Now have some guts and answer this

Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,554
No, I'm exhausted. If you pay me $10/hour I can keep up and read everything and respond to every argument, otherwise I'll waste my time with more pleasurable ways.
An argument has two stages, the first "exciting" stage where people reveal their ideas and argue, possibly it gets a bit heated, and then there's the boring and exhausting stage where people just spout the same shit all over again and everyone wants to quit.

But ok, I'll respond to any argument under 50 words.
 
Fuck it. I'll bite the bullet.
I have kissed a man. With tongue.
Nothing special. Well other than he was a.. well he.

Edit:
Guess I'm one of the few staying on topic?

Nothing special to have it on your avatar? :D
This is the thing with topics like this, people are too hesitant to speak the truth, because they will be judged. I like honest people, you did well to share it.

Oh and.. p.s.: Nothing is special nowadays. We've pretty much seen everything.
 
Level 4
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
67
Fuck it. I'll bite the bullet.
I have kissed a man. With tongue.
Nothing special. Well other than he was a.. well he.

Edit:
Guess I'm one of the few staying on topic?

Well i gotta admit too :s im bi, and actually im in relationship currently for a year already.. i had 3 boyfriends and 2 girlfriends.. and actually no one knows this couse im really "normal" like any other straight guy
 
Level 24
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
2,294
Nothing special to have it on your avatar? :D
This is the thing with topics like this, people are too hesitant to speak the truth, because they will be judged. I like honest people, you did well to share it.

Oh and.. p.s.: Nothing is special nowadays. We've pretty much seen everything.

Heh yeah. I changed it to make a point. It didn't work out as I had hoped. But now I kinda like the picture.
It's funny really. People seem to be somewhat interested in my avatar even though it should not be anything out of the ordinary.

About sharing experiences like the topic.
I don't think it will change anything for me that I wrote what I did. It will be forgotten quickly enough, if not already.
I think it takes more for people to judge, but you are probably right about people thinking they will be judged.
 
Last edited:
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
i'm on nuclear's side, kind of. lets make a hypothetical flow of events.

gay people are gay, and it's somewhat been proven this is inherited/natural, not a result of social conditions.
gay people hurt no one directly, and very few people indirectly.

homophobic people are a result of social conditions, but in the end they are given a choice.
homophobic people abuse & marginalise people both directly & indirectly

now at this point, zombie believes the intolerant should be tolerated by the tolerant, and doing otherwise would be hypocrisy according to the philosophy of 'free will' and 'democracy' and various other buzzwords. except free will is flawed and anyone with an open mind knows a balance is required. the most pragmatic and ideal society (which laws are meant to achieve, but have yet, if ever, to reach) gives a right to act & believe what you want* so long as it doesn't violate another's person's same right; failure to do so = equivalent punishment. a close-minded person ignores everything after the asterisk to simply call out supposed 'hypocrites', because they can't comprehend the notion that a line has to be drawn somewhere (where this line should be is an entirely different debate). so resuming the flow of events with this knowledge...

society draws a fucking line, believing hey homophobes shouldn't do that. also, by the power of logic we deduce that we should punish and marginalise them because they have a choice, and furthermore, they are high up in the flow of events.
society then proceeds to scrutinize homophobes (eg. giving them labels such as 'homophobes'), their only defense being "hey we're entitled to an opinion and not giving us one is hypocritical". they forget that having an opinion doesn't = being immune to other people disagreeing with said opinion, nor that acting unfavourably under said opinion = being immune to punishment/retaliation/scrutiny


as for my personal opinion on this highly off-topic argument, i actually am not a fan of gays. i get uncomfortable being near them, tho i wud never tell a gay to stop being near me just to fulfil a sense of security from a prejudice i noe to be irrational (i think my prejudice stems from a lack of contact and therefore understanding, not an inherent dislike). but a statement like "If it was to simply happen in their own bedroom, I wouldn't care." is just fucked. seriously, that's a fucked thing to say

I can generally relate to this, however, I was talking about opinions, not deeds.

I believe that people have the right to voice their concerns regarding their distaste for gay people (or anything else) or the (perceived) negative effects they have on society in general. I seriously do not believe that people should be despised by society/law just because they have an opinion that perchance attacks certain social groups.

I do not believe however that they have the right to enforce their thoughts, especially not in a way that it is unlawful, eg. via physical assault, unless it is needed. Opinions don't hurt and people should be prepared to accept or counter other people's opinions in a well-working society, as well as guarantee the possibility to share one's opinion under any political circumstance.

My point is simply that homophobes should not be shunned by society because of voicing an opinion, having opinions is not harmful.

In addition, by saying I wouldn't mind them if they were to do their thing in their own bedroom, I was merely reflecting to the post of Nuclear. It does not mean it is the only scenario I wish to tolerate, I specifically listed the things I have problems with beforehand.

If you had a really close friend, who is socially acceptable, not feminine in any way and suddenly decided to let you know of his sexuality, would you reject his friendship? You've known him for so long; you liked his personality, you took his sexual orientation for granted (that he is straight) and despite him hiding his true orientation, he still was homosexual or bisexual, regardless of whether he was signaling anything to you or not. How would you react in that case?

Unless coming out would change his entire personality, I would still accept him. Or unless he tries to hit on me afterwards. Or if he would try picking up same-gender people near me, I would surely be very uncomfortable.

Regardless, I would troll him to hell, even if I would generally accept him.

Also, I had a male "friend" eventually confessing his love for me, it was tad disappointing that he only befriended me to get in my pants. Curiously, it all happened while he knew that I am heterosexual, with him giving no respect to said fact.

There are people who say 'being homophobic' or 'being stubborn not to discuss anything related to same-gender sexual interactions' actually means that the person is afraid that they will enjoy it (sure, some of them are truly disgusted by the thought). So, consumed by their own rigid theories of how the social environments should be (as in, homosexuals being a mistake of nature and other extravagant beliefs) and how the social stigma is afferent to judgmental behavior, they restrain any kind of impetus to eventually try it.

Eh.... no, just no. I heard this argument often, but I've yet to see any proof regarding it. It sure does not apply in my case.

I also dislike the exaggerated "celebration" of pride in the parades, but the point is to loose the boundaries of discrimination: to make it look regular, so that they blend more easily within the societies.

It would only look regular and acceptable if other segments of the society would be celebrating their diversity in a similar manner as well. I'd have no problem with gay parades if there were heterosexual parades as well, if these were fundamental parts of any culture. They are not, however.

There was once an attempt in my country made by motorcyclists to celebrate traditional behavior in a form of a similar march: Heterosexuality, national culture and religion. They were barred from organizing the event.

Who is actually discriminated?

Same-gender encounters are everywhere and they are represented everywhere. Either we deal with it and pretend (at least) that we are okay with it or we decide to live in Plato's cave, where we are bound to see the truth we want and not the actual truth.

We can pretend we agree with something with which we don't actually agree and thus bend over to people trying to suppress our opinion. The question still stands: Why should I? I don't think things are going in a direction that is beneficial to my identity or my interests. Why should I stop protesting?

If I assemble a lot of people and create a slave-state wherein a certain minority is oppressed and they should shut up because the majority thinks such a state is accepted, does that make the majority right and the minority should keep tolerating it? No.

(Obviously, gay people are no such issue, it was just an example)

Life is not a coin, or, a binomial distribution, 50-50. It is a spectrum, where each combination is unique. You will not find a person identical to another. Even Facebook has acknowledged that the matter of sexual identity is subtle (and they have tons of social psychologists and neuroscientists to run experiments and researches for the bigger picture of the online network: a reflection of a real-life one): http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/techno.../facebook-gender-option-facebooks-new-3144022

I totally agree.

Diversity should be supported because that's what makes us human. If everyone suddenly starts thinking the same thing, we loose one portion of our humanity.

Too many walls of text appeared, good bye everyone.

Cya.

Also, special thanks goes to Solu9 for changing his avatar.
 
It would only look regular and acceptable if other segments of the society would be celebrating their diversity in a similar manner as well. I'd have no problem with gay parades if there were heterosexual parades as well, if these were fundamental parts of any culture. They are not, however.

There was once an attempt in my country made by motorcyclists to celebrate traditional behavior in a form of a similar march: Heterosexuality, national culture and religion. They were barred from organizing the event.

Who is actually discriminated?

You are smarter than that. I haven't heard of straight people not being acceptable to jobs because of their sexual orientation. I don't understand how the side of "being straight is normal and gay is abnormal" should celebrate what is "natural" to them. You will not celebrate something regular; we will not celebrate that most nations right now are under peace, but we will celebrate when we will go out of war.

Regardless, although I hate to speak in hypothetical terms, you still would have a distaste, even if straight parades were taking place. Because then, the comparisons would come into play, as to which parade is more meaningful and aesthetically better = subjective = vicious cycle.

So, in this context, it turns out that "celebration" is an invalid word. And let's face it, they are not proud of who they are, they want to think and look like they are proud.



Why should I? I don't think things are going in a direction that is beneficial to my identity or my interests. Why should I stop protesting?

Stating the obvious, but the world doesn't revolve around you. I don't get "why" and "how" you should protest, really. Protest for political discrepancies or unfair laws, this is a seed of nothingness compared to those. We are forced to live with psychopaths and murderers around us, but gay people are the problem. That's hypocritical, to say at least, and it only reveals the contradictions and irrationality embedded in stereotypes (not to you in particular, I hope you realize that).
 
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
You are smarter than that. I haven't heard of straight people not being acceptable to jobs because of their sexual orientation. I don't understand how the side of "being straight is normal and gay is abnormal" should celebrate what is "natural" to them. You will not celebrate something regular; we will not celebrate that most nations right now are under peace, but we will celebrate when we will go out of war.

True, I haven't heard of such case. I have however, heard of several cases when people who were nationalists or deep-rooted Christian believers were refused from jobs because of their beliefs.

Why is this a problem, you might ask.

My country is one which has been following the Christian religion and fueled by nationalism for 1014 years by now. These are things which have been standardized, accepted and followed by our entire nation, becoming deep-rooted into our culture. Ever since we're a subject to the influx of western culture, our own people have been continually rejecting and actively attacking segments of our own national identity only because (with the submission of our governments), the libertine segments and the general misinterpretation of a foreign culture is slowly being adapted to become our own and they wish to materially gain something out of assisting such procedure.

The mindset of my country's people is not fit for such changes, yet they quickly want to enact psychological reforms which have been done 200 years ago in for example, the USA. Due to that, radical actions have been taken to support the liberal lobby: Nationalists / conservatives and openly religious people are mostly, if not entirely shunned by both our government and by workplaces which offer more than the minimum wage, and while heterosexuals are not yet under such pressure, those who raise their voices against homosexuals generally suffer the same fate.

I'm not talking in riddles, I had several colleagues get fired back in my former workplace because of promoting conservatism.

I might not be right, but I'm very much afraid that while heterosexuals might not get outright refused from jobs, homosexuals will soon enjoy priority over them. It is a pattern that is strongly emerging mainly in the entertainment industry in my country (and as I see, in the whole of Europe, wherein a homosexual won a prestigious contest pretty much only because s/he was a homosexual) and I really wish not to see it spread.

Regardless, although I hate to speak in hypothetical terms, you still would have a distaste, even if straight parades were taking place. Because then, the comparisons would come into play, as to which parade is more meaningful and aesthetically better = subjective = vicious cycle.

So, in this context, it turns out that "celebration" is an invalid word. And let's face it, they are not proud of who they are, they want to think and look like they are proud.

Certainly, although you have to admit, gay people organize gay parades too because they wish to protest, they wish to come with an all-out assault against those, who oppose them. My point is simply that either they shouldn't (be allowed to) attack either or in a worse case, we should be allowed to attack as well.

This is in no way either balanced or tolerant.


Stating the obvious, but the world doesn't revolve around you. I don't get "why" and "how" you should protest, really. Protest for political discrepancies or unfair laws, this is a seed of nothingness compared to those. We are forced to live with psychopaths and murderers around us, but gay people are the problem. That's hypocritical, to say at least, and it only reveals the contradictions and irrationality embedded in stereotypes (not to you in particular, I hope you realize that).

Yeah, well, people always need a visible enemy they can fight (psychopaths and murderers are obviously not such) and they can hate, however I believe that the perceived hate against gay people (or against most minorities) is very much overblown by both politics and the media. It is true that in the past they suffered much discrimination, but according to what I experienced in my life (certainly, it might not be a global issue), white christian conservative people suffer much more hate and discrimination than gay people and minorities because of certain issues that happened in the long past or because of certain deeds of the 0,1% of a huge social majority.

What I really intend to protest against are such cases. I wish to preserve my identity and I wish not to get it suppressed by the rapid expansion of modern liberalism, and I wish that my descendants inherit the ethics I inherited from my parents. To do so, I have to stand up for my beliefs and indeed, attack those who refuse to understand why I think the way I do (certainly not physically, as you might already understand).

Thus, sorry. When addressing anyone on the 'opposite' side: I understand why you might be a homosexual/black person/jew/whateverpoordiscriminatedminority. I do not intend become you though, nor will I ever think like you do. That is why I protest. No one will force his beliefs down my throat, simply because I am not you and you have no right to turn me into someone like you.
 
I can generally relate to this, however, I was talking about opinions, not deeds.

I believe that people have the right to voice their concerns regarding their distaste for gay people (or anything else) or the (perceived) negative effects they have on society in general. I seriously do not believe that people should be despised by society/law just because they have an opinion that perchance attacks certain social groups.

I do not believe however that they have the right to enforce their thoughts, especially not in a way that it is unlawful, eg. via physical assault, unless it is needed. Opinions don't hurt and people should be prepared to accept or counter other people's opinions in a well-working society, as well as guarantee the possibility to share one's opinion under any political circumstance.

My point is simply that homophobes should not be shunned by society because of voicing an opinion, having opinions is not harmful.

In addition, by saying I wouldn't mind them if they were to do their thing in their own bedroom, I was merely reflecting to the post of Nuclear. It does not mean it is the only scenario I wish to tolerate, I specifically listed the things I have problems with beforehand.
and i believe that people have the right to voice their disapproval and scrutiny of anyone's opinions, especially if that opinion breeds negativity within society. if you truly relate to this, then u'd agree that individuals have a right to an opinion which doesn't directly lead to the violation of others' rights, but not immunity from criticism of said opinion. the layers of hypocrisy that you've built up, from accusing nuclear's beliefs for being hypocritical and your distate for "self over-victimisation" to this, are baffling. 'shunning' should at the very least be allowed, if you really want freedom of speech; and yes there's a difference between shunning and verbal abuse/hate speech. an opinion purely left on its own is harmless, but that's not how opinions work. every action you or i or the rest of society does is based off an opinion, usually emotional rather than rational. opinions can lead to constructive, or destructive, actions.


gay pride parades are a celebration of the adversity that gay people have gone through (and still go through) to gain equality and societal acceptance. tell me, what kind of adversities has the heterosexual conservative whie man faced?
 
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
Obviously, we have a different opinion on the definition of freedom of speech. I also believe we come from a different culture, thus the phenomena we're discussing manifest in different ways in our own respective areas. It is highly unlikely therefore, that we will reach a common conclusion.

To me the notion of freedom of speech doesn't include organized mass-protests and raids under a certain agenda. Especially not ones that are aggressive (or passive-aggressive as in deliberately being organized to attack the general culture and belief system of a certain strata). Gay parades are organized not to protest against discrimination, they are made deliberately to provoke people into forming an opinion. Dressing into flamboyant clothes, marching with sexual tools and having sex on stage doesn't make generic people accept the poor discriminated minority, it makes them shiver in disgust, since what they do is provocation. I mean fuck, even a lot of gay people admit that gay parades are unnecessarily provocative and destructive instead of being productive.

I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion and they have the right to voice and then defend their opinion, or attack the opinion of others, but no one has the right to flood the public with provocative, attention-whoring messages. It would be like if I was to flood the streets with people dressed as SS soldiers to celebrate white heterosexuality, even though SS soldiers composed a very small, radical wing of white heterosexuals, but I would provoke a lot of people to raise their heads and pay attention. Still, many would react in distaste. Would I achieve support for my agenda? No, even with media support, many people (at least around here) despise gay parades and because of them, gay people in general. Since gay parades are the first thing that comes into their mind, not generic, everyday gay people.

Also, as a white christian conservative man, I personally suffered physical assault over a dozen of times by our brown-skinned minority, due to my skin color (mostly when I was still a child and during my teenage years). Because of my conservatism, I have been labeled being a "nazi" about a thousand times in my life and was treated as one by both my schoolmates, teachers and later, colleagues. I learned that my political belief is only my concern, since people seem not to understand unless I write a fucking book on it to them. Because of being a christian, I am constantly under attack (verbally) for my faith, but I can live with that, since as I said, I believe in the freedom of speech and I am prepared to defend my orientation. I however, never, ever assaulted anyone based on their ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, even if I stated I disagree with them.
 
well i grew up being exposed to multiculturalism and thus probably have more liberal tendencies than you, tho don't think i'm like some kind of super left-wing hipster. for example i still use the word 'faggot' in place of 'idiot'/'dumbass' within certain contexts (usually conversing with well-known friends or talking about firewood). i'm also glad i turned off sigs/avatars a while back.

doesn't matter what our opinions are, a definition is a definition. mass protests are a form of freedom of speech by definition, raids not so much. but that's a problem with the means, not the end. note that in my previous post i wasn't responding to your dislike of gay parades, but ur misunderstanding of their justification & purpose. i mean fuck, even i admit gay parades are a bit much, but i acknowledge their reasons and right to do it. so yeah, i'm not going to argue with you on that but i will say "provocative, attention-whoring" is a matter of perspective.

if i say that ur experiences are incomparable to the societal marginalisation faced by gay people, then i'd risk sounding like an unsympathetic bastard. but what's life without taking a little risk? ur experiences are incomparable to the societal marginalisation faced by gay people. i am of course not saying "other ppl have it worse so suck it up", but rather saying "just because u have it bad and don't protest, doesn't mean others who have it bad shudn't protest".

regarding ur last sentence, that makes two of us.
 
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
Oh, I protest and I'm not asking for anyone's sympathy, especially not since I believe everyone has his own struggles in life, things everyone has to have the right to stand up against. However, everyone thinks that his own struggle is the most difficult. I too, have bigger problems than what I shared in my previous posts in real life, yet I understand that some people have it worse. In addition to what I said previously, it is another reason why I don't ask for sympathy. This however, according to almost three decades of experience, is missing from most people.

I simply believe that all the discrimination gay people allegedly suffer are offset by other benefits they enjoy. And that these benefits are rapidly increasing in both volume and frequency, whereas the layer which "offends" their rights are losing their own. Refer to post 67 and 69 for elaboration.
 
@Zombie, I realize that you are presenting other social phenomena to make a statement and I still do not want to disagree with you (even if I do, at certain points). However, what you mentioned there is a cultural phenomenon, that is, it varies across nations and possibly continents. Your example is religious discrimination; this conversation is about sexual orientation discrimination. Religious discrimination is entirely shaped by societies and the current mindset, whereas sexual orientation is part of a person's development and part of it is hardwired and is resistant to changes.

This may look like an innocent difference, but when social psychologists have to differentiate each occurrence, the definitions are well-put together. This, for example, applies to people using racism for any kind of distaste pertaining to a specific pattern of behavior. Therefore, the factors that are involved in the sexual development of a child are far more complex than religious 'inheritance'. In the latter case, it's about groups and ethical values, but in the former case, it's about nature with a flavor of religion (multiple people use the Bible as reference - which is convenient, but stupid, given that it no longer represents the current values and ethical systems of our time - and this applies to any type of defensive behavior for which they use it as a reference).
 
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
I understand and I'm no social psychologist. I brought up religion and a nation state oriented way of thinking since they are values that, along with the heterosexual identity, are strongly under attack by the liberal western mindset, yet composed a crucial part of our cultural identity. "God, country and family".

I also understand that we're speaking of different cultures and I prefer to keep it that way. Liberalism and ultra-tolerance might work perfectly in the USA, but the sick mixture of west and east that you can find in my country will never work to anyone's benefit. I would like to keep my own culture. It is what befits the most to the mindset of those who live in my country. If anyone thinks otherwise, he can leave anytime. Our borders are open. There are dozens of societies where liberalism works better, or works at all, but this is not one. When this culture is repeatedly attacked by people who reject it, yet they are the citizens of the same country, I can all but develop a distaste as a bold method of preservation.
 
Level 9
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
515
So, is he celibate because he believes it's sin or for some other reason?
Because the first option is just sad. >_>
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 58
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,540
I simply believe that all the discrimination gay people allegedly suffer are offset by other benefits they enjoy.
Death is not a benefit. Many African and Middle Eastern countries have a death penalty for anything same-sex related.

Mind you some of those countries have other crazy death sentences (often related to religion) but that is not an excuse and all of them should be considered equally bad.

To me the notion of freedom of speech doesn't include organized mass-protests and raids under a certain agenda. Especially not ones that are aggressive (or passive-aggressive as in deliberately being organized to attack the general culture and belief system of a certain strata). Gay parades are organized not to protest against discrimination, they are made deliberately to provoke people into forming an opinion. Dressing into flamboyant clothes, marching with sexual tools and having sex on stage doesn't make generic people accept the poor discriminated minority, it makes them shiver in disgust, since what they do is provocation. I mean fuck, even a lot of gay people admit that gay parades are unnecessarily provocative and destructive instead of being productive.
Someone sounds paranoid. Have you ever not stopped to think that they have them for two main reasons?
1. To have fun, some people find them fun.
2. To meet other like minded people, being in the minority and often discriminated it can be difficult to find others.

Also there are tons of parades in Germany, Switzerland, Brazil etc for straight people. The fact they allow Gay ones and not Straight ones in your area is down to your ultra conservative government who likely has laws against prostitution and nudity.

It would be like if I was to flood the streets with people dressed as SS soldiers to celebrate white heterosexuality, even though SS soldiers composed a very small, radical wing of white heterosexuals, but I would provoke a lot of people to raise their heads and pay attention.
Bringing the SS into this is a bad idea. One could argue all day about if people in the SS were good or bad but the underlying problem is that the SS is inherently evil as it was a tool of the national socialist party to control the people and stifle free will. Anyone with certain ideologies from the SS is free to start their own movements not related to the SS at all but the fact is that they still relate to the SS shows they are in it for bad intentions.

The IRA is a good example of this where in the early 2000s they disbanded and became a legal political party to spread their beliefs instead of using violence. So what happened? The people who were in it for the violence split off and started their own IRA movements (there are at least 3) all of which have committed atrocious acts of terrorism from random shootings to muggings. The only time you would associate yourself with such a movement is if you believe in what they are doing and unfortunately one should never believe that terrorism is an answer.

Most homosexual people will not go around starting concentration camps and killing people for being a certain ethnicity.

I know from word of mouth stories that all the people who initially joined the SS were in it for violence and glory. In fact they were so violent that most of them were executed as soon as the national socialist part took hold in Germany with only very few (mostly people who were deemed to be a non-threat) being given some low down government run institute positions like being in charge of rail yards and things. This further emphasises the evil of the SS as the initial lot were so bad that even an evil organization like the national socialist party had to get rid of them.

I have been labeled being a "nazi" about a thousand times in my life and was treated as one by both my schoolmates, teachers and later, colleagues.
In the EU you are free to move around. You must remember some areas of Europe (especially remote areas) were badly affected by the war so it is still possible that hatred has progressed down families to this day and age, even if you have nothing to do with the SS, its evil beliefs or even the national socialist party from WW2.

Other places like the UK and Germany will likely not care. Unless you start performing evil SS propaganda which is against the law for rather obvious reasons or carry out SS indorsed actions which violate several human rights laws.
 
Level 16
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
1,542
I don't really care if people are interested in the same-sex, because I am nobody that could judge another person's preferences nor their perspectives.
But ending a million years of advancement, and be kicked out of the gene-pool..?

As a fact, none of their ancestors are ever homosexual, hence they lived up to today.
If you were to be homosexual, then you would be the first of your billion of years generation..! (Congrats!)

I had say its a waste, unless both same-sex could actually reproduce and pass their genes.

But even then, one could easily counter argue "what's the point of reproducing?" yes?

The above is true, its not like it matters unless there is a valid reason to live and reproduce.

So, in my opinion, feel free to follow what you like, nobody
has the right to stop you, the law are created for the weak and insecure, humans are born with freedom without restriction. :goblin_yeah:
Have you ever liked or kissed a person of same gender as you?

Well, for the question itself, if family members don't count, then no.

But the Thread Starter suggests that we need "Guts" to answer, then I am guessing that
he expected the wilder answers, then my answer surely, is one of those the Thread Starter do not want to see.
It takes literally no guts at all to post this.

But if you are expecting something that took "Guts" to answer,
Are you trying to provoke a wild-fire?

I see that arguments has started early in the thread.

I see how it is.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,554
As a fact, none of their ancestors are ever homosexual, hence they lived up to today.
If you were to be homosexual, then you would be the first of your billion of years generation..! (Congrats!)

Simply not true. Homosexuality doesn't make you unable to have kids. I bet there are many closeted gay men who are living in families with kids and wives because they're pressured to live the "normal" way and keep their family together.
 
Level 16
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
1,542
Simply not true. Homosexuality doesn't make you unable to have kids. I bet there are many closeted gay men who are living in families with kids and wives because they're pressured to live the "normal" way and keep their family together.

Yes, that's possible, considering this, I fear there might be a heredity factor.

If that were the case, you may get some Gay-gene from your straight mother does it not?
Or your straight father if you are female.

But on most cases, being homosexual is more of an environmental factor than genetic.
Or not..

A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

Source : Gay Gene
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 58
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,540
I had say its a waste, unless both same-sex could actually reproduce and pass their genes.
They can just not via conventional means and using scientific processes currently not allowed to be used on humans.

Fact is that during normal reproduction (male with female) half the required genetic material is inherited from each parent. What determines gender is the X and Y chromosomes, the rest of the genetic material is pretty much identical (next to normal genetic variance between individuals) between both parents.

Males have both an X and a Y chromosome while females have two X chromosomes. This means that the gender is determined by the presence of a Y chromosome. Having additional copies/lacking copies results in a pretty common genetic disorder that occurs naturally.

So what does this mean? Between any two human individuals it is possible to get enough genetic material to create offspring that is as good as standard reproduction, even if they are of the same gender.

Two males could have both male and female children. Care must be taken to avoid double Y as this is not likely going to produce a healthy person.

Two females could can only produce female children. There is no Y chromosome to ever give rise to males offspring. On the plus side there is no chance of a mutant combination.

The only problem is with the generation of fertile egg cells. Only females produce egg cells and these contain their genetic material (already halved). Only males produce sperm cells and these contain their genetic material (already halved). Conventional reproduction requires a sperm cell to fuse with an egg cells to create a fertile egg containing a full set of genetic material (half inherited from each parent). A fertile egg cell positioned in the correct organs is required in order for development to proceed as it has to attach to the walls of the uterus in order to get enough resources to develop.

However one can look at the underlying egg cell (the really important part) as a deployment package for some human genetic code. If the contents of two sperm cells or two egg cells were extracted and placed inside an empty egg cell that is then exposed to the right chemical changes it should be possible to create a fertile egg cell and that egg cell is then placed inside a correctly functioning uterus it can then go on to develop and eventually a human kid will be formed.

Thus it is completely possible to have a kid who genetically has two fathers and no mother and a daughter who has two mothers and no father. In both cases a surrogate mother would be required (well the two females can probably do it themselves) however surrogate mothers are common nowadays to bypass female reproductive problems such as caused by STDs or trauma.

Is this something that is more likely to be found in a sci-fi film rather than real life? At the moment probably as religious organizations, funding and moral concerns prevent such experimentation on humans. However what about animals? Chances are it has already been done to them somewhere in the world. Heck, China even has cloning factories for research animals.

If that were the case, you may get some Gay-gene from your straight mother does it not?
Or your straight father if you are female.

But on most cases, being homosexual is more of an environmental factor than genetic.
I am guessing it is mostly down to hormones. Although cats are not humans I have observed some develop same-sex attractions. To summarize they were neutered and the one female (whom was neutered after reproducing, so she was clearly straight before) started acting like a male much to the annoyance of the one female. Since there are a lot of un-neutered male cats around I am guessing that she is picking up male hormones from the environment and without any female hormones to counteract these it causes an urge to exhibit male behaviour.
 
Level 4
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
67
But the Thread Starter suggests that we need "Guts" to answer, then I am guessing that
he expected the wilder answers, then my answer surely, is one of those the Thread Starter do not want to see.
It takes literally no guts at all to post this.

But if you are expecting something that took "Guts" to answer,
Are you trying to provoke a wild-fire?

I see that arguments has started early in the thread.

I see how it is.

actually any answers i see are good, at one point i also wanted to see people thoughts about this..
but yea, i expected some accurate answers couse i thought people here are more wilder :l
wild-fire? nope, just wanted to check if some people had experiences like i did
 
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
Death is not a benefit. Many African and Middle Eastern countries have a death penalty for anything same-sex related.

Mind you some of those countries have other crazy death sentences (often related to religion) but that is not an excuse and all of them should be considered equally bad.

I was discussing my own country, not the Middle East or Africa.

Gay or not, you're taking a lot of risks simply by living there.


Someone sounds paranoid. Have you ever not stopped to think that they have them for two main reasons?
1. To have fun, some people find them fun.
2. To meet other like minded people, being in the minority and often discriminated it can be difficult to find others.

Also there are tons of parades in Germany, Switzerland, Brazil etc for straight people. The fact they allow Gay ones and not Straight ones in your area is down to your ultra conservative government who likely has laws against prostitution and nudity.

1. I like driving fast in cities, yet I don't do it, because it's socially destructive. Even if I don't actually hit anyone, it's dangerous and provocative.
2. They can go to gay bars, which you can find in the dozens in pmuch every city in Europe. You don't have to rally on the streets to meet such people, you can do it discreetly.

Also, prostitution parties and nude marches are not things I would consider celebrating heterosexuality, they would be just as unnecessary and provocative as gay parades are. It's most likely however, not due to my ultra-conservative government, which allows homosexuals to protest as such.


Bringing the SS into this is a bad idea. One could argue all day about if people in the SS were good or bad but the underlying problem is that the SS is inherently evil as it was a tool of the national socialist party to control the people and stifle free will. Anyone with certain ideologies from the SS is free to start their own movements not related to the SS at all but the fact is that they still relate to the SS shows they are in it for bad intentions.

The IRA is a good example of this where in the early 2000s they disbanded and became a legal political party to spread their beliefs instead of using violence. So what happened? The people who were in it for the violence split off and started their own IRA movements (there are at least 3) all of which have committed atrocious acts of terrorism from random shootings to muggings. The only time you would associate yourself with such a movement is if you believe in what they are doing and unfortunately one should never believe that terrorism is an answer.

Most homosexual people will not go around starting concentration camps and killing people for being a certain ethnicity.

I know from word of mouth stories that all the people who initially joined the SS were in it for violence and glory. In fact they were so violent that most of them were executed as soon as the national socialist part took hold in Germany with only very few (mostly people who were deemed to be a non-threat) being given some low down government run institute positions like being in charge of rail yards and things. This further emphasises the evil of the SS as the initial lot were so bad that even an evil organization like the national socialist party had to get rid of them.

Yes, the nazis were very evil. They turned people into soup and ate their eyeballs for dinner.

Such evil deeds were not my point however, nor was discussing what they did and how they did it. I was trying to make a whole different point, please re-read this paragraph:

[...]no one has the right to flood the public with provocative, attention-whoring messages. It would be like if I was to flood the streets with people dressed as SS soldiers to celebrate white heterosexuality, even though SS soldiers composed a very small, radical wing of white heterosexuals, but I would provoke a lot of people to raise their heads and pay attention. Still, many would react in distaste. Would I achieve support for my agenda? No, even with media support, many people (at least around here) despise gay parades and because of them, gay people in general. Since gay parades are the first thing that comes into their mind, not generic, everyday gay people.

To simplify: If SS soldiers would be used to represent all heterosexual people, everyone would hate us.

Similarly, because of gay parades, many people hate generic gay people, who don't give in to provocation.

In the EU you are free to move around. You must remember some areas of Europe (especially remote areas) were badly affected by the war so it is still possible that hatred has progressed down families to this day and age, even if you have nothing to do with the SS, its evil beliefs or even the national socialist party from WW2.

Other places like the UK and Germany will likely not care. Unless you start performing evil SS propaganda which is against the law for rather obvious reasons or carry out SS indorsed actions which violate several human rights laws.

I don't even know how to react to this, it is SO very much off the topic...
 

Rui

Rui

Level 40
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,487
(...)
- Too extravagant attention-whoring in both ways of dressing and behavior
- Gay parades, which largely relates to the above
(...)
Pharaoh_ said:
(...) I also dislike the exaggerated "celebration" of pride in the parades, but the point is to loose the boundaries of discrimination: to make it look regular, so that they blend more easily within the societies. (...)
I never understood how parades go to demonstrate gay is normal when there are no parades for heterosexual people, or any other tastes.

Nuclear said:
It depends on if you got an erection.
Well, not really. How much excitement that sort of contact generates depends on the person. I believe I'd feel disgusted no matter the gender. Keep the saliva in your mouth D;


Will keep reading the thread later on.
 
Level 9
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
515
I never understood how parades go to demonstrate gay is normal when there are no parades for heterosexual people, or any other tastes.

When straight people are kicked out and disowned by their parents for being straight, there's reason to have straight pride parades.
When straight people are told they're less than from their governments when they pay taxes like everyone else and are denied basic rights such as marriage because of their sexuality, there's reason to have straight pride parades.
When straight people are told that their love isn't real or they're told they're going to burn in hell by their religions for being straight, there's reason to have straight pride parades.
When straight people are picked, teased or bullied for being straight, or commit suicide or self harm because of their sexuality, there's reason to have straight pride parades.
When straight people get beaten up or killed for who they love, there's reason to have straight pride parades.

Heterosexuality is embraced by society and is viewed as the norm.
There's no need for a straight pride parade because life itself is a straight pride parade.

-----

Gay pride parades are a celebration of gay pride. They also serve as demonstrations for LGBT legal rights.
Gay pride parades aren't supposed to present normal gay people going about their daily lives, it's more of a celebration than anything else.
 
Last edited:

Rui

Rui

Level 40
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,487
There's other ways to deal with any of those situations than cry out to anyone who'll listen—or doesn't want to—about how they affect you. Better yet, there's good ways to prevent/avoid them.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 58
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
26,540
Gay or not, you're taking a lot of risks simply by living there.
People often have no choices. Emigration is another problem entirely. Stop trying to go off-topic.

1. I like driving fast in cities, yet I don't do it, because it's socially destructive. Even if I don't actually hit anyone, it's dangerous and provocative.
The people are not trying to be provocative, they are just trying to have fun. Heck if you want you can join them. I am sure you will meet some very nice people there and you certainly do not have to join them for anything you do not want and I am pretty sure most will understand. It really sounds like you are paranoid.

It also brings in quite a bit of commerce so even helps the local economy of the area. I doubt it costs the government more than it earns unlike sports like the world cup or the Olympics which have ruined entire areas.

2. They can go to gay bars, which you can find in the dozens in pmuch every city in Europe. You don't have to rally on the streets to meet such people, you can do it discreetly.
Straight people do just the same thing in summer in places like Switzerland and Germany. You seem to think that gay people are the only people who have such parties, when most clearly you are wrong. Just some countries have rather strange laws about it that gay people manage to bypass by claiming they are a minority group. Mind you other minority groups are doing a lot worse things ranging from animal sacrifices all the way to illegal sentences.

Also, prostitution parties and nude marches are not things I would consider celebrating heterosexuality, they would be just as unnecessary and provocative as gay parades are. It's most likely however, not due to my ultra-conservative government, which allows homosexuals to protest as such.
Blame the government not the people. As a straight person you have the right to have any such street party you want as long as you do not hurt other people.

when there are no parades for heterosexual people
There are in places like Germany and Switzerland where people go dancing mostly naked/fully naked in the streets with loud music bellowing from floats. I just forget the damn name but it is very well known and sadly a cause of much death (as they party during the summer and heat, alcohol and drugs do not make a good combination).
 
Level 35
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
4,045
People often have no choices. Emigration is another problem entirely. Stop trying to go off-topic.

I'm not the one starting to elaborate nazi war crimes in a topic about homosexuality. Feeling guilty over something, DSG? Pointing fingers is not a good strategy.

(Pst: I never talked about emigration!)


The people are not trying to be provocative, they are just trying to have fun. Heck if you want you can join them. I am sure you will meet some very nice people there and you certainly do not have to join them for anything you do not want and I am pretty sure most will understand. It really sounds like you are paranoid.

Paranoid because of what? That gay people will overpower and rape me? Or that they take my job? Or what? Why would I be paranoid when they pose no direct threat?

Also, when I was going to the city yesterday, I met about a thousand football hooligans destroying stuff randomly. Certainly, they are nice people too and they just love their team so much that they wish to demonstrate this way and have fun. Surely they are not provocateurs.

It also brings in quite a bit of commerce so even helps the local economy of the area. I doubt it costs the government more than it earns unlike sports like the world cup or the Olympics which have ruined entire areas.

Dude what the FUCK? :xxd:

I'm an economist. I work in the field of investments, and hey, while some say analysts say the London Olympics was a failure for certain fields, the general boost on such an event is not even comparable to any public demonstration. As one, the share market in Brazil is going to fucking explode in a matter of months because of the Olympics-related expansions which are not even under construction yet (for one, Generali's latin-american net share values grew 12% only this year, while that of Allianz grew 8%). I never EVER heard of a gay parade boosting a local economy.

Such a claim is just so ridiculous and far-fatched that I have no words.


Straight people do just the same thing in summer in places like Switzerland and Germany. You seem to think that gay people are the only people who have such parties, when most clearly you are wrong. Just some countries have rather strange laws about it that gay people manage to bypass by claiming they are a minority group. Mind you other minority groups are doing a lot worse things ranging from animal sacrifices all the way to illegal sentences.

"They do bad things too, so I am entitled to do so as well".

The most ignorant and destructive approach ever.

My approach is exactly that neither of them should be doing it.


Blame the government not the people. As a straight person you have the right to have any such street party you want as long as you do not hurt other people.

That's why you have the phenomena you said above.

It is not right.


There are in places like Germany and Switzerland where people go dancing mostly naked/fully naked in the streets with loud music bellowing from floats. I just forget the damn name but it is very well known and sadly a cause of much death (as they party during the summer and heat, alcohol and drugs do not make a good combination).

Also, prostitution parties and nude marches are not things I would consider celebrating heterosexuality, they would be just as unnecessary and provocative as gay parades are. It's most likely however, not due to my ultra-conservative government, which allows homosexuals to protest as such.
 
When people bring up religion and homosexuality they mistake the cultural side of the bible with the spiritual. Also, I think Pharoah_ mentioned something about the bible's morals being incompatible with modern values? I would highly beg to differ.

I, as a Christian, Roman Catholic have no problem with gays. I do have a problem with people being ignorant and naive about other people. Of which I can see where Zombie's points are coming from. The RCC in Scotland is under a lot flak from a lot of corners for, in my opinion, no real reason but alternatively I can see the other side of the argument in that expression and freedom of speech is important in a lot of forms.

Also Doomlord Karthus when you mention shunning from religious aspects a common problem I find with religion, like I mentioned before, is that some people focus on the wrong parts or completely miss the actual message. That said, I do feel a great sympathy for anyone and everyone who has ever suffered persecution but like Zombie said almost every single belief, orientation, political mindset or ideology has been attacked at one point.

Either way to answer the original question, no and I just don't feel the need to ever because I have no inclination towards other men and I don't think that's changing at my point in life. I do think that everyone should get along and try to be accepting of overs but the system works both ways and when it doesn't that's when true problems begin.
 
Level 9
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
515
There's other ways to deal with any of those situations than cry out to anyone who'll listen—or doesn't want to—about how they affect you. Better yet, there's good ways to prevent/avoid them.

So, gay people should just shut up and let things be as they are?

Changing people's minds about these things is what's actually going to end up accomplishing anything.

Would you mind telling about these other ways, out of curiousity?

Also Doomlord Karthus when you mention shunning from religious aspects a common problem I find with religion, like I mentioned before, is that some people focus on the wrong parts or completely miss the actual message. That said, I do feel a great sympathy for anyone and everyone who has ever suffered persecution but like Zombie said almost every single belief, orientation, political mindset or ideology has been attacked at one point.

I find it strange that a book supposedly influenced by an omnipotent deity has "wrong parts" but I can see what you mean.

10390129_932987706727287_2435775730221435027_n.jpg
 
Top