I'll be completely honest: if going to a bar to watch a television show is grounds for divorce, and that attitude is something that is so fundamental to a person that you feel you should appreciate her more for it, then we are from such different cultures and viewpoints that it's somewhat shocking we share a planet, much less a country and shared cultural heritage.
I presume the grounds for such a statement is that it is a gay bar with a somewhat gay targeted television show (although I've never met anyone, gay or straight, that didn't love Drag Race after watching a few episodes). That attitude is so dismissive of an entire class of people. I have a hard time even getting into a frame of mind where I can comprehend why the idea of even potentially being associated with gay-friendly activities is shocking or appalling in any way.
Do you two even like each other? In my mind, this is a much better reason to get divorced.
This is the kind of statement that, in the year 2050, people will find astonishing that it was ever acceptable to say in a public forum.
There is no evidence that any of these factors make someone more or less gay.
This post is not incredible evidence of this claim.
In the Philippines, in 1970 or so, gays were pretty ordinary, everyday fixtures of the scene. A lot of schools were not co-ed, and teens walking away from school on the street with obviously public affections/relations were frequently a large segment of the scene. Quite often, moms would pick a boy to raise to be especially effeminate. . . . a "Mama's boy", so to speak.
A segment of the missionary "Elders" were on the wild side, for whatever reason, with about 20% in my estimation, hanging out with obviously "gay" investigators when not being observed. Some of these brought their ways with them, some were inducted into it in that climate. I knew one "Elder" who had been involved in rural gay hijinks in the farming town he came from, in Utah. I could tell you a lot about his family history and relatives and could make it out as case of parents who refused to see the plain facts about their wonderful boy. He could do no wrong. After his mission he made the news in Utah for killing some very young boys when he became afraid they would squeal about what he was doing to them. He was definitely a predator fixated on young boys.
You might argue that if he could have just come out for what he was he might have developed some "normal" gay relations, but it was not his situation, and "control" was part of his problem.
gay relations are not anything new in this world. We had a culture that was dominated by religious beliefs indicating that gay sex is not right before God, and whatever the hell people really are, gays just didn't expect people to "understand" it. We all have things we hide from public view, we always will. Whatever is the current set of acceptable forms of thought or conduct, people who are different will most likely just conceal the facts of their "difference".
People who for some reasoned principle do not think a particular behavior is "good" are not particularly or specially motivated by hate. Hate is not a reasoned principle. It is something that blinds a person to "reason" with the "feeling" it is.
If you say that in the year 2050 someone who will publicly say a gay relationship is fundamentally not good for some reason, such as because it is a weakling's response to difficulty in developing emotional attachments to members of the opposite sex and thus in some cases at least a lack of willingness to face someone who is fundamentally different, as women are from men, or as men are from women, rather than a positive mental attitude that respects differences. . . . . you are in fact indicating that you believe people who don't think as you do will not be tolerated in a future society, and will not be tolerated by a gay majority.
I hold procreation, having children, to be a good thing. People who accept a gay life are not going to have a lot of good experiences that heterosexual folks. . . including those who choose to just mentally overrule gay feelings and choose a life relationship with someone of the opposite sex. . . . . will have. I hold a lot of aspects of life surrounding heterosexual relations to be good, and worth choosing no matter what inclinations you might have otherwise.
I raise cattle, and I observe "gay" behaviors in the play they do while they are young. Cowboys call it "balling around". It usually just goes away. Older bulls find the smells and rewards of playing with cows so much more compelling. A truly "gay" bull, or a steer, usually doesn't do much "balling". . . . they lack the aggressiveness it takes to play that way. . . . and they also don't produce calves.
I just consider the normal, natural trends to have some superior aspects, and I have no interest in wasting my time and energy trying to "fit in" with the sort of made-up fictitious arguments for promoting gay lifestyles or making them some kind of "good" thing.
Throughout history, societies that went this way have gone into decline. Roman and Greek soldiers were paired up and encouraged to be "gay" in the hope that two men who "cared" for one another would fight better together. It just didn't turn out to produce a better army, or a better culture overall. Throughout the history of mankind, tribes or villages that went "gay" lost their cohesiveness and their population base, and were just over-run by the tribes and villages that encouraged men to fill a role as family man and women to care for children. . . ..
If your goal is population reduction, and that's your idea of "good" in our time. . . . well I call that a "reason". . . . but the fact is human populations have always pushed the limits of what our technology and skills in producing food and other life essentials, and expanding groups of populations have always over-run their neighbors. No new world order is going to change human nature. . . . it's always going to be like that, and there will always be some who dominate others in various ways. We are today trying to dominate the world in the cause of our cartel interests. By the year 2050 we will be over-run by people who hate gays and have men who will father kids and moms who will care for them.
I don't think that will be "good" for us.
My wife's primary interest in life is being a mother. She happens to have her own beliefs about a lot of things, and comes from a background where she's seen a lot of men who didn't do a very good job supporting their families. On most of the important issues in our lives, we share an extraordinary number of common values, but she is much more set in her thinking than I am. She thinks Lyndon LaRouche is a communist "cell" of agitators and an evil man who wants to rule the world in his own particular way. I think Lyndon LaRouche is a catholic intellectual who sees a lot of good reasons why we should not believe in the Malthusian model of population expansion, and argues about how we need to apply technology to enlarge our population base and enable us to become a space-exploring and other-planet-settling society. Just because he believes government should take the lead in promoting a better future for mankind, my wife calls him a socialist. I tell her Jesus intends to take over this planet and pursue the same goals under the leadership and sponship of His government. I laugh, she doesn't.
She also does a lot of seriously beneficial work, and cares for our kids better than I even understood as "possible".
I've seen gay innuendo on TV. I turn it off.
