. I would have thought that a big factor is the number of straight people who are divorced or co-habiting themselves. People cannot take a stern moral stance if they feel they are morally compromised on the issues in question. Saying ‘marriage is sacred’ when you are yourself divorced only invites people pointing the finger back at you. Liberal values generally are a lot easier to hold because saying ‘don’t judge others’ is a lot less demanding of your own life.

    By the way…I had never heard of that Mike Judge series about a liberal family before. I generally like his stuff, but this was awful. I think he takes such people too much at their own estimation–ie even when they are foolish they are well meaning. In reality liberals are as at least as tribal, vicious and hate-filled as anyone else, but the targets of their invective are Christians, Right-Wingers, rural whites, etc. This side of their characters could never be honestly satirised for a mainstream audience without it causing a huge storm of protest from all the people that matter.

    proleishplumber

    June 27, 2013 at 7:42 am

    • People cannot take a stern moral stance if they feel they are morally compromised on the issues in question.

      Bingo. And it’s not just a matter of wanting to avoid appearing to be a hypocrite. The psychology of becoming drawn into immorality is insidious: you compromise once, and that makes you feel a little more free to do it again. “Well, I’ve already done it… might as well do it again… not like I’ve got a clean slate anymore anyway.” So divorced people (for example) aren’t just afraid to appear hypocritical, they are actually more likely to give in to other forms of moral failure.

      This sort of psychological effect is, by the way, one of the reasons that I think gay “marriage” will be damaging in the long-term. It’s true, as people have been saying, that gay marriage is mostly a consequence, rather than a cause, of society’s present immorality. But its widespread acceptance will make it harder a resurgence of proper marriage to occur.

      samsonsjawbone

      June 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm

  26. Actually, Hollywood is mostly owned by conservative types, who understand what sells and what doesn’t.

    Social-CON media exists. Has for a long time. The reason it rarely makes it outside of it’s own insider demographic is because it’s hardly entertaining. I’ve watched Pat Robertson, heard Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and seen “Conan the Barbarian.” Except for Conan, these characters are jerks. Who wants to associate with jerks? The best you guys pulled off was “Home Improvement” and “The Cosby Show.” Red Forman was a funny/likable/realistic character in a popular liberal sitcom.

    The social-CONs who post here should watch their social ideal play out in Dolly Parton’s variety show. Just like the majority of today’s social-CON media it’s way too preachy and gaudy. The only difference is it stars a bubbly air head social-CON, the kind of social-CON most are willing to tolerate. Exactly how are social-CONs going to take over Hollywood selling stuff like this? The LA style conservatives who own nut-n-bolts Hollywood wouldn’t buy into your pitch. Sure they agree with some of what you stand for, but the rest… well…

    Conan's sidekick

    June 27, 2013 at 9:06 am

    • This is a very good point.

      Social conservative entertainment media (as opposed to news media) has never really taken off because it is not entertaining to the masses. There have been numerous times where social conservatives have tried to push their version of entertainment media, only to find it doesn’t have a big audience.

      Jay

      June 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      • Conservatives need to create entertaining TV shows and movies FIRST, and then they stick in subtle propaganda. That’s how the liberals do it.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 27, 2013 at 1:59 pm

      • Social conservative entertainment media (as opposed to news media) has never really taken off because it is not entertaining to the masses.

        As I tried to suggest above, I really think this is only partially true. It depends what you’re talking about. You’re right that nobody wants blatantly preachy stuff, but I’m not talking about that. As Lion says, the key is to incorporate the message subtly, implicitly. It may depend on the format – sit-coms, for instance, might be more difficult to imbue with conservative messages – but regardless, there is a market for media that is undergirded by a traditional worldview.

        For example, why is Lord of the Rings still so popular? Don’t say that it’s just because of nerdy teenagers who want a fantasy-land. It’s popular because it delivers values like integrity, honour, faithfulness, love of one’s people, etc., that many people subconsciously crave.

        I also think that you guys are over-estimating the extent to which liberal-themed media is genuinely popular and attractive. I think to a great extent people are consuming it because it’s what’s produced.

        samsonsjawbone

        June 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      • Heterosexual white males have abandoned TV for gaming.

        Video games are the real social conservative entertainment.

        Masculine and traditional values are glorified without politics.

        precisekumshot

        June 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm

      • ^
        Just asking if you are Conquistador with another gravatar? I noticed your trademark double spacing and your emphasis on gaming.

        JS

        June 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm

      • It’s important to realize that merely being exposed to particular things/ideas makes people more favorable to them through the exposure effect.

        You don’t need to lay down hard propaganda. What you need to do is expose people to the potential that you can oppose the silly idea of gay marriage and not be a closeted homosexual / fringe religious fanatic / gigantic douchebag / otherwise irredeemable hypocrite. It’s amazing it’s come to this but people are quite literally unaccustomed to hearing in public any sentiments opposing items on the leftist agenda checklist if those sentiments aren’t coming from clear villains.

        I seriously do not expect even 50% of people to ever be intelligent enough to comprehend and articulate the ideas/reasonings that I have for favoring traditionalist policies. But they don’t need to be. They just need to see those perspectives aired and realize that airing them does not make them automatically bigots. unlikeable & bad people.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 28, 2013 at 8:30 am

      • I don’t buy this line that social-CONS don’t subtly exert themselves with their propaganda via the entertainment media. It’s simply untrue. “Top Gun” had plenty of subtle social-CON propaganda, so did “Days of Thunder,” “King of the Hill,” and “Little House on the Prairie” to name a few.

        The Social-CONs have a Hollywood lock on the positive-fuzzy-feelings presentation of the military industrial complex. This doesn’t surprise me considering how many military contractors’ roots are firmly placed in southern California. They invested in Hollywood plenty back in the day. It was a successful long term investment. Leftist softies have never been able to counter it.

        Conan's sidekick

        June 28, 2013 at 8:32 am

      • A bunch of stuff from the 80s, or even the 70s (Little House on the Prarie??). So conservatives have one cartoon, King of the Hill, and the other 99% of stuff on TV is controlled by liberals. Also, it’s a cartoon, so it may not seem like real life. And is King of the Hill glorifying the high-prole characters, or making fun of them?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 28, 2013 at 9:03 am

      • I was/am a Marxist-Leninist, and I really do enjoy King of the Hill.

        Black_Rose

        June 28, 2013 at 11:25 am

      • The show does glorify Hank, but it does make fun of Dale, Boomhauer, and especially Bill. Real Dales are quite rare, but many proles do believe in anti-government conspiracy theories mildly but are also patriotic (unlike Dale). I just regard Dale as an amusing character, not significantly based on any real-world demographic, who despite being paranoid, genuinely loves his wife while she cheats on him and his “son”.

        It’s a good show; I’d recommend it before Family Guy (and whatever animation FOX is promoting these days) and the new Simpsons episodes.

        Peggy is a prole, but she has upper-middle class “intellectual” pretensions.
        —–

        In Pokémon, it is not conservative because none of the main characters come from a stable nuclear family (although I do remember that May and had a mother and a father (and is a gym leader too) but they are not that important). Ash has an absent father and was raised by his mother; Misty’s parents were never seen or referenced but she does have three sisters; and Brock was the primary caretaker of his siblings after his father and mother abandoned them.

        I suppose the success of Pokémon illustrates why social conservative media and its messages would not resonate among children. The show is about the adventures of a vagabond Pokémon trainer traveling the world collecting gym badges to compete in league competitions and has practically no relevance to modern society. Ash’s ambitions are not stymied by any real world constraints such as the prudent judgment of his parents (his mother actually encourages him), concerned with adult obligations such as competing in the labor market to provide a living or even paying for the medical care of his Pokémon (it’s free in the “socialist” Pokémon world). or conforming with the expectations of society, his parents, religion, or other authority figures. Ash can fulfill his aspirations because he has a considerable degree of autonomy and freedom precisely because he is outside the sphere of influence of traditional, conservative social institutions such as family and organized religion, and it does not seem likely that a conservative children’s television show would provide a similar setting conducive to independent exploration.

        Pokémon is not social “liberal” propaganda since it was not intended to have an significant didactic content or convey how society should be organized; it is just a show to entertain children, not dealing with abstract political philosophy or ideology or present events. Children are expected to “grow out” of these juvenile divertissements and conform to the expectations and adopt the values of the more cynical and demanding adult world; those who fail to accomplish that and refuse to relinquish their fervent attachment to Pokémon, like myself, are socially maladjusted.

        Black_Rose

        June 28, 2013 at 12:21 pm

      • Might be off topic but related to HBD…

        In the another thread about the Zimmerman trial, someone posted a link to a video where a bunch of blacks were fighting. In King of the Hill, it does portray whites on white violence among white trash where they are fighting in a lumberyard. This fighting was organize among them and many would be on the outcomes.

        http://kingofthehill.wikia.com/wiki/The_Redneck_on_Rainey_Street

        Yes, some white proles (not including Hank Hill) are definitely not the “salt of the earth” people.

        Black_Rose

        June 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

  27. In his book A Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell repeated hammers in the point that in public policy there are no solutions, only trade-offs, and that even the optimal policies make some individuals much worse off than other policies would have made them. Economist readily accept this argument in their own field, and promote policies that improve GDP overall while substantially reducing certain peoples’ incomes. A factory on the verge of bankruptcy could be subsidized at taxpayers’ expense, saving the jobs of thousands of experienced blue-collar workers. But the economist will cite Bastiat’s What is Seen and What is Unseen, and will let the factory fail, confident that the pain caused by the subsidy would worse overall, even if it is more diffuse.

    Elites in 2013 America widely accept Sowell’s argument in economic policy-making, but they shy away from applying it to social policy. But the fact is that most average people need to be told what to do, perhaps not explicitly, but certainly implicitly through strong social norms and rigid expectations about behavior. That’s particularly true in the area of sex and procreation, where mistakes can have huge and lengthy consequences. It’s best for society that there be an expectation that sex happens in heterosexual marriage, and some ostracism for people who step out of bounds.

    I look at gay people, and other people who find traditional marriage unbearable, the way I look at the factor workers in the bankrupt factory. Tossing the strong social norms of earlier years has been a great thing for them, but it has had devastating consequences for society overall. All the empirical indicators have been stated ad nauseum: out-of-wedlock births, poverty, crime, etc.

    One of the main things dividing liberals and conservatives is empathy: conservatives tend to have less of it, and liberals tend to have more. (Incidentally, this this one of the reasons that actors tend to be liberal. Empathy is essential for accurately playing a character.) Concern for individual suffering is a great thing, but it can wreck society if it isn’t balanced with a green eyeshade concern for overall stability. We should accept that a certain amount of suffering from gays and other unusual people is a price worth paying for a society that’s happier overall.

    Anon1

    June 27, 2013 at 9:13 am

    • This is true. However, homosexuals will never be happy.

      Growing up, I used to believe God was sending me messages through advertisements, and that I was the focus of a sinister conspiracy involving UFOs, clones, telepathy, and, that classic obsession of paranoiacs, fluoridation. It was quite out there…and this was still in high school. I also began popping Dbol and other oral steroids (back when Sdrol was legal) at age 17. So, regardless of my orientation, I doubt I would have had a terribly happy life.

      Of course, to try to fit society to myself would never work. I have zero interest in marriage. Most gays do not, either. It is a perfect case of the power of the media to sway the people. Either the State controls the media, as in China, or the media controls the State.

      Matt in Logan Circle

      June 27, 2013 at 10:20 am

      • “Growing up, I used to believe God was sending me messages through advertisements, and that I was the focus of a sinister conspiracy involving UFOs, clones, telepathy, and, that classic obsession of paranoiacs, fluoridation. ”

        Did you ever recover? I had similar paranoias as a child minus the clones and fluoride.

        islandmommy

        June 27, 2013 at 10:56 pm

  28. Many of the arguments for SSM are based on the flawed assumption that it’s illegal. SSM is not illegal and never has been. What people really mean when they say they want to “legalize gay marriage” is that they want the state to endorse it. Having a legal right to do something and the state endorsing it are two very different things. People have a legal right to practice their religion but should the state endorse religious beliefs and practices? Something tells me those arguing for a state endorsement of SSM would strongly oppose a state endorsement of religion.

    Why, then, support a state endorsement for SSM? The answer is psychological. Activists have framed the debate in terms of fairness. They’ve repeatedly argued that homos are being denied rights, discriminated against, etc. People’s brains are short-circuited by unfairness. It’s an emotional response not a rational one. The state not endorsing SSM was presented as being unfair, it flipped an emotional switch in their brain and they never bothered to analyze whether unfairness was actually taking place.

    In fact, there’s no law stopping SSM. Several denominations marry homosexuals and have for decades. The SWAT team never kicks down their doors and police never arrest them. Even in areas where the government has endorsed SSM, very few homosexuals do. That’s because most don’t really want to. No one is denying homosexuals anything. Nature is.

    destructure

    June 27, 2013 at 11:12 am

  29. being gay is a trend like stainless steel appliances. It will go away once getting attention and being special is no longer new information.

    Marc

    June 27, 2013 at 11:34 am

  30. Gays had a lot of power in Hollywood 30 or 40 years ago too, so that’s not what changed. That’s not what changed. As recently as the ’80s, gay activists were typically angry, transgressive, etc. What preceded the current, unprecedented, level of social acceptance of homosexuality (as exemplified by the recent legalization of gay marriage in various states), was an entirely different tack by gays. Not angry street protests, but “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”; not accusations that a beloved president (and not rampant, unprotected promiscuity in the gay community) was responsible for the AIDS epidemic, but pleas that gays wanted what everyone else wanted: a house in the suburbs, a spouse they could publicly commit to, etc. Charm won.

    Dave Pinsen

    June 27, 2013 at 12:50 pm

  31. When gays are marginalized they seek consenting partners in total secrecy.

    Wherever faggotry gains acceptance predatory homosexual relations follow.

    As with colored crime the elephant in the room will be ignored except online.

    precisekumshot

    June 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    • I’ve wondered about this. If homosexuality is totally normalised, how are straight men supposed to react if they are wolf-whistled by gay men, openly ogled by gay men, propositioned in objectionable terms by gay men, etc? Will it be considered homophobic to react with disgust and anger? Would most men not feel a little embarrassed and pathetic to have to act like feeble, feminised victims and make sexual harrassment complaints and the like…and would the response of many women merely be to say ‘now you know how we have always felt’ and regard the whole phenomena with indifference or amusement, and tell us it’s no big deal’?

      Maybe a lot of what we consider as normal, axiomatic behaviour has in fact simply been the unthinking imposition of heterosexual (male) standards and subtle social pressures which have thus far constrained gays in ways which we have not yet had to consider, but which may always have secretly annoyed gay men and reminded them of their inferior status? Perhaps the removal of these constraints and the empowerment of newly-emboldened gays could change relations between gay and straight men in ways not yet fully appreciated?

      proleishplumber

      June 28, 2013 at 7:53 am

  32. The thrust of the OP is true. There was a comment at Steve’s fairly recently that I felt could have been written by me, it so echoed my own thought, which argued that homosexual success is proof of the awesome power of the media to make people believe anything. Anything. Take the most absurd idea you can imagine, and the media can sell it – after all, the idea of two men getting “married” is as lunatic as anything imaginable, but the media has accomplished it.

    If Republicans and conservatives want to take back the country from the liberals, they need to take over Hollywood, remove the gay and liberal messages from the TV shows, and replace them with conservative messages.

    Right – I have been saying something similar as well. A corollary to the OP that I think is not widely considered by “conservatives”, who are too prone to despair and defeatism, is that it would take surprisingly little media pressure to reverse public opinion of homosexuality. It would only require, for example, a campaign depicting homosexuals as perverts, or some other negative quality, and humanity’s natural and innate revulsion homosexuality would re-assert itself rapidly.

    This strategy is not likely to happen, partly because certain forms of it would be illegal, but a muted form of it is possible. I am the last person to be up-to-date on media trends, so maybe someone has better knowledge than I, but the last film I can think of that really captures what I’m talking about was the portrayal of the effete prince in Braveheart.

    lion of the lionosphere‘s idea has likewise got great promise:

    an interesting strategy to go against hollywood might be to start investigating “gossip” news more seriously, and reporting it. there are some pretty crazy rumors about what sanctimonious stars do in their private lives

    Yes – as I say, capitalize on people’s instinctual disgust.

    samsonsjawbone

    June 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm

  33. “All these gay people on TV creates powerful social proof that convinces everyone that gays are awesome…Only “haters” could be opposed to gays.”

    Or just substitute “gay” with “black.”

    E. Rekshun

    June 27, 2013 at 5:10 pm

  34. The average homosexual has won nothing. In fact, he has lost just as the average homosexual LOST their “get out of military free” card with the toppling of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” Your everyday average homosexual is now compelled by his homosexual “betters” to “marry” himself to the State. Homosexuality is the very proof for the “Law of Diminishing Returns.” What starts out as addiction to self-sexualizing ends with self-annihilation.

    thordaddy

    June 27, 2013 at 11:20 pm

  35. “If Republicans and conservatives want to take back the country from the liberals, they need to take over Hollywood, remove the gay and liberal messages from the TV shows, and replace them with conservative messages”

    100+ comments and no mention of what Rick Santorum is up to?

    “In a 2011 speech at the Heritage Foundation, the senator urged Christian conservatives to get involved in popular culture.
    ‘The problem in the past is that you have these people who create these Christian films — great message, terrible acting, horrible editing,’ Santorum said. ‘They are not entertaining, they’re preachy.”
    In that speech, he said that conservatives needed to go to Hollywood. But “Dallas can become the Hollywood of the faith-and-family movie market,’ he said Monday.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/rick-santorum-now-running-christian-movie-studio/

    The ThinkProgress article is taking this seriously.

    aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

    June 28, 2013 at 9:11 pm

  36. The formal, public acceptance of homosexual pair-bonds [same-sex marriage] is an inevitable consequence of the culture of gender equality. Even if many of us would agree that the West’s decades-long embrace of gender equality hasn’t exactly translated into egalitarian policies (exhibit A: divorce court), it’s difficult to deny that men and women are more equal than ever before in history.

    What should be understood is that this isn’t an outright, on-paper-ignorant-of-biology fabrication by the Left. To the contrary, the Left is largely correct on the issue of gender equality, but correct for the wrong reasons. Gender equality is not a necessary part of the human experience, but it is rather contingent upon socioeconomic realities. The capabilities of men and women in society are closer today than in yesteryear because of technological advance. Firearms, vehicles, farming equipment, even the Pill and safe abortions, have equalized gender roles in most spheres of life apart from dating and jar-opening. When we all lived in Kansas, same-sex marriage was absurd because every household needed a man to work the earth and a woman to do the chores and role models to raise the children to succeed at the same. But now we have tractors and appliances, and they’re not going away, at least not in the industrialized West any time soon.

    The current sociological turmoil is not some evil plan to destroy the World/America/whites/men, it is an evitable result of humanity’s replacement by machines, and our scrambling to find something to do with ourselves, stripped of our evolutionary responsibilities. Unlike previous falls of civilizations at the hands of immorality and decadence, ours stands a decent chance at being demolished and replaced by something capable of enduring.

    If you want to know how the gays won, look no further than the diesel combine and the washing machine.

    SebZear

    July 1, 2013 at 9:08 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: