Difference between revisions of "Homosexuality obsession"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Television: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: etc) → etc.))
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Homosexuality obsession''' describes the [[liberal]] preoccupation with  promoting the [[gay agenda]] by means of propaganda. In so doing, supporting [[homosexuality]] has been mislabeled as the socially responsible action, instead of the morally responsible action of guiding the sinner from his temptations. The obsession with the gay lifestyle and all it entails is observed as being omnipresent in outlets controlled by liberals, especially the [[Liberal media]]. Ironically, liberals are seen claiming that they are not obsessive or biased for their constant promotion of homosexuality, while calling [[conservatives]] obsessive and ''[[homophobic]]'' for exposing their propaganda.
+
Homosexuality obsession is conservatives secret undying love for homosexuals and trans media
 +
The Hidden and the Hated: How People Conceal Their Desires While Shaming Those Who Admit to the Same Ones
  
−
==Strategy behind the obsession==
+
## Abstract
  
−
{{cquote|Marshall Kirk, a reportedly brilliant researcher into the brain, and Hunter Madsen, a Harvard-trained expert in public persuasion tactics [are the authors of ''After the Ball'', a book about a 1988 summit of gay leaders in Warrenton, Virginia, who came together to agree on the agenda]. The two men proposed using tactics on ‘straight’ America that are remarkably similar to the brainwashing methods of Mao Tse-Tung's Communist Chinese -- mixed with Madison Avenue's most persuasive selling techniques. The purpose of this brainwashing? According to Kirk and Hudson, it is to use "...the very processes that made America hate us, to turn their hatred into warm regard -- whether they like it or not." First, they proposed homosexuals and their liberal allies should [[liberal desensitizing|desensitize]] heterosexuals by getting homosexuality talked about as much as possible in the straight world.
+
Human beings are contradictory creatures when it comes to desire. We want what we want — often intensely — yet we routinely hide our own longings while directing contempt at others who openly express the very same ones. This paper examines the psychological and social mechanics behind this paradox: why we conceal, why we shame, and what the pattern reveals about the nature of desire itself.
−
"The main thing,” the authors said, “is talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome…You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a 'good' thing.  But if you can get them to think it is just 'another' thing, meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders -- then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."<ref name="CBN">http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/060113d.aspx</ref>}}
 
  
−
==Movies==
+
## Introduction
−
In the last decade, mainstream Hollywood comedies and dramas have featured a [[token gay]] character, almost without fail, a departure from previous cinematic traditions (see [[gay cupid]], [[gay hero]]). The gay cinema documentary ''The Celluloid Closet'' begins with the lines: ''"In a hundred years of movies, homosexuality has only rarely been depicted on the screen. When it did appear, it was there as something to laugh at -- or something to pity -- or even something to fear."'' and ends with the line: ''"The long silence is finally ending. New voices have emerged, open and unapologetic."''<ref>http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/celluloid/misc/history.html</ref> Often, the gay character is portrayed as sympathetic, unable to do any wrong, and a longtime friend (see [[My Best Friend's Wedding]]).
 
  
−
"It is very, very propagandistic, because the entire purpose of the movie is to make homosexuality seem like something good and appealing, and to make people who are opposed to homosexuality bigots and homophobes,"  said David Kupelian, author of ''The Marketing of Evil''.<ref name="CBN"/> Such an inaccurate picture of the homosexual lifestyle is especially present in movies pitched at teen and younger audiences. For example, it's unlikely that every popular (or unpopular) teen girl has her group of close female friends and ''of course'' a close, effeminate, homosexual male confidant who can be counted on for witty replies and fashion advice.<ref>Juno</ref> Male characters have casual homosexual friends, or if not, the movie frequently features them having a "homo moment" with implications that they secretly enjoyed it. Homosexuals often also play the role of the [[gay cupid]].<ref>Mean Girls</ref> "Another point [pushed] is to 'portray gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers...Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined, by reflex, to assume the role of protector.' Benjamin Bull of the Alliance Defense Fund said, 'Suddenly those who choose homosexual behavior...sodomy...are victims.  It's crazy!'<ref name="CBN"/> "38 new films with gay and lesbian themes are currently in the pipeline and many more will be coming in the near future. No consideration is currently being given to the children viewing these movies."<ref>[http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/against-promoting-homosexuality-in-the-media-such-as-movies-and-tv-shows.html a petition you should sign]</ref>
+
Desire is universal. Hunger, ambition, romantic longing, sexual appetite, the wish to be seen and admired — every person carries these currents beneath the surface of daily life. And yet, for all its universality, desire is one of the most carefully managed, disguised, and policed aspects of human experience.
  
−
==Television==
+
The strange thing is not that we hide our desires. It is *who* we hide them from, and *how* we treat the people who refuse to hide theirs. The person who openly admits to a desire that we secretly share often becomes the target of our sharpest judgment. Why should the truth-teller be punished for saying out loud what we ourselves feel in private?
−
Not only film, but television as well has had the depiction of homosexuality increase manyfold. Programs with homosexual content are shown at hours when children may be watching and stumble upon the salacious content (in soap opera, dinnertime sitcoms, etc.). "The casting of homosexuals in various TV shows has skyrocketed. Today there are around 22 television shows on major stations with a homosexual cast member as the main character of the show." <ref>http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom/faculty/ha/tcom103fall2004/gp16/gp16.pdf</ref>
 
  
−
==Magazines==
+
## The Mechanics of Concealment
−
On multiple occasions, [[People magazine]] has featured as a cover story some D-list actor or actress, such as Lance Bass or [[Rosie O'Donnell]], coming out of the closet and reveling in his or her homosexual bliss. They also feature open homosexuals in their Most Eligible Bachelors list, an irony that is lost on the publishers.
 
  
−
==Universities==
+
### 1. Desire is experienced as vulnerability
−
[[College]] admission committees shower homosexuals with praise for contributing to "diversity" rather than "perversity". They equate participation in high school with [[gay and straight allegiance]]s with civically responsible extracurricular activities such as [[sport]]s, [[volunteer]]ing for [[charity]], [[student council]] or the [[debate]] team. Many universities have courses devoted to studying the gay and lesbian "experience" and their history. Some schools even go so far as to have gay and lesbian studies be a minor or major.
 
  
−
==Biblical studies==
+
To want something is, at its root, to admit a lack. A desire says: *I do not have this, and I need it.* That admission places us in a position of dependence and exposure. For many people, this feels unbearable. Concealment becomes a form of armor — if no one knows what I want, no one can use it against me, and no one can watch me fail to get it.
  
−
Extensive effort has been expended in the area of [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] by pro homosexual writers, striving to negate the universal injunctions against homosexual relations, and to force sex into passages that will not support it. Such attempts have been responded to and refuted by traditional scholars and writers,<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible]</ref> who by God's grace also seek their [[salvation]] through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
+
### 2. Social norms draw the line between "normal" and "shameful"
  
−
==Governmental action==
+
Every culture maintains an invisible ledger of acceptable and unacceptable desires. The ledger is rarely written down, but everyone learns it: which desires may be voiced at the dinner table, which only in private, and which must never be acknowledged at all. What counts as shameful is not fixed — it shifts with time, place, and community — but the *mechanism* is constant. The person who violates the ledger and speaks openly is read as deviant, regardless of how common the underlying desire actually is.
−
Numerous attempts have been made to pass [[hate crime laws]] in the [[United States]], similar to legislation which had been passed in [[Europe]] and [[Canada]], and which has been used to suppress private citizens from portraying homosexuality negatively, or not supporting it equally.<ref>[http://homosexualityandthebible-response.blogspot.com/]</ref>
 
  
−
In addition, portraying those who passively object to homosexuality as mentally deficient can become official policy, such as the government of Brazil recently exampled in asserting 99 percent of its citizens are homophobic, and need to be reeducated.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021301.html LifeSiteNews.com; February 13, 2009]</ref>
+
### 3. Concealment becomes a performance
  
−
==Wikipedia==
+
Over time, hiding a desire stops being a one-time decision and becomes an ongoing act. The person develops scripts, deflections, and even counter-performances — sometimes loudly condemning the very thing they privately want. This is where concealment shades into something more active: not merely *not saying* what one wants, but *saying the opposite.*
−
[[Wikipedia]] is also notorious for having many articles on homosexual proclivities, from the numerous pro-gay organizations, to various sordid details of bizarre [[homosexual act]]s.
 
  
−
==See also==
+
## The Paradox of Shaming
−
*[[Homosexuality in the media]]
 
−
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
 
  
−
==References==
+
### The shamer and the shamed are often the same person
−
{{reflist}}
 
  
−
{{homosexualityb}}
+
The most uncomfortable finding in this territory is how frequently the person doing the shaming secretly shares the desire they are condemning. This is not a coincidence. It is the logic of the pattern.
−
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
+
 
 +
### Shaming as self-protection
 +
 
 +
When we shame someone for an openly held desire, we are often performing a kind of psychological triage. By distancing ourselves from the person who speaks the truth, we try to prove — to others and to ourselves — that we are *not* like them. The shame we direct outward is a firewall against the shame we feel inward. If I can convince you that I find this desire contemptible, perhaps you will not look too closely at my own.
 +
 
 +
### Shaming as a bid for belonging
 +
 
 +
Communities reward the people who enforce their norms. The person who condemns a "deviant" desire signals loyalty to the group, and groups respond by granting status and safety. The shamer is not merely expressing disgust; they are purchasing membership. The cost of that purchase is the person on the other side of the condemnation — who is, in many cases, simply doing what the shamer wishes they had the courage to do.
 +
 
 +
### The shamed person as a mirror
 +
 
 +
There is a particular cruelty in this dynamic: the openly desiring person functions as a mirror the shamer cannot bear to look into. Their honesty forces a confrontation with the question the shamer has spent years avoiding — *I want this too, don't I?* The anger that follows is not really aimed at the other person at all. It is aimed at the reflection.
 +
 
 +
## Why Some People Choose Openness Anyway
 +
 
 +
Given the costs, why does anyone admit their desires openly? Several motivations appear:
 +
 
 +
- **Integrity**: For some, the cost of concealment — the constant vigilance, the self-betrayal — outweighs the cost of exposure. Openness is chosen as a form of honesty with oneself.
 +
- **Solidarity**: Some people speak openly precisely because they know others are hiding the same thing. Their disclosure is an offering — a way of saying *you are not alone.*
 +
- **Exhaustion**: Concealment is expensive. At a certain point, the effort of maintaining the performance exceeds the pain of the truth.
 +
 
 +
The openly desiring person is often not braver in the abstract; they have simply reached a different calculation about what is worth protecting.
 +
 
 +
## The Costs of the Pattern
 +
 
 +
This dynamic harms everyone involved, though in different ways.
 +
 
 +
- **The concealed** live with chronic low-level anxiety, a sense of inauthenticity, and the constant risk of exposure. Concealment is corrosive precisely because it is ongoing — there is no moment of relief, only the maintenance of the lie.
 +
- **The shamers** do not escape either. Their contempt requires constant renewal, and it binds them to a performance of their own. The energy spent condemning others is energy not spent understanding themselves.
 +
- **The community** loses the most. When desires are driven underground, they cannot be discussed, examined, or normalized. The result is a culture where people suffer in isolation over experiences that are, in fact, nearly universal.
 +
 
 +
## Conclusion
 +
 
 +
The pattern of hiding our desires while shaming those who voice them is not a moral failing so much as a mechanism — a way of managing vulnerability within social systems that punish exposure. But the mechanism is costly, and it is built on a false premise: that the desire is shameful because it is rare. In truth, the desires we most fiercely hide and most eagerly condemn are often the most common of all. The person who speaks openly is not the deviant. They are the one who has declined to pretend.
 +
 
 +
The quiet revolution available to any of us is simple, though not easy: to recognize that when we feel contempt for someone's honesty, we might ask what they are saying that we have not yet admitted to ourselves.

Latest revision as of 15:03, October 13, 2026

Homosexuality obsession is conservatives secret undying love for homosexuals and trans media The Hidden and the Hated: How People Conceal Their Desires While Shaming Those Who Admit to the Same Ones

    1. Abstract

Human beings are contradictory creatures when it comes to desire. We want what we want — often intensely — yet we routinely hide our own longings while directing contempt at others who openly express the very same ones. This paper examines the psychological and social mechanics behind this paradox: why we conceal, why we shame, and what the pattern reveals about the nature of desire itself.

    1. Introduction

Desire is universal. Hunger, ambition, romantic longing, sexual appetite, the wish to be seen and admired — every person carries these currents beneath the surface of daily life. And yet, for all its universality, desire is one of the most carefully managed, disguised, and policed aspects of human experience.

The strange thing is not that we hide our desires. It is *who* we hide them from, and *how* we treat the people who refuse to hide theirs. The person who openly admits to a desire that we secretly share often becomes the target of our sharpest judgment. Why should the truth-teller be punished for saying out loud what we ourselves feel in private?

    1. The Mechanics of Concealment
      1. 1. Desire is experienced as vulnerability

To want something is, at its root, to admit a lack. A desire says: *I do not have this, and I need it.* That admission places us in a position of dependence and exposure. For many people, this feels unbearable. Concealment becomes a form of armor — if no one knows what I want, no one can use it against me, and no one can watch me fail to get it.

      1. 2. Social norms draw the line between "normal" and "shameful"

Every culture maintains an invisible ledger of acceptable and unacceptable desires. The ledger is rarely written down, but everyone learns it: which desires may be voiced at the dinner table, which only in private, and which must never be acknowledged at all. What counts as shameful is not fixed — it shifts with time, place, and community — but the *mechanism* is constant. The person who violates the ledger and speaks openly is read as deviant, regardless of how common the underlying desire actually is.

      1. 3. Concealment becomes a performance

Over time, hiding a desire stops being a one-time decision and becomes an ongoing act. The person develops scripts, deflections, and even counter-performances — sometimes loudly condemning the very thing they privately want. This is where concealment shades into something more active: not merely *not saying* what one wants, but *saying the opposite.*

    1. The Paradox of Shaming
      1. The shamer and the shamed are often the same person

The most uncomfortable finding in this territory is how frequently the person doing the shaming secretly shares the desire they are condemning. This is not a coincidence. It is the logic of the pattern.

      1. Shaming as self-protection

When we shame someone for an openly held desire, we are often performing a kind of psychological triage. By distancing ourselves from the person who speaks the truth, we try to prove — to others and to ourselves — that we are *not* like them. The shame we direct outward is a firewall against the shame we feel inward. If I can convince you that I find this desire contemptible, perhaps you will not look too closely at my own.

      1. Shaming as a bid for belonging

Communities reward the people who enforce their norms. The person who condemns a "deviant" desire signals loyalty to the group, and groups respond by granting status and safety. The shamer is not merely expressing disgust; they are purchasing membership. The cost of that purchase is the person on the other side of the condemnation — who is, in many cases, simply doing what the shamer wishes they had the courage to do.

      1. The shamed person as a mirror

There is a particular cruelty in this dynamic: the openly desiring person functions as a mirror the shamer cannot bear to look into. Their honesty forces a confrontation with the question the shamer has spent years avoiding — *I want this too, don't I?* The anger that follows is not really aimed at the other person at all. It is aimed at the reflection.

    1. Why Some People Choose Openness Anyway

Given the costs, why does anyone admit their desires openly? Several motivations appear:

- **Integrity**: For some, the cost of concealment — the constant vigilance, the self-betrayal — outweighs the cost of exposure. Openness is chosen as a form of honesty with oneself. - **Solidarity**: Some people speak openly precisely because they know others are hiding the same thing. Their disclosure is an offering — a way of saying *you are not alone.* - **Exhaustion**: Concealment is expensive. At a certain point, the effort of maintaining the performance exceeds the pain of the truth.

The openly desiring person is often not braver in the abstract; they have simply reached a different calculation about what is worth protecting.

    1. The Costs of the Pattern

This dynamic harms everyone involved, though in different ways.

- **The concealed** live with chronic low-level anxiety, a sense of inauthenticity, and the constant risk of exposure. Concealment is corrosive precisely because it is ongoing — there is no moment of relief, only the maintenance of the lie. - **The shamers** do not escape either. Their contempt requires constant renewal, and it binds them to a performance of their own. The energy spent condemning others is energy not spent understanding themselves. - **The community** loses the most. When desires are driven underground, they cannot be discussed, examined, or normalized. The result is a culture where people suffer in isolation over experiences that are, in fact, nearly universal.

    1. Conclusion

The pattern of hiding our desires while shaming those who voice them is not a moral failing so much as a mechanism — a way of managing vulnerability within social systems that punish exposure. But the mechanism is costly, and it is built on a false premise: that the desire is shameful because it is rare. In truth, the desires we most fiercely hide and most eagerly condemn are often the most common of all. The person who speaks openly is not the deviant. They are the one who has declined to pretend.

The quiet revolution available to any of us is simple, though not easy: to recognize that when we feel contempt for someone's honesty, we might ask what they are saying that we have not yet admitted to ourselves.