Not really, no.
Well, some gays raise children, and some straights don’t, so – granting for the sake of argument that what the world needs now is a little overpopulation – that seems like a pretty indirect way of going about the latter; are there more straights who aren’t having kids than gays who aren’t having kids? Seems to me like the straights would be the target-rich environment for propagandizing and incentivizing and otherwise-izing kids into existence, instead of trying to convince gays to live like straights and then trying to convince them to have kids.
As for “family values” – I don’t know what that means. Is it staying faithful to your spouse? Providing for your kids, and teaching them not to throw the first punch, and encouraging them to help the less fortunate? Raising honest and productive members of society who obey the law and pay their taxes? What counts as ‘family values’ but would be incompatible with being gay?
That doesn’t make sense, since those gays, as has been said, lived (and hell, still live) in a world in which the “propaganda” is all that you should be hetero.
By the “propaganda” I got, I should like blonde guys with blue eyes. I don’t. What do you like, and how much does it look like what your propaganda proposes as the ideal for you?
Prove it does. Every proof I’ve ever seen says that society influences behavior but not orientation.
Getting into a burden of proof argument probably won’t help, but someone with this “how can we be sure?” position is being lazy and unfair. They’re not presenting any evidence that exposure to homosexual content has any influence on children at all, they’re asking you to demonstrate that it doesn’t – while dismissing research that supports your side.
Perhaps you could ask how we can be sure that banning homosexual content doesn’t make homosexuality seem “cool” and exciting to rebellious teens.
Exactly. The laws against “gay propaganda” are laws against contradicting that view of the world. Gay is seen not as something “ontological or existential” by itself but as an act, just a subset of a greater concept of “sexual perversion”, which to them, everybody is tempted by “sexual perversion”, just some people choose the gay form – so, anti-gay factions have been seen to try to associate gay rights with pedophilia, poligamy, incest, bestiality, etc. because to them it’s ALL about engaging or not in “abnormal sex”. In that view of the universe, closeted “passing” is *good *for you, as gay is a behavioral abormality that you are better off doing without, and it is harmful to the public good to foster its tolerance, acceptance or normalization.
Clearly the OP needs to conduct his own research!
Perhaps six or eight months watching gay porn, reading gay material, going to gay clubs, hanging out with gays etc.
If he remains heterosexual perhaps then he’ll begin to understand just a little!
While I firmly believe orientation is not affected by environment, I can see the concept of ‘prison gay’ affirming ideas to the contrary.
Reading these quotes leads me to question your real agenda in this thread.
The fact is that you can’t argue people out of stupid. If you are, in fact, trying to find ammunition to convince people that sexual orientation is outside of one’s own control, there is some good stuff here. There is nothing, however, so conclusive that it will convince someone who refuses to consider a new or different point of view.
Not if you want your child to be knowledgeable of how real people function, and tolerant of different ways of living.
If you want to raise an ignorant, sheltered person who will have trouble functioning in the real world, then shelter them. But you’ll end up with someone who will have trouble in most work places, or who will totally rebel and reject everything you’ve ever taught them.
When I was growing up there was essentially zero “gay propaganda.” People were still gay.
Ask anyone claiming that a tiny bit of gay propaganda makes people gay if eliminating all reference to pre-marital sex or adultery in the media would stop people from having sex before marriage or committing adultery. Not too likely, huh?
When I was growing up in the '50s, the word “gay” wasn’t even around in the world I was exposed to. I saw no gay people in the movies, none on TV, none in literature, none in songs, no famous gay people anywhere. As far as I knew the entire world was heterosexual. Not one iota of gay influence or “propaganda.” There were rumors of “queers” or “faggots,” but I didn’t know of any, personally.
And yet, since the age of 5, I’ve been totally gay, as close to a Kinsey 6 as it’s possible to be. If all of society’s influence didn’t work for me, what makes you think it can work the other way?
Safe from what, exactly?
Heck, an entire society could be gay 75% of the time, and they’d still be able to maintain their numbers. You only have to be “straight” (i.e. engage in conventional sexual intercourse) until someone gets pregnant, and then it’s moot for nine months.
At 50% replacement, calculate the lifespan of the population… 
I can totally imagine that a world normalising homosexuality will see greater amounts of homosexual behaviour.
This is trivially true because in an accepting society people will no longer feel they must subdue that side of their sexuality and behaviour.
I can’t see how that is anything but a positive thing.
And in any case, if homosexual “propaganda” (whatever the fuck that is) did cause people to suddenly start fancying a lovely bit of cock then I’d have to ask…where exactly is the harm? They’ll either decide it is for them or not. Consenting adults should have absolute freedom to try whatever the heck they like.
I’m also very suspicious of those who do speak out against homosexuality. I always suspect that such people are not entirely comfortable with their own sexuality. If you were certain about what floated your boat why on earth would you even pass comment on what other like to do?
alexidsa, I invite you to postulate a society where anybody can have sex with anybody, though only one particular combination (and with right timing) is necessary for reproduction.
The human reproductive process is slow, but we don’t have to reproduce quickly, since we (well, the “we” in the industrialized nations) have sufficient medical and agricultural technology to ensure that the vast majority of our offspring can reach adulthood, and there are no natural predators constantly culling us.
So if we do the reproductive version of sex often enough to maintain our population, what difference does it make what we do the rest of the time?
Hmm. Can we postulate a world where the sperm-donor version of reproduction happens often enough, and sex itself never actually leads to reproduction?
Sure, I can picture some kind of “Gattaca” - like future where any couple who wants to reproduce will submit their haploids for screening first, the resultant and optimized IVF embryo implanted back in the woman (or a woman, anyway) for gestation. The rest of the time they have sex just for funsies.
I’d also like to give kudos to the posters who pointed out the constant heterosexual “propaganda” we’re surrounded by. If depictions in film, television and print truly could guide a person’s sexuality, then homosexuality would have utterly disappeared during the mid-20th century, at least in the western world where hetero depictions are constant and homosexual depictions completely absent from, say, 1930 to 1980.
This concept hadn’t occurred to me at all.
What’s moot for nine months? Am I being whooshed?
I sometimes wonder if the objection to “gay propaganda” has less to do with gayness itself (do any non-religious folks in the West genuinely care what two consenting adults do with their genitals together?) and more to do with with political concerns - ie, a worry that "gayness"is strongly connected to leftism on the political spectrum, which is seen as an undesirable by those with a more conservative/traditional political outlook.