Propoganda is certainly the wrong word, however I do kinda agree with the point I think he's trying to make, there does seem to be a lot of gays on the TV at the minute as if its some sort of ratings winner, the same was done with female comics a decade or so ago, its nothing to do with them being better than XYZ presenter, I think they actively look for gays to fill certain demographics and employ as according.
Persecution of Gays
- Thread starter Nightglow
- Start date
- Status
Propoganda is certainly the wrong word, however I do kinda agree with the point I think he's trying to make, there does seem to be a lot of gays on the TV at the minute as if its some sort of ratings winner, the same was done with female comics a decade or so ago, its nothing to do with them being better than XYZ presenter, I think they actively look for gays to fill certain demographics and employ as according.
Are we on about reproducing for the good of the race or for personal reasons.
In which case there are lots of non-gays that shouldnt be allowed to breed as well so its not really a sexuality argument...
It's not quite as clear cut as that. Lets take the example of two brothers where one is gay and the other is heterosexual. They probably both have similar genes. Going back to the dawn of man we have been tribal and lived and hunted together. By helping the heterosexual brothers family the gay brother makes it more likely that their gene pool will survive. So there is an argument to suggest that while the gay brothers genes are not directly passed down the line, the collective family gene pool stands a better chance of survival.
That's a very big claim to make. Maybe you are just noticing them more? There's an awful lot of people on TV, statistically speaking some of them are going to be gay.
Probably more importantly, why is that an issue? If someone interprets gay people being on TV as some sort of recruiting agenda to turn their children away from a heterosexual life then they really need to get a grip on reality and stop being so insecure.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
The difference is that they are openly gay. They were on tv before, but everyone assume they were straight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
In Thompson's words, I'm a biological dead end. And I feel pretty great about it.
I'm not gay, though.
It's a dumb correlation -- like saying that anyone who has had a vasectomy would become depressed and empty in life because they've chosen not to procreate.
Statistically speaking yes, there will be some of them that are gay, but as I said, the people that make these choices as to what we watch on the TV are running businesses and I think that hitting demographics is more important than quality in certain instances, perhaps I'm reading too much into it and being too sceptical but its like they find these shows or hosts to show that they are ok with sexuality rather than them just being on air and it not being part of the point..
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
I think you're looking into it too much. Gay people are on TV, and always have been.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Well it is that clear cut for the homosexual. The brothers fails to procreate and therefore becomes a biological dead end. There is nothing beneficial in this relationship for him. Homosexuals in this scenario are essentially slaves to their heterosexual peers.
Dr Who does more for normalisation of gay relationships than any other TV show, there is an awful lot of matter-of-fact comments made in just about every episode.
Compare that with the same feeble attempts on soaps where everyone is just waiting for two girls to kiss.
Big list here
http://www.nyder.com/stuff/whosqueer.html
Perhaps, as I said maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it does seem that there are more now than there used to be and its not a case of we're gay and we happen to be in a show, its more a case of we're in a show because we're gay..
IMHO of course...
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
Except, of course, Darwin's work was about populations of species, not individuals.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
The only people I know that have a problem with gay people are either racist or religious.... or both in the case of my friends mormon dad.
Social pressure always dominates personal prejudice.
Globalisation then dominates those individual societies.
One would hope that a global opinion is the correct one because there has been a lot of feedback as to what it should be.
In reality Freedom of thought only exists between your ears
So the more gays we have that dont reproduce is natures way of tryig to curb population growth?
Yeah, if we were a race of people that all had a common goal then perhaps, but as we are all inherently selfish ignorant idiots the opinion of the masses isnt necessarily the right one..
Yeah, in a few hundred years when we've actually grown as a race to the point where petty crap like this doesnt matter and we as a race are aiming at the stars rather than eachother we might actually start showing some of the potential we we're born with..
Never happen with <insert establishment of your choice here> are lining their own pockets and pushing their own agenda's...
25% of the gay brother's genes are passed onto his nephews and nieces so he may be at a dead end but his genes aren't.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~laetoli/degree.html
My own personal belief is that the whole point of life is to enable DNA to survive and the body is simply a mechanism to allow them to do that. So if that is true then we all all slaves regardless of whether we are homosexual or heterosexual.
- Status