independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 30th Mar 2020 2:14am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Gay "Agenda"
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 7 1234567>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 01/31/20 2:15pm

herb4

avatar

The Gay "Agenda"

Some of us folks got into it in the "Why Was Prince Booed at the Stones Concert" thread and, around page 6 or so, an org member named RJ Orion got (rightfully) dogpiled on for some rather, say, old fashioned views on traditional gender roles, what it means to be a man, how that related to Prince and so forth. He was asked to start his own thread on it and I guess demurred on the idea. So here's this one.

Over the years, I've found myself consistently astonished at how many old fashioned, conservative Prince fans there seem to be... because it makes no sense. My man was WILD to the end. He challenged traditional gender roles and what it means to be a man. All that. He helped ME in my formative years.

...

Anyhow...the subject of having an AGENDA came up and as a bisexual male who's roughly 90% straight on the Kinsey Scale or what have you, I was wondering what the people here might think "my agenda" might be. Because as far as I can ascertain, it's bascially to not feel ashamed, hate myself, be beaten or discriminated against in society or in the workplace and to be treated as an equal. I did not CHOOSE to be this way.

In fact, I CHOSE to not try NOT TO. I CHOSE not be open about myself in order to avoid persecution and all the things I mentioned. I CHOSE to try to fit in with the majority because I was too scared/weal to be strong and open. I CHOSE marriage to a woman and CHOSE to have a son.

So...what do people who have a problem with people like me think my AGENDA is exactly?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 01/31/20 3:22pm

poppys

headbang

Kudos for starting "the thread" herb and sharing some good stuff about your corner of human existience. Let's see if anybody REALLY wants to discuss the topic without the PM&M filter.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 01/31/20 3:34pm

Fenwick

I can't speak to the gay agenda aspect of this post because I don't understand the context of exactly what that means. But I can ramble on about the posts in the other thread you referenced!!!!


I actually think his first post was totally acceptable. Back in the 70's and 80's, even though it was obviously abhorrent, it was COMPLETELY acceptable to mock gay people. And that's a fact. Heck, don't take my word for it; Eddie Murphy made two extremely popular stand up routines off it. They were allegedly hilarious. The use of the word "fag" was completely acceptable and extremely common.


But today, it's just embarrassing to claim it is "your right" to hold someone's lifestyle against them. Trying to claim it's choice vs. biology etc is a common fallback. And it is not only embarrasing, it's 100% irrelevant. Consenting adults don't owe anyone an explanation about anything they choose to do. I've got into arguments with extraodrinarily intelligent people who have equated allowing gay people to marry as the first step towards making allowances for screwing animals. Multiple times. I wish I was joking.


It's depressing what the lethal combination of religion and ignorance allow for someone to espouse as their belief structure. I am happy we've come a very long way in many different areas in my lifetime. And it's easy for people to lose sight of that in this day of internet trolls and the current president.

Brief Sidebar - When Ferraro was the VP candidate in 1984 with Mondale, I was 14 years old and I specifically remember so many members of my family acting like aliens were taking over. A female leader??????


Anyway - back the person referenced posting in that thread. Everything after their first post was an embarrassment to humanity. The world will always have people with hatred in their heart looking to justify their beliefs via strength in numbers. No thread is required to point this out. It is that specific poster's loss that they can not see this more clearly.



 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 01/31/20 3:43pm

sexton

avatar

The recent comments on social media between Pastor Troy and Lil Nas X about what the latter wore to the Grammys reminded me of that Rolling Stones thread.

Lil Nas X Responded to A Fellow Rapper's Homophobic Comment, And It Was Perfect

https://www.billboard.com...t-grammys

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 01/31/20 3:51pm

poppys

Fenwick said:

I can't speak to the gay agenda aspect of this post because I don't understand the context of exactly what that means. But I can ramble on about the posts in the other thread you referenced!!!!


I actually think his first post was totally acceptable. Back in the 70's and 80's, even though it was obviously abhorrent, it was COMPLETELY acceptable to mock gay people. And that's a fact. Heck, don't take my word for it; Eddie Murphy made two extremely popular stand up routines off it. They were allegedly hilarious. The use of the word "fag" was completely acceptable and extremely common.


But today, it's just embarrassing to claim it is "your right" to hold someone's lifestyle against them. Trying to claim it's choice vs. biology etc is a common fallback. And it is not only embarrasing, it's 100% irrelevant. Consenting adults don't owe anyone an explanation about anything they choose to do. I've got into arguments with extraodrinarily intelligent people who have equated allowing gay people to marry as the first step towards making allowances for screwing animals. Multiple times. I wish I was joking.


It's depressing what the lethal combination of religion and ignorance allow for someone to espouse as their belief structure. I am happy we've come a very long way in many different areas in my lifetime. And it's easy for people to lose sight of that in this day of internet trolls and the current president.

Brief Sidebar - When Ferraro was the VP candidate in 1984 with Mondale, I was 14 years old and I specifically remember so many members of my family acting like aliens were taking over. A female leader??????


Anyway - back the person referenced posting in that thread. Everything after their first post was an embarrassment to humanity. The world will always have people with hatred in their heart looking to justify their beliefs via strength in numbers. No thread is required to point this out. It is that specific poster's loss that they can not see this more clearly.



:
luv: heart heart your 3rd eye


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 01/31/20 4:04pm

RJOrion

oh lawd... i see i done fucked up...

1... i humbly and sicerely apologize to ANYONE i may have offended.

2...(couldve been #1) i believe i CLEARLY typed that those were my feelings AS A TEENAGER IN 1979.
3... somewhere along my lifeline, i obviously (to me & those who know me), have have changed, aged and matured as a man, which i why i felt comfortable in exposing how i went from being a Prince "hater" to becoming an obsessed Prince fanatic.
4...that said, ive never been one to idolize the people im a fan of, so i have no problems expressing the things i dont/didnt agree with about
them.
5...Gay Agenda is a widely used catchphrase for the government and media's sudden acceptance and advertising of LGBTQ lifestyle as a "trend" and "popular, when forever it was the exact opposite.. that catchphrase is not directed at those who live the lifestyle...at all.

i hope this makes my feelings on this topic clearer...because that whole exchange in the LA Coliseum thread wasnt an exchange of honest ideas...it started that way and became a game of dart throwing...myself included...so if anyone was offended or disrespected, including the mighty Prince Nelson, that was not my intention and i humbly apologize.....

Peace To You & Yours
⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘
[Edited 1/31/20 16:09pm]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 01/31/20 4:07pm

poppys

sexton said:

The recent comments on social media between Pastor Troy and Lil Nas X about what the latter wore to the Grammys reminded me of that Rolling Stones thread.

Lil Nas X Responded to A Fellow Rapper's Homophobic Comment, And It Was Perfect

https://www.billboard.com...t-grammys


Love what you post sexton. Gonna go get me some moZZ sticks!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 01/31/20 4:52pm

lavendardrumma
chine

RJOrion said:

i believe i CLEARLY typed that those were my feelings AS A TEENAGER IN 1979.



Really? Yeah that got lost when you were defending the views as valid in 2020. You conveyed you like Prince today, and don't think he was Gay, but you also said you had to hide the Lovesexy cover, and expressed discomfort about sexuality in general.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 01/31/20 5:02pm

lavendardrumma
chine


I wish this topic came about for different reasons....



One thing I found startling after Prince's death, when people were putting his cultural impact into context, was just how far he took it. He was damn near what at the time would have been considered doing drag, or crossdressing or "transvestitism" for the time, and even if there was confusion about his sexuality, people pretty much recognized he was toying with gender bending personas, and that was it. To do that and be perceived as ultra masculine (especially when he was short as hell) and get a major motion picture with a romantic angle....It's hard to really take in the cultural impact of all that. Little Richard was still in the closet at that point, for context.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 01/31/20 5:15pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

Believe it or not but I actually came in here initially to defend RJ because the stuff that's being said about him doesn't match with what I've seen from him in the past. But then I went and read through the Rolling Stones thread and whereas he does express his feelings AT THE TIME where not his feelings of today, I also came across the following quote;

"the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs..."

Now, what in the actual fuck does this mean? I don't understand. Are you complaining that people who don't support "that lifestyle" get vilified for expressing their archaic beliefs? Bigots like that SHOULD be mocked and vilified for that kind of behaviour. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when it comes to expressing certain beliefs that put down others for being who they are then I think those people should keep their beliefs to themselves. And if they don't, they only have themselves to blame when they are mocked, vilified and lose their jobs.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/31/20 5:16pm

RJOrion

lavendardrummachine said:



RJOrion said:


i believe i CLEARLY typed that those were my feelings AS A TEENAGER IN 1979.



Really? Yeah that got lost when you were defending the views as valid in 2020. You conveyed you like Prince today, and don't think he was Gay, but you also said you had to hide the Lovesexy cover, and expressed discomfort about sexuality in general.




i defend all views as valid...its peoples inaliable right to have and express their own personal views... the lp cover thing was 32 years ago...it wasnt really about sexuality as much as it was about the crew i was hanging with, always clowning me for being a Prince fan, when we were all heavily into hiphop...street dudes from NY at that time wasnt claiming Prince like they do now... alot of us that did dig his shit, were almost in the closet with our fandom... this might sound silly to a majority of yall, but i understand im from a minority background (not just race either) and demographic here..so these views of Prince in those eras might sound crazy and/or "archaic"...but thats the way it was.
[Edited 1/31/20 17:17pm]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/31/20 5:53pm

Fenwick

EmmaMcG said:

Believe it or not but I actually came in here initially to defend RJ because the stuff that's being said about him doesn't match with what I've seen from him in the past. But then I went and read through the Rolling Stones thread and whereas he does express his feelings AT THE TIME where not his feelings of today, I also came across the following quote; "the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs..." Now, what in the actual fuck does this mean? I don't understand. Are you complaining that people who don't support "that lifestyle" get vilified for expressing their archaic beliefs? Bigots like that SHOULD be mocked and vilified for that kind of behaviour. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when it comes to expressing certain beliefs that put down others for being who they are then I think those people should keep their beliefs to themselves. And if they don't, they only have themselves to blame when they are mocked, vilified and lose their jobs.

Exactly. Indefensible on every level. But there a re many more than that.

I since went back and looked a little more at the thread and realize I misspoke. I see the contributor actually was involved prior to page six. Per the OP, I thought page six represented their first contributions. My fault.


But there are a number of gems worthy of being called out.


Not sure I can contribute more than my original sentiments.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/31/20 6:03pm

RJOrion

EmmaMcG said:

Believe it or not but I actually came in here initially to defend RJ because the stuff that's being said about him doesn't match with what I've seen from him in the past. But then I went and read through the Rolling Stones thread and whereas he does express his feelings AT THE TIME where not his feelings of today, I also came across the following quote;

"the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs..."

Now, what in the actual fuck does this mean? I don't understand. Are you complaining that people who don't support "that lifestyle" get vilified for expressing their archaic beliefs? Bigots like that SHOULD be mocked and vilified for that kind of behaviour. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when it comes to expressing certain beliefs that put down others for being who they are then I think those people should keep their beliefs to themselves. And if they don't, they only have themselves to blame when they are mocked, vilified and lose their jobs.


i dont think anyone sjould be mocked, villified or fired for their personal beliefs...whether right, wrong mainstream or not...we are all free...right?

its not 1979 or 1986 anymore
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/31/20 7:05pm

herb4

avatar

Kudos for coming into the discussion, RJO.

I'll let other people talk for a bit.

But still not sure how how me, or people like me, have any sort of "agenda" though, beyond the things I mentioned. Your words, man, You said "the PROBLEM with the LBTQ AGENDA" as if it's folks like me with a problem. Sorry if u found yourself in a minor jackpot over it but I'm about your age and "Suffered" the same sort of of bullshit from my friends a LONG TIME AGO for digging Prince.

I like to think we've come a long way since then but...well...
Here we are.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/31/20 8:32pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

https://www.flfamily.org/issues-research/marriage-family/gay-agenda

Talking Points & Basic Information

An Advancing LGBTQ Moveme...stians Do?
America Family Association
Part of the strength of the LGBTQ movement has been its ability to intimidate and bully its opponents. However, part of its success has also been its capacity to warp the truth of God’s word. So-called “gay theology” has become a deceptive siren song that is swiftly capturing hearts and minds within the one bulwark that had remained standing firmly against the movement – the evangelical church. This one-two punch of intimidation and twisted theology has created an atmosphere of both fear and delusion. The issue of homosexuality and transgenderism threatens to divide the church.

How to respond to the LGBT movement
Peter Spriggs, Family Research Council
There are certainly overlaps between the homosexual and transgender movements—both assert a radical personal autonomy even in defiance of the natural characteristics and complementarity of the two sexes. As a result, the two movements have also been allied politically more often than not. However, there are also sufficient conceptual differences between the issues of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” for them to be addressed separately. Here, FRC will recount some of the major claims asserted by these two movements, and explain based on the science and evidence why those claims are inaccurate.

Gay activist’s war agai...ristianity
Ed Vitagliano
While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality, marriage and family.

God’s Plan for Gay Agenda
John MacArthur
How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals with hostility and disdain? In reality, the Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual sinner desperately needs.

Gay Rights – Homosexual...Viewpoints
Faith Facts
There are several aspects to the cultural debate surrounding homosexual behavior. In this article we will summarize the key considerations.

Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right
Peter Sprigg
This essay is not a legal treatise, but an exploration of the philosophical justification for including various characteristics as categories of protection under historic civil rights laws—and why “sexual orientation” simply does not compare with them.

Understanding the GLBT Po...o About It
Peter Sprigg
In the span of a few short years, American culture has undergone a breath-taking shift in attitudes about homosexuality and transgenderism. Behaviors that were recently viewed by most to be unseemly, if not immoral, are now embraced. What was good is now evil. What was evil is now good. And while homosexual and transgender activists insist that there is no agenda in play, a closer look shows that this 180-degree turn was no accident.

#IDEFINEME #ALBUMSSTILLMATTER

A Liar Shall Not Tarry In My Presence
I will make you cyber shit in your pants!
What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he put your million dollar check
In
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 01/31/20 8:58pm

lavendardrumma
chine

RJOrion said:

street dudes from NY at that time wasnt claiming Prince like they do now



Yeahhhh, no. I'm going to have to pull your card on that one. Not doubting you experienced some fears and your friend group may have been uptight, but even the most hardened street goon wasn't blinking over a Prince fan in 1988. Lovesexy was funny to people, nobody was seriously associating Prince with homosexuality by then. C'mon.


Is there more to it? Were you religious?

Also, there's a difference between saying everyone has a right to express their views like you're the ACLU and saying all view are valid. No, not all views are valid.

[Edited 1/31/20 20:58pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 01/31/20 9:10pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

RJOrion said:

oh lawd... i see i done fucked up... 1... i humbly and sicerely apologize to ANYONE i may have offended. 2...(couldve been #1) i believe i CLEARLY typed that those were my feelings AS A TEENAGER IN 1979. 3... somewhere along my lifeline, i obviously (to me & those who know me), have have changed, aged and matured as a man, which i why i felt comfortable in exposing how i went from being a Prince "hater" to becoming an obsessed Prince fanatic. 4...that said, ive never been one to idolize the people im a fan of, so i have no problems expressing the things i dont/didnt agree with about them. 5...Gay Agenda is a widely used catchphrase for the government and media's sudden acceptance and advertising of LGBTQ lifestyle as a "trend" and "popular, when forever it was the exact opposite.. that catchphrase is not directed at those who live the lifestyle...at all. i hope this makes my feelings on this topic clearer...because that whole exchange in the LA Coliseum thread wasnt an exchange of honest ideas...it started that way and became a game of dart throwing...myself included...so if anyone was offended or disrespected, including the mighty Prince Nelson, that was not my intention and i humbly apologize...... Peace To You & Yours ⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘⚘ [Edited 1/31/20 16:09pm]

I'm definately not trying to drag you.
So here it is... let's deal with it.

I want to be able to look at the words present, not so much you...

Only you really know, but there are many things you posted that strongly indicated 'those feelings you had as a teenager in 1979' are feelings you still have.
.

For example when JFenster asked: isnt this more homo-erotic than sissy-fied??? (he/she never answered). You replied with
lol...arent they one and the same?...

.

the farrah faucett hair...the girly gym shorts...leg warmers...his whole demeanor and disposition and mannerisms were effeminate...straight black men didnt/dont dress or accessorize or move like that...sashaying around and flipping his hair and scarves the way he did 1978-1979

.

...im just firm in my beliefs that men should dress and behave like men and ladies should dres and behave as ladies...and i have right and freedom and justification to feel this way, just as the people who have different views have the right and freedom to express themselves... thats not a "hang-up", thats a fact

.

he troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs...

.

the world taught me...starting with my parents... i dont know how old you are, but homosexuality was LONG considered a sickness...and deviant...and reprehensible...and evil..and underground..this age of acceptance for homosexuality is a new agenda and a new creation...perpetuated by the media and federal and local governments...includng the school systems... but to each their own beliefs... i can be a fan of someone and even a friend or family member to someone who has different beliefs about sexuality

.

and comparing chosen sexual behavior to born ethnicity is an old, tired, and irresponsible comparison that makes zero common or scientific sense.

.

or because i didnt/dont agree with the gay lifestyle?

.

These posts indicate this is still how you, Jfenster (or people) feel about 'sissies' today.

#IDEFINEME #ALBUMSSTILLMATTER

A Liar Shall Not Tarry In My Presence
I will make you cyber shit in your pants!
What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he put your million dollar check
In
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 01/31/20 9:12pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

lavendardrummachine said:

RJOrion said:

street dudes from NY at that time wasnt claiming Prince like they do now



Yeahhhh, no. I'm going to have to pull your card on that one. Not doubting you experienced some fears and your friend group may have been uptight, but even the most hardened street goon wasn't blinking over a Prince fan in 1988. Lovesexy was funny to people, nobody was seriously associating Prince with homosexuality by then. C'mon.


Is there more to it? Were you religious?

Also, there's a difference between saying everyone has a right to express their views like you're the ACLU and saying all view are valid. No, not all views are valid.

[Edited 1/31/20 20:58pm]

Actually, there was a post about the Lovesexy cover on the Org a little while back. A few members were very raw with what they thought of it.

I spoke to another Prince fan man times, and he took a very homophobic stance on that album cover.

#IDEFINEME #ALBUMSSTILLMATTER

A Liar Shall Not Tarry In My Presence
I will make you cyber shit in your pants!
What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he put your million dollar check
In
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 02/01/20 12:34am

lavendardrumma
chine

OldFriends4Sale said:

I spoke to another Prince fan man times, and he took a very homophobic stance on that album cover.


Oh I don't doubt that, there's always one, and homophobia in the 80's was commonplace (and a lot of times it wasn't even homophobia so much as people weren't ready and exposed yet), but the idea that was the standard with kids running around the streets all through NY just isn't accurate.

Everyone knew Prince liked women, long before 1988.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 02/01/20 12:52am

EmmaMcG

avatar

RJOrion said:

EmmaMcG said:

Believe it or not but I actually came in here initially to defend RJ because the stuff that's being said about him doesn't match with what I've seen from him in the past. But then I went and read through the Rolling Stones thread and whereas he does express his feelings AT THE TIME where not his feelings of today, I also came across the following quote;

"the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs..."

Now, what in the actual fuck does this mean? I don't understand. Are you complaining that people who don't support "that lifestyle" get vilified for expressing their archaic beliefs? Bigots like that SHOULD be mocked and vilified for that kind of behaviour. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when it comes to expressing certain beliefs that put down others for being who they are then I think those people should keep their beliefs to themselves. And if they don't, they only have themselves to blame when they are mocked, vilified and lose their jobs.


i dont think anyone sjould be mocked, villified or fired for their personal beliefs...whether right, wrong mainstream or not...we are all free...right?

its not 1979 or 1986 anymore


So if Donald Trump (or any other public figure) said "I don't like black people", you don't think he should be mocked or vilified for those beliefs?

What about the belief in a lot of cultures that women are secondary to men? You don't think that's a ridiculous notion that should be called out? Even when women of certain religions are having acid thrown in their face by their own father for not marrying the right man. You don't think that's a belief that should be vilified?

Beliefs are one thing. Expressing them is another. Homophobic beliefs don't hurt anyone. Expressing them can lead to self harm and people committing suicide. That is why it's important that these kinds of stupid beliefs are mocked and vilified. So that young children will see these stories of people losing their jobs for expressing racist, homophobic or sexist beliefs and they'll understand that these beliefs are not, in any way, suitable. And if you do so happen to dislike those of a different race, gender or sexuality then you'd better keep your opinions to yourself.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 02/01/20 6:12am

PennyPurple

avatar

herb4 said:

Some of us folks got into it in the "Why Was Prince Booed at the Stones Concert" thread and, around page 6 or so, an org member named RJ Orion got (rightfully) dogpiled on for some rather, say, old fashioned views on traditional gender roles, what it means to be a man, how that related to Prince and so forth. He was asked to start his own thread on it and I guess demurred on the idea. So here's this one.

Over the years, I've found myself consistently astonished at how many old fashioned, conservative Prince fans there seem to be... because it makes no sense. My man was WILD to the end. He challenged traditional gender roles and what it means to be a man. All that. He helped ME in my formative years.

...

Anyhow...the subject of having an AGENDA came up and as a bisexual male who's roughly 90% straight on the Kinsey Scale or what have you, I was wondering what the people here might think "my agenda" might be. Because as far as I can ascertain, it's bascially to not feel ashamed, hate myself, be beaten or discriminated against in society or in the workplace and to be treated as an equal. I did not CHOOSE to be this way.

In fact, I CHOSE to not try NOT TO. I CHOSE not be open about myself in order to avoid persecution and all the things I mentioned. I CHOSE to try to fit in with the majority because I was too scared/weal to be strong and open. I CHOSE marriage to a woman and CHOSE to have a son.

So...what do people who have a problem with people like me think my AGENDA is exactly?

I don't think you have an agenda, you are who you are and being the best you can be. Noboby has to have an agenda, just live your life to the fullest and happiest Herb!

COME BACK RODEO COME BACK!
Ask him why he felt the need to delete his account, rather than just walk away and stop posting as countless others have done. Or he could have just stayed out of P&R.
But nobody is above the rules, no matter how long you've b
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 02/01/20 7:26am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

lavendardrummachine said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I spoke to another Prince fan many times, and he took a very homophobic stance on that album cover.


Oh I don't doubt that, there's always one, and homophobia in the 80's was commonplace (and a lot of times it wasn't even homophobia so much as people weren't ready and exposed yet), but the idea that was the standard with kids running around the streets all through NY just isn't accurate.

Everyone knew Prince liked women, long before 1988.

There is nothing even 'homosexaul' about the image. It actually points to the person reacting. If you automatically think 'gay' when you see that cover it's probably an issue in you. Nudity is not gay or straight, it's just nude. If I see a photo of a naked woman, it doesn't mean 'heterosexual' it's just a nude woman.

https://prince.org/msg/7/277499

https://prince.org/msg/7/93806

https://prince.org/msg/7/367997

#IDEFINEME #ALBUMSSTILLMATTER

A Liar Shall Not Tarry In My Presence
I will make you cyber shit in your pants!
What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he put your million dollar check
In
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 02/01/20 7:36am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Marginalized gays are different that rich ones--who guide the Democratic funding. More important that you be radical, gay or not. Moderate gays who use it for a grift, nah Protect marginal groups, yea

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 02/01/20 8:15am

poppys

OldFriends4Sale said:

lavendardrummachine said:


Oh I don't doubt that, there's always one, and homophobia in the 80's was commonplace (and a lot of times it wasn't even homophobia so much as people weren't ready and exposed yet), but the idea that was the standard with kids running around the streets all through NY just isn't accurate.

Everyone knew Prince liked women, long before 1988.

There is nothing even 'homosexaul' about the image. It actually points to the person reacting. If you automatically think 'gay' when you see that cover it's probably an issue in you. Nudity is not gay or straight, it's just nude. If I see a photo of a naked woman, it doesn't mean 'heterosexual' it's just a nude woman.

https://prince.org/msg/7/277499

https://prince.org/msg/7/93806

https://prince.org/msg/7/367997


nod

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 02/01/20 11:02am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

For one most of what is perceived of the gay agenda doesn't exist. Having gay people some show or movie is not pushing it anymore than having heterosexuals. I saw a part of some tv show where 2 firemen made out and had (off screen) sex... it was a bit graphic...but if it had been a male and female it would be nothing... same with the same sex kiss at the end of the new star wars movie...if it was a man and woman no one would care...


oh and I am not nearly as Conservative as i am a libertarian. I see way more so called liberals calling to ban things that I see from conservatives much less libertarians.

I have always been open to all kinds of people and always tolerant... i just do not care. I had what some said was a gay roommate in the army (in 1991 before clinton's don't ask don't tell)

even as a kid I did not care... never minded to me... still dosn't.

No one is coming for your abortion: they just want common-sense abortion regulations: background checks, waiting periods, lifetime limits, take a class, and a small tax.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 02/01/20 4:23pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

Believe it or not but I actually came in here initially to defend RJ because the stuff that's being said about him doesn't match with what I've seen from him in the past. But then I went and read through the Rolling Stones thread and whereas he does express his feelings AT THE TIME where not his feelings of today, I also came across the following quote; "the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs..." Now, what in the actual fuck does this mean? I don't understand. Are you complaining that people who don't support "that lifestyle" get vilified for expressing their archaic beliefs? Bigots like that SHOULD be mocked and vilified for that kind of behaviour. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when it comes to expressing certain beliefs that put down others for being who they are then I think those people should keep their beliefs to themselves. And if they don't, they only have themselves to blame when they are mocked, vilified and lose their jobs.



If you've got to call out something on the grounds of 'archaism', think again:



Homosexuality in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE

[...]

Similarly, in Thailand, kathoey, or "ladyboys," have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. While kathoey may encompass simple effeminacy or transvestism, it most commonly is treated in Thai culture as a third gender. They are generally accepted by society, and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.[18]

[...]

Homosexual and gender-variant individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil.[14][15]

[...]


The earliest Western documents (in the form of literary works, art objects, and mythographic materials) concerning same-sex relationships are derived from ancient Greece.

etc, etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/...osexuality

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 02/01/20 5:07pm

PeggyO

RJOrion said:

lavendardrummachine said:



Really? Yeah that got lost when you were defending the views as valid in 2020. You conveyed you like Prince today, and don't think he was Gay, but you also said you had to hide the Lovesexy cover, and expressed discomfort about sexuality in general.

i defend all views as valid...its peoples inaliable right to have and express their own personal views... the lp cover thing was 32 years ago...it wasnt really about sexuality as much as it was about the crew i was hanging with, always clowning me for being a Prince fan, when we were all heavily into hiphop...street dudes from NY at that time wasnt claiming Prince like they do now... alot of us that did dig his shit, were almost in the closet with our fandom... this might sound silly to a majority of yall, but i understand im from a minority background (not just race either) and demographic here..so these views of Prince in those eras might sound crazy and/or "archaic"...but thats the way it was. [Edited 1/31/20 17:17pm]

I want to step in here. Herb4 is one of my favorite posters and I also like RJ. I also feel that what RJ is saying is true. The HipHop culture was not tolerant of gays and this is who his community was at the time. I get what he is saying. Hip Hop culture is/was hyper-masculine and I even think Prince started

dressing in a more masculine manner after Hip Hop became more influential. It was not only being a JW that influenced his own rejection of his more flamboyant attire. He knew it was a turn-off to his AA fans. (IMO)

IMO the African American community (I'm generalizing) has struggled with comfort around gay issues.

There are reasons for this.

[Edited 2/1/20 17:08pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 02/01/20 9:15pm

rednblue

PeggyO said:



RJOrion said:


lavendardrummachine said:




Really? Yeah that got lost when you were defending the views as valid in 2020. You conveyed you like Prince today, and don't think he was Gay, but you also said you had to hide the Lovesexy cover, and expressed discomfort about sexuality in general.



i defend all views as valid...its peoples inaliable right to have and express their own personal views... the lp cover thing was 32 years ago...it wasnt really about sexuality as much as it was about the crew i was hanging with, always clowning me for being a Prince fan, when we were all heavily into hiphop...street dudes from NY at that time wasnt claiming Prince like they do now... alot of us that did dig his shit, were almost in the closet with our fandom... this might sound silly to a majority of yall, but i understand im from a minority background (not just race either) and demographic here..so these views of Prince in those eras might sound crazy and/or "archaic"...but thats the way it was. [Edited 1/31/20 17:17pm]


I want to step in here. Herb4 is one of my favorite posters and I also like RJ. I also feel that what RJ is saying is true. The HipHop culture was not tolerant of gays and this is who his community was at the time. I get what he is saying. Hip Hop culture is/was hyper-masculine and I even think Prince started


dressing in a more masculine manner after Hip Hop became more influential. It was not only being a JW that influenced his own rejection of his more flamboyant attire. He knew it was a turn-off to his AA fans. (IMO)


IMO the African American community (I'm generalizing) has struggled with comfort around gay issues.


There are reasons for this.



[Edited 2/1/20 17:08pm]


M


This comment brings to mind Bayard Rustin, his enormous contributions, and his struggles in an earlier time. All this is described in the introduction to Time on Two Crosses, a collection of Rustin’s writings. The collection is mentioned here:

http://www.ravishly.com/2...gay-people
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 02/01/20 10:47pm

lavendardrumma
chine

OldFriends4Sale said:

There is nothing even 'homosexaul' about the image. It actually points to the person reacting. If you automatically think 'gay' when you see that cover it's probably an issue in you. Nudity is not gay or straight, it's just nude.


Generally speaking, well yeah, of course.

That said he's a delicate man with legs most women would kill for, posed with flowers. If someone found it "effeminate" it wouldn't be an outlandish thought, and people wrongly associate effeminant things with sexuality.

Not that I disagree with your point, but there are nude photographs that are intentionally mean to appeal to Homosexual tastes. Toms of Finland for example isn't Gay to a straight man, it's just a leather boy, and a male body is a male body. But obviously there are Gay nudes.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 02/02/20 1:55am

EmmaMcG

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:



EmmaMcG said:


Believe it or not but I actually came in here initially to defend RJ because the stuff that's being said about him doesn't match with what I've seen from him in the past. But then I went and read through the Rolling Stones thread and whereas he does express his feelings AT THE TIME where not his feelings of today, I also came across the following quote; "the troubling thing about the whole LGBT movement/agenda is that the people who dont support or live that lifestyle, and people that openly proclaim heterosexuality, or support hetersexual relationships and dont believe in homosexuality as a choice, are the ones being mocked and villified, and/or even losing their jobs..." Now, what in the actual fuck does this mean? I don't understand. Are you complaining that people who don't support "that lifestyle" get vilified for expressing their archaic beliefs? Bigots like that SHOULD be mocked and vilified for that kind of behaviour. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when it comes to expressing certain beliefs that put down others for being who they are then I think those people should keep their beliefs to themselves. And if they don't, they only have themselves to blame when they are mocked, vilified and lose their jobs.



If you've got to call out something on the grounds of 'archaism', think again:



Homosexuality in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE



[...]

Similarly, in Thailand, kathoey, or "ladyboys," have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. While kathoey may encompass simple effeminacy or transvestism, it most commonly is treated in Thai culture as a third gender. They are generally accepted by society, and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.[18]



[...]

Homosexual and gender-variant individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil.[14][15]


[...]



The earliest Western documents (in the form of literary works, art objects, and mythographic materials) concerning same-sex relationships are derived from ancient Greece.

etc, etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/...osexuality



Did you hear that? That was the sound of the point of my post whooshing over your head. 😂
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 7 1234567>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Gay "Agenda"