Kristoffer Trolle Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I live in Copenhagen and the government spends so much time and resources to promote tolerance towards homosexuals. But I have never meet any native person here in Denmark that has anything against homosexuals. So why do the government and left wing parties spend so much time on it? The only group that is intolerant against gays are the middel eastern and african group, but government won't have the gay prides anywhere near those areas, only in white pro gay areas. Laura Southern had a good point in a recent video: if you want to promote a group as equal, why present them in gimp outfits, everything being about sex. Like she said, if you wanted to promote womans equal rights, would you show girls in slutty cloth? What are the socialists motives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorry Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 On 16/08/2017 at 8:31 AM, Kristoffer Trolle said: I live in Copenhagen and the government spends so much time and resources to promote tolerance towards homosexuals. But I have never meet any native person here in Denmark that has anything against homosexuals. So why do the government and left wing parties spend so much time on it? The only group that is intolerant against gays are the middel eastern and african group, but government won't have the gay prides anywhere near those areas, only in white pro gay areas. Laura Southern had a good point in a recent video: if you want to promote a group as equal, why present them in gimp outfits, everything being about sex. Like she said, if you wanted to promote womans equal rights, would you show girls in slutty cloth? What are the socialists motives? Wow man, that is a great question. An idea. LGB have higher ACE scores then do heterosexuals, as can be seen from this study. The study found that, on average, LGB ACE score is almost double that of heterosexuals. The normalisation of homosexual behaviour could be viewed, perhaps, as the normalisation of the behaviour resulting from child abuse. That would fit with Stefan's model of the socialist as the neglected child (higher ACE scoring child) projecting their unfulfilled need upon the state. *edit I have implicitly assumed that a large component of LGB behaviour is a function of ACE, I think that is a reasonable assumption given the correlation between ACE and socially destructive behaviour (drugs, promiscuity, criminality) and the study linked shows mental distress in LGB, when normalised for ACE, is accounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 The Gay Pride parades in particular come from protests against a police raid into a club. Of course that humble start was co-opted by other interests for other purposes, but that's where it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 If harming society is the goal... socialist Hitler was very happy to destroy the family and normalize grotesque. Socialists think alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Promoting homosexuality is just one more chink in the armor of getting white people to breed less and of disrupting the nuclear family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristoffer Trolle Posted September 3, 2017 Author Share Posted September 3, 2017 On 9/1/2017 at 4:00 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said: Promoting homosexuality is just one more chink in the armor of getting white people to breed less and of disrupting the nuclear family. Probably right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofd Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Quote Promoting homosexuality is just one more chink in the armor of getting white people to breed less and of disrupting the nuclear family. I wonder which nonwhite group might be behind that and also be responsible for promoting promiscuity and deviant sexual behaviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorry Posted September 4, 2017 Share Posted September 4, 2017 But what causes homosexuality? http://www.mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf *edit I just found a paste bin linking a link to this on another board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 On 9/1/2017 at 10:00 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said: Promoting homosexuality is just one more chink in the armor of getting white people to breed less and of disrupting the nuclear family. Do you have any evidence that promotion of homosexuality results in homosexuals that would otherwise remain heterosexual? And that this plot disproportionately affects white people? edit: guilty of not reading everything, I see the reference towards targeting whites in the OP. Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plato85 Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 There's a current vote here in Australia over same sex. There was a pro gay marriage protest with 20,000 in Sydney yesterday. i don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I find something very off putting about the protest, and I feel like voting against the protesters. i don't know how to articulate why I'm so strongly against protesters, but in general when there's a large group of zealots I want to stand up for the other side. Am I being completely irrational? Is spite of zealots a good enough reason to vote against gay marriage? The two issues are not strictly related. I suppose I'll have to abstain from voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 The majority of the LGBT are democrats but obviously they are a minority so the trick is to form massive fun parades/marches so all the non gays also join and get indoctrinated. Lots of people have gay friends so the goal is to make everyone who doesnt vote left seem like a homophobic, transphobic, etc. Which not only makes you look "bad" to gay supporters but also if you're a public worker or company and dont promote and embrace LGBT you will have bad press and sometimes sued. Thats what I see politically. Now as far as the violence. LGBT community seems to have a lot of it. So some may argue this "pride" thing is to brush the violence under the rug so the perpetrators can continue being violence. Remember these socialist dont care about gays, women or anybody. They are violent and want guns to be pointed at you. I would be careful when around these parades as I have seen them turn violent on the Alex Jones channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 I still think the solution is to keep government out of the marriage business. Failing that, I'm fine with making it easier for anyone of any inclination to marry, but to require a reason to divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 On 9/10/2017 at 11:41 PM, plato85 said: There's a current vote here in Australia over same sex. There was a pro gay marriage protest with 20,000 in Sydney yesterday. i don't really care about gay marriage one way or another, but I find something very off putting about the protest, and I feel like voting against the protesters. i don't know how to articulate why I'm so strongly against protesters, but in general when there's a large group of zealots I want to stand up for the other side. Am I being completely irrational? Is spite of zealots a good enough reason to vote against gay marriage? The two issues are not strictly related. I suppose I'll have to abstain from voting. What would you be voting against? This is generally an issue of legal rights (in the eyes of the state) and tax benefits afforded to spouses that are denied to homosexual partners. Marriage offers a certain reprieve from state control and predation and to deny that option to a certain population would be to support the continuation of that control and predation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 On 9/11/2017 at 9:40 AM, shirgall said: I still think the solution is to keep government out of the marriage business. Failing that, I'm fine with making it easier for anyone of any inclination to marry, but to require a reason to divorce. Kinda like contract enforcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 19 hours ago, luxfelix said: Kinda like contract enforcement? A well-written contract has procedures for when they are broken and dissolved, agreed in advance with knowledge and consent. Sounds better than family court to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 1 hour ago, shirgall said: I well-written contract has procedures for when they are broken and dissolved, agreed in advance with knowledge and consent. Sounds better than family court to me. Agreed. Ideally, there would be no need for prenuptials or family courts, the way they are currently set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt10 Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 On 9/12/2017 at 7:42 PM, Tyler H said: What would you be voting against? This is generally an issue of legal rights (in the eyes of the state) and tax benefits afforded to spouses that are denied to homosexual partners. Marriage offers a certain reprieve from state control and predation and to deny that option to a certain population would be to support the continuation of that control and predation. Assuming that the state does not reduce its spending, tax reliefs for all translate into no tax reliefs for anyone. I would be voting (1) against having to pay more taxes and (2) against watering down the tax reliefs given to people that have a chance to produce babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts