|
Don't post in this thread to say "gay gamers are like everyone else, why do they have a special thread?" It is something that has been posted numerous times, and this isn't the place for that discussion.
For regular posters, don't quote the trolls. |
On March 01 2011 03:30 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 00:34 R1CH wrote:
Again I'll go back to my earlier argument, what is normal? Are people with green eyes not normal? Are left-handed people not normal too? I really dislike this "It isn't normal" argument since it's not really an argument at all, it's your viewpoint and it *must* be correct because it "isn't normal" otherwise. Is it really your opinion or are you just following whatever society and religion has molded you into thinking?
While it might be nice for you if the gays settled down and you didn't have to see them, you can't realistically expect this to happen when rights and privileges are denied solely on the gender of the person you love. Well this takes a lot of writing to explain. Let me start like this: in this day and age, it is very trendy to be a full blown liberal and an atheist / moral relativist. A lot of this has to do with the facepalm travesty of organized religion and the (wrongful) notion that a presupposed order of things, or call these "morals" if you have to, can only be based on religion. This leads to a general philosophy of "everything is relative, and dandy and equal without any absolute standards" with the exception of intolerance to anything. How intolerance can be inherently wrong within a philosophy that bans any inherent absolutes is something I can't really understand. I personally do not believe in any of these things, although I am not religious nor do I follow any social doctrine. I just think that there is an order in all things which is very easy to see if you are not clouded by ideology of one kind or another, and I consider this order to be very important because it's about the only thing you can hold on to if you don't want to be "religious" but still desire some kind of sincere belief. Day is day, night is night. Men are men, women are women. I like men to be manly and women to be feminine, because that's just the way we are, and there's something really cool about it. You can theorycraft about socially constructed gender roles and such and such for years, but in the end boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, and then there will be the confused people and they are completely ok, too, as long as they don't turn their penis envy into a crusade. What I don't like is the way the gay and radical feminist (in my book lesbian) agenda has been attacking this notion from all sides, demanding all gender lines be erased so that they could fit into the norm. It's blurring the line between women and men and some of us don't want this line gone. This is clearly reflected in your very own examples. Green eyes and being left handed is not what gay is to sexual orientation but what "I like big breasts" or "I like small breasts" is to sexual orientation. Being gay is more like having hooves in place of feet. I'm sorry the sidewalk isn't too comfortable for your hooves but please don't start changing the sidewalk for the rest of us.
Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I like men to be manly and women to be feminine
Do you say this as a bisexual male or as a heterosexual male?
|
|
|
Skyownz is gay, I know he's named andre and is from portugal
User was temp banned for this post.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2011 03:30 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 00:34 R1CH wrote:
Again I'll go back to my earlier argument, what is normal? Are people with green eyes not normal? Are left-handed people not normal too? I really dislike this "It isn't normal" argument since it's not really an argument at all, it's your viewpoint and it *must* be correct because it "isn't normal" otherwise. Is it really your opinion or are you just following whatever society and religion has molded you into thinking?
While it might be nice for you if the gays settled down and you didn't have to see them, you can't realistically expect this to happen when rights and privileges are denied solely on the gender of the person you love. Well this takes a lot of writing to explain. Let me start like this: in this day and age, it is very trendy to be a full blown liberal and an atheist / moral relativist. A lot of this has to do with the facepalm travesty of organized religion and the (wrongful) notion that a presupposed order of things, or call these "morals" if you have to, can only be based on religion. This leads to a general philosophy of "everything is relative, and dandy and equal without any absolute standards" with the exception of intolerance to anything. How intolerance can be inherently wrong within a philosophy that bans any inherent absolutes is something I can't really understand. I personally do not believe in any of these things, although I am not religious nor do I follow any social doctrine. I just think that there is an order in all things which is very easy to see if you are not clouded by ideology of one kind or another, and I consider this order to be very important because it's about the only thing you can hold on to if you don't want to be "religious" but still desire some kind of sincere belief. Day is day, night is night. Men are men, women are women. I like men to be manly and women to be feminine, because that's just the way we are, and there's something really cool about it. You can theorycraft about socially constructed gender roles and such and such for years, but in the end boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, and then there will be the confused people and they are completely ok, too, as long as they don't turn their penis envy into a crusade. What I don't like is the way the gay and radical feminist (in my book lesbian) agenda has been attacking this notion from all sides, demanding all gender lines be erased so that they could fit into the norm. It's blurring the line between women and men and some of us don't want this line gone. This is clearly reflected in your very own examples. Green eyes and being left handed is not what gay is to sexual orientation but what "I like big breasts" or "I like small breasts" is to sexual orientation. Being gay is more like having hooves in place of feet. I'm sorry the sidewalk isn't too comfortable for your hooves but please don't start changing the sidewalk for the rest of us.
You have some well thought out, interesting points. However, I think it is worthwhile to point out that your argument mainly reduces to saying that there exists a distinction between gays and nongays. Is this really something that people contest? 'Normality' really only refers to how a characteristic is similar or non-similar to the characteristics of the majority.
Certainly everybody will agree that gays differ from nongays, but of what value is it to state that there is a 'normal' human state and an 'abnormal' human state? I think this argument really boils down to one that is about human physiology and biology. It is certainly true that homosexuals cannot reproduce. But this is essentially the only criticism that an unbiased individual can mount again homosexuality. I argue that this line of argumentation really has no merit in our current sociological environment. We are in no danger of having insufficient offspring, and there is no particular need for everybody to have children. I would have a different opinion if I lived in a small isolated community that depended on maintaining a balance of children to replace their parents, as in that scenario, homosexuals would represent a source of destabilization. But that is clearly not the case for our world right now. Essentially I'm trying to say that there is no meaningful difference between gays and nongays that is worth compartmentalizing society for.
As for radicalists, I'm not even sure what rights they could be pursuing for homosexuals that they don't already have. Here in Canada homosexuality is pretty well accepted and marriage is allowed (iirc). Perhaps I need to do more reading on the subject. In general tho, I think it's fair to say that the militant feminist and analogous gay radicalists represent a fairly small portion of the groups involved, and their opinions are probably a bit overboard to begin with.
|
On March 01 2011 03:34 Mora wrote:Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Do you say this as a bisexual male or as a heterosexual male?
Hah, I almost saw that one coming :p
Well I never experienced the slightest hint of homosexual curiosity even in high school when it was the indie thing to do or whatever. Maybe that's part of seeing things in black and white.
What I do is look up to manly guys like Gregory Peck or Shogun the MMA fighter or my grandad who was a beefed up farmer, and I really wish more men were like that nowadays, just old school strong gentlemanly blokes.
With all the gender confusion and metrosexualism and cosmetic companies convincing us that "we're worth it, too" and Biebers running loose, and then on the other hand women not shaving and trying to be loud and obnoxious and play rugby or whatnot, I feel this is something we should consider relevant, too.
|
On March 01 2011 04:23 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:34 Mora wrote:Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing your perspective. I like men to be manly and women to be feminine Do you say this as a bisexual male or as a heterosexual male? Hah, I almost saw that one coming :p Well I never experienced the slightest hint of homosexual curiosity even in high school when it was the indie thing to do or whatever. Maybe that's part of seeing things in black and white. What I do is look up to manly guys like Gregory Peck or Shogun the MMA fighter or my grandad who was a beefed up farmer, and I really wish more men were like that nowadays, just old school strong gentlemanly blokes. With all the gender confusion and metrosexualism and cosmetic companies convincing us that "we're worth it, too" and Biebers running loose, and then on the other hand women not shaving and trying to be loud and obnoxious and play rugby or whatnot, I feel this is something we should consider relevant, too.
i know some very pretty and surprisingly feminine (female) rugby players, but i get what you mean, although i think it's difficult to distinguish 'who people are' from 'who the media tells us people are' for example fashion models vs actually pretty women.
|
Day is day, night is night. Men are men, women are women. I like men to be manly and women to be feminine, because that's just the way we are, and there's something really cool about it.
This is only part of your post that I found very wrong. "I like men to be manly and women to be feminine"? Honestly I haven't met any guys that don't have any 'feminine' qualities. I've found guys who pretend not to of course. It would simple and easy if men were manly and women were girly. But that's not actually true.
It's not a matter of how you would "like it to be." It has to do with what is true and what is false.
Though I don't really understand how this actually applies to sexuality. I don't consider myself particularly masculine, but I certainly do not consider myself homosexual in the slightest.
|
One of the strangest thoughts I have ever had is the following:
Are most people straight only because it was dinned in their brain that it was wrong or "unnatural"?
Are gays just more accepting of themselves?
Is the genetic code programmed to be able to sexually like others of the same sex? Even if gays can't technically reproduce?
|
On March 01 2011 04:52 Alekh47 wrote:
One of the strangest thoughts I have ever had is the following:
Are most people straight only because it was dinned in their brain that it was wrong or "unnatural"?
Are gays just more accepting of themselves?
Is the genetic code programmed to be able to sexually like others of the same sex? Even if gays can't technically reproduce?
Straight people are straight because of the biological imperative, is has nothing to do with moral judgements. I do not know why gay people do not feel the same, but I assume it has something to do with hormonal differences of some kind.
|
Gender is a more complicated issue than most people give credit. I am gay and consider myself lucky that I am relatively masculine because I was able to fake conformity pretty flawlessly but I know guys who can't. And before people get on their high horse about gays "fagging it up", yes it is true that if the situation arises (usually for humor) i can fag out but I guarantee you that that guy you see sashaying down the sidewalk is not a 24/7 actor, that is just the way that he is. The whole "erasing gender lines" thing is entirely about being yourself. Its natural for people to be shocked by people who are different than them, but please try to understand that it has always been this way, we have just stopped lying to you.
|
On March 01 2011 00:34 R1CH wrote:
Again I'll go back to my earlier argument, what is normal? Are people with green eyes not normal? Are left-handed people not normal too?
There is a distinction between natural, normal, preferable and acceptable.
There's no question, scientifically at least, that homosexuality is natural. Remember that Dutch guy who won an Ig Nobel for documenting homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck? Biologists who work with fruit flies get gay ones all the time - usually you ignore them, or you could account for it statistically if it might be relevant to whatever you're testing, but you certainly wouldn't be surprised to encounter them. Being gay was not invented by humans, let alone by modern humans.
However, that doesn't mean it's normal. It's controversial to define what it means to be normal in general, but for a particular trait in a particular context, I don't think it would upset too many people to define normality as being functionally equivalent to the majority. So, having green eyes is normal, but being short-sighted is not. Being left-handed is usually normal, but if you were employed in a textile factory with no access to left-handed scissors, it wouldn't be. How about being gay? Well no, not really. Gay people are functionally different. But it's not inherently a bad thing, because if you look at normality from this objective perspective, pretty much all of us are abnormal in some way or other.
How about preferable? Well, this is inherently subjective. I prefer having straight friends. Perhaps you might prefer gay ones. Perhaps I prefer everyone in the world be straight. I can hold any opinion I like, as long as I accept that it's an opinion. It's wrong to treat your own opinion as fact, but it's not wrong to have one.
And finally there's acceptable, but I hope we're mature enough here to agree that anything which doesn't harm others is acceptable. "If you don't support gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage", etc.
The question is not whether homosexuality is normal - it clearly isn't - but what that implies about people who happen to be homosexual. Should they be labelled unnatural and unacceptable because they are not normal? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean we should persuade ourselves that it's normal, or that we are indifferent to whether people are gay or not.
|
On March 01 2011 05:45 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 00:34 R1CH wrote:
Again I'll go back to my earlier argument, what is normal? Are people with green eyes not normal? Are left-handed people not normal too?
There is a distinction between natural, normal, preferable and acceptable. There's no question, scientifically at least, that homosexuality is natural. Remember that Dutch guy who won an Ig Nobel for documenting homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck? Biologists who work with fruit flies get gay ones all the time - usually you ignore them, or you could account for it statistically if it might be relevant to whatever you're testing, but you certainly wouldn't be surprised to encounter them. Being gay was not invented by humans, let alone by modern humans. However, that doesn't mean it's normal. It's controversial to define what it means to be normal in general, but for a particular trait in a particular context, I don't think it would upset too many people to define normality as being functionally equivalent to the majority. So, having green eyes is normal, but being short-sighted is not. Being left-handed is usually normal, but if you were employed in a textile factory with no access to left-handed scissors, it wouldn't be. How about being gay? Well no, not really. Gay people are functionally different. But it's not inherently a bad thing, because if you look at normality from this objective perspective, pretty much all of us are abnormal in some way or other. How about preferable? Well, this is inherently subjective. I prefer having straight friends. Perhaps you might prefer gay ones. Perhaps I prefer everyone in the world be straight. I can hold any opinion I like, as long as I accept that it's an opinion. It's wrong to treat your own opinion as fact, but it's not wrong to have one. And finally there's acceptable, but I hope we're mature enough here to agree that anything which doesn't harm others is acceptable. "If you don't support gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage", etc. The question is not whether homosexuality is normal - it clearly isn't - but what that implies about people who happen to be homosexual. Should they be labelled unnatural and unacceptable because they are not normal? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean we should persuade ourselves that it's normal, or that we are indifferent to whether people are gay or not.
Can you explain in greater detail why being left handed is normal but being homosexual isn't? I didn't quite understand your distinction, you more so just stated it as fact.
|
On March 01 2011 03:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Well this takes a lot of writing to explain. Let me start like this: in this day and age, it is very trendy to be a full blown liberal and an atheist / moral relativist. A lot of this has to do with the facepalm travesty of organized religion and the (wrongful) notion that a presupposed order of things, or call these "morals" if you have to, can only be based on religion.
This leads to a general philosophy of "everything is relative, and dandy and equal without any absolute standards" with the exception of intolerance to anything. How intolerance can be inherently wrong within a philosophy that bans any inherent absolutes is something I can't really understand.
First of, let me start by saying I have no idea what a full blown liberal is, and I have no idea what a moral relativist is. But saying "in this day and age, it is very trendy to be an atheist" makes me think you're kinda frowning upon that ("pff you're just an atheist cuz its cool" kinda thing, if you know what I mean).
Being an atheist has been "cool" ever since scientific and philosophical progress allowed mankind to break free from religious beliefs. I'd say about... 400 years ago now? Read Montaigne, read Descartes, just to cite a few french writers (not like I'd know any others, but I'm sure they exist too). Or Nietzsche.
But enough about that. If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that people rejecting religion as a "all black/all white" thought system leads said people to believe that there is never such a thing as "true/false" opposition, or "real/made-up" and see everything in a spectrum kinda way.
This may very well be true, and I like your thought process. This leads you to illustrate your point with :
On March 01 2011 03:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Day is day, night is night. Men are men, women are women.
Couldn't agree more.
Which is why I have no idea how you can jump to saying this without noticing the complete flaw in your logic :
On March 01 2011 03:30 Kickboxer wrote:
I like men to be manly and women to be feminine, because that's just the way we are, and there's something really cool about it.
You can theorycraft about socially constructed gender roles and such and such for years, but in the end boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, and then there will be the confused people and they are completely ok, too, as long as they don't turn their penis envy into a crusade.
What I don't like is the way the gay and radical feminist (in my book lesbian) agenda has been attacking this notion from all sides, demanding all gender lines be erased so that they could fit into the norm. It's blurring the line between women and men and some of us don't want this line gone.
The line you're referring to never existed, and most likely never will. I challenge you to provide one historical or scientific evidence it ever did.
As far back as we can go with historical evidence, homosexuality existed. Homosexuality was common and socially accepted for people in ancient Greece and Rome. It was also common and accepted in medieval Japan.
As for scientific evidence, many animals have homosexual relations. Some scientists studying the behaviour of monkey groups showed that in some cases, some individuals will commit to a homosexual relationship all their life. For all we know, if this is true for monkeys, it seems safe to assume that this might as well be true for mankind ever since it evolved from monkeys.
Basically, all I'm saying is : I like your point about people having a tendency nowadays to see everything in the world as "continuous, spectrum-like" and rejecting without question any "black/white" model solely based on the rejection of religious, manichean beliefs. However, jumping from this to basically doing the exact opposite, which is assuming everything, including sexual orientation, follows a "black/white" model without providing any evidence whatsoever, is just as fundamentally flawed.
|
On March 01 2011 05:57 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:45 pirsq wrote:On March 01 2011 00:34 R1CH wrote:
Again I'll go back to my earlier argument, what is normal? Are people with green eyes not normal? Are left-handed people not normal too?
There is a distinction between natural, normal, preferable and acceptable. There's no question, scientifically at least, that homosexuality is natural. Remember that Dutch guy who won an Ig Nobel for documenting homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck? Biologists who work with fruit flies get gay ones all the time - usually you ignore them, or you could account for it statistically if it might be relevant to whatever you're testing, but you certainly wouldn't be surprised to encounter them. Being gay was not invented by humans, let alone by modern humans. However, that doesn't mean it's normal. It's controversial to define what it means to be normal in general, but for a particular trait in a particular context, I don't think it would upset too many people to define normality as being functionally equivalent to the majority. So, having green eyes is normal, but being short-sighted is not. Being left-handed is usually normal, but if you were employed in a textile factory with no access to left-handed scissors, it wouldn't be. How about being gay? Well no, not really. Gay people are functionally different. But it's not inherently a bad thing, because if you look at normality from this objective perspective, pretty much all of us are abnormal in some way or other. How about preferable? Well, this is inherently subjective. I prefer having straight friends. Perhaps you might prefer gay ones. Perhaps I prefer everyone in the world be straight. I can hold any opinion I like, as long as I accept that it's an opinion. It's wrong to treat your own opinion as fact, but it's not wrong to have one. And finally there's acceptable, but I hope we're mature enough here to agree that anything which doesn't harm others is acceptable. "If you don't support gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage", etc. The question is not whether homosexuality is normal - it clearly isn't - but what that implies about people who happen to be homosexual. Should they be labelled unnatural and unacceptable because they are not normal? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean we should persuade ourselves that it's normal, or that we are indifferent to whether people are gay or not. Can you explain in greater detail why being left handed is normal but being homosexual isn't? I didn't quite understand your distinction, you more so just stated it as fact.
If you follow his train of thought : "because being gay means being functionnally non-equivalent to the majority". Referring to procreation, I suppose.
Which doesn't make any sense in the slightest, because sexuality has not been a functional thing pretty much ever. Or at least not since human civilisation started. I doubt mankind would have gone extinct even if half of the humanity had always been gay since we invented agriculture.
One could go as far as saying that being homosexual is currently more functionnaly adequate than being straight and procreate, given the overpopulation problem Earth is going to face in the near future.
|
On March 01 2011 06:08 Husnan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 01 2011 05:45 pirsq wrote:On March 01 2011 00:34 R1CH wrote:
Again I'll go back to my earlier argument, what is normal? Are people with green eyes not normal? Are left-handed people not normal too?
There is a distinction between natural, normal, preferable and acceptable. There's no question, scientifically at least, that homosexuality is natural. Remember that Dutch guy who won an Ig Nobel for documenting homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck? Biologists who work with fruit flies get gay ones all the time - usually you ignore them, or you could account for it statistically if it might be relevant to whatever you're testing, but you certainly wouldn't be surprised to encounter them. Being gay was not invented by humans, let alone by modern humans. However, that doesn't mean it's normal. It's controversial to define what it means to be normal in general, but for a particular trait in a particular context, I don't think it would upset too many people to define normality as being functionally equivalent to the majority. So, having green eyes is normal, but being short-sighted is not. Being left-handed is usually normal, but if you were employed in a textile factory with no access to left-handed scissors, it wouldn't be. How about being gay? Well no, not really. Gay people are functionally different. But it's not inherently a bad thing, because if you look at normality from this objective perspective, pretty much all of us are abnormal in some way or other. How about preferable? Well, this is inherently subjective. I prefer having straight friends. Perhaps you might prefer gay ones. Perhaps I prefer everyone in the world be straight. I can hold any opinion I like, as long as I accept that it's an opinion. It's wrong to treat your own opinion as fact, but it's not wrong to have one. And finally there's acceptable, but I hope we're mature enough here to agree that anything which doesn't harm others is acceptable. "If you don't support gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage", etc. The question is not whether homosexuality is normal - it clearly isn't - but what that implies about people who happen to be homosexual. Should they be labelled unnatural and unacceptable because they are not normal? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean we should persuade ourselves that it's normal, or that we are indifferent to whether people are gay or not. Can you explain in greater detail why being left handed is normal but being homosexual isn't? I didn't quite understand your distinction, you more so just stated it as fact. If you follow his train of thought : "because being gay means being functionnally non-equivalent to the majority". Referring to procreation, I suppose. Which doesn't make any sense in the slightest, because sexuality has not been a functional thing pretty much ever. Or at least not since human civilisation started. I doubt mankind would have gone extinct even if half of the humanity had always been gay since we invented agriculture. One could go as far as saying that being homosexual is currently more functionnaly adequate than being straight and procreate, given the overpopulation problem Earth is going to face in the near future.
Oh, gotcha. But I agree, that seems like an absolutely horrible definition. It's almost as if he intended to mandate that "functionality" is a necessity for being normal (which also, as you said, is for some reason referring to procreation) just so he could make the distinction in the first place.
|
Homosexuality is wrong imo.
User was banned for this post.
|
On March 01 2011 06:25 TATenzin wrote:
Homosexuality is wrong imo.
why? amazing first post btw.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 01 2011 05:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
Can you explain in greater detail why being left handed is normal but being homosexual isn't? I didn't quite understand your distinction, you more so just stated it as fact.
Because there's no need for a left-handed person to behave any differently. Assuming you don't have a job where handedness matters (not a progamer!), you're going to do exactly the same thing as a right-handed person, except you might have your mouse on the other side of the keyboard.
It's not the same as being gay. As seen in many of the accounts in this thread, you spend a large proportion of your adolescence worrying if there's something wrong with you and trying hiding the fact that you're different (this used to happen to left-handed people, but not any more). When you enter the dating scene, it's very different - gays are typically more promiscuous, you don't have to worry about pregnancy but you do worry more about HIV, etc (left-handed people do not encounter this difference at all). And if you decide to have kids, you options are very different to straight people (again, left-handedness makes no difference).
On March 01 2011 06:08 Husnan wrote:
If you follow his train of thought : "because being gay means being functionnally non-equivalent to the majority". Referring to procreation, I suppose.
Which doesn't make any sense in the slightest, because sexuality has not been a functional thing pretty much ever. Or at least not since human civilisation started. I doubt mankind would have gone extinct even if half of the humanity had always been gay since we invented agriculture.
One could go as far as saying that being homosexual is currently more functionnaly adequate than being straight and procreate, given the overpopulation problem Earth is going to face in the near future.
You missed my point. I'm not saying that one is functionally superior or inferior to the other (as far as I'm concerned, everything has its place in nature - I'm sure there's an ecological reason why some animals turn out gay, we just don't know what it is yet), I'm saying they're functionally different.
Another example - in Asia, most people are lactose intolerant. If you are lactose tolerant, then you are abnormal, and this abnormality is an advantage. The problem is that the word "abnormal" carries a negative connotation, so we are reluctant to label things abnormal even when they really are abnormal.
|
On March 01 2011 06:28 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 05:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
Can you explain in greater detail why being left handed is normal but being homosexual isn't? I didn't quite understand your distinction, you more so just stated it as fact.
Because there's no need for a left-handed person to behave any differently. Assuming you don't have a job where handedness matters (not a progamer!), you're going to do exactly the same thing as a right-handed person, except you might have your mouse on the other side of the keyboard. It's not the same as being gay. As seen in many of the accounts in this thread, you spend a large proportion of your adolescence worrying if there's something wrong with you and trying hiding the fact that you're different (this used to happen to left-handed people, but not any more). When you enter the dating scene, it's very different - gays are typically more promiscuous, you don't have to worry about pregnancy but you do worry more about HIV, etc (left-handed people do not encounter this difference at all). And if you decide to have kids, you options are very different to straight people (again, left-handedness makes no difference). Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 06:08 Husnan wrote:
If you follow his train of thought : "because being gay means being functionnally non-equivalent to the majority". Referring to procreation, I suppose.
Which doesn't make any sense in the slightest, because sexuality has not been a functional thing pretty much ever. Or at least not since human civilisation started. I doubt mankind would have gone extinct even if half of the humanity had always been gay since we invented agriculture.
One could go as far as saying that being homosexual is currently more functionnaly adequate than being straight and procreate, given the overpopulation problem Earth is going to face in the near future.
You missed my point. I'm not saying that one is functionally superior or inferior to the other (as far as I'm concerned, everything has its place in nature - I'm sure there's an ecological reason why some animals turn out gay, we just don't know what it is yet), I'm saying they're functionally different.
Ok but then, regarding your line about teenagers, do you not think that homosexuality is not normal because of the tons of prejudice our society has against homosexuality?
You could be gay and not need to act any differently because of it if society didn't make you question it by being so prejudiced for no reason other than religion.
Also, your line about gays being different in the dating scene is a total cliché, but I'm going to forgive you for that 
|
Is it true that gay men have a better sense of aesthetics?
If so, will a fellow man-loving man give me a few tips on how to properly dress a skinny nerd?
no homo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
