|
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. |
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals.
|
Mmm I have nothing against gay people. I guess a forum where you can all share your thoughts and opinions is well decerved.
|
On May 19 2011 09:21 dicius wrote:
Mmm I have nothing against gay people. I guess a forum where you can all share your thoughts and opinions is well decerved.
Oh yeah, you better dont, I box you ;-)
|
On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals.
It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay .
|
On May 19 2011 09:07 dunc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 07:37 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 07:06 R1CH wrote:On May 19 2011 06:56 krbz wrote:
I would argue that there is obviously something wrong with being homosexual (aka not natural), in terms of how species survive. How do feel about this situation? What if homosexuality is nature's way of dealing with overpopulation? I'd argue that disease and famine are natures methods for controlling population, because if homosexuality ever "got out of hand", it could force the human race into extinction. If it was a method of controlling population that still makes it something that should only happen in an unhealthy population. For, as your argument states, if we weren't overpopulated we wouldn't need or have gay people. They are not normal for a healthy population. On May 19 2011 07:00 dunc wrote:On May 19 2011 06:56 krbz wrote:
If the whole human race was to turn gay and not have sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, we would effectively kill the entire human population. Having straight intercourse is centrally important to any species that is not a-sexual. Its one of our main roles while being a human (as with any animal), to have children. I would argue that there is obviously something wrong with being homosexual (aka not natural), in terms of how species survive. How do feel about this situation?
In terms of you being born gay, it is almost as if natural selection tries to weed homosexuality out of the gene pool, because gay couples cant have children, and therefore cant pass down their genes, that is "if" you are born gay.
Something to think about... and I'd love to know peoples opinions on this topic, not just the typical "omg how could you think that way".
Just to note, I do not hate homosexual people, I am merely stating things I see in nature.
Also I'd appreciate not having this post immediately removed, as i feel i should be allowed to speak my mind.. just as much as the people comparing homosexuality to races. Can you speak your mind on a forum devoted to retarded discussions about shit like that. Honestly it's a thread for gay people, not people "speaking their mind" about how homosexuality is bad because if everyone was gay it would wipe out the human population. There are literally millions of posts that describe exactly the same thing you are. In terms of you being born gay, it is almost as if natural selection tries to weed homosexuality out of the gene pool, because gay couples cant have children, and therefore cant pass down their genes, that is "if" you are born gay. I'm sure everyone here decided one day to suddenly be attracted to the same sex because the opposite sex was getting boring . I'd appreciate it if you didn't post ill formed responses, bashing what i think. My discussion is in no way "retarded", as i gave valid examples of what i thought, and then asked the people of this thread for their opinions on the matter. "I'm sure everyone here decided one day to suddenly be attracted to the same sex because the opposite sex was getting boring" This has nothing to do with natural selection and i would appreciate it if you shut your mouth, and did not respond with useless nonsense. You should take a lesson from R1CH. He posed a question and did not bash or flame a single thing. You are very unproductive. It's hard when every forum that has these kind of threads has people like you saying stuff like that. I'm not sure what you expect. You are bashing gays, though in a subtle way and you expect people to respond nicely? Honestly if you're so interested in what others feel about homosexuality you can google "Is being gay not natural" and get at least a thousand results where you could spend a lot of time reading. It's logical the human race would go extinct if it ever came to that scenario, that doesn't mean being gay isn't natural. If anything it's one of the most natural things there is considering homosexuality is very common among animals as well. edit: Also please stop calling it a mutation, holy shit.
I never once bashed gays. I think you are confuse as to what is bashing. These are some examples.
1. "You calling my post retarded, is bashing."
2. "Someone calling you a dumb cock sucking flaming piece of shit, is bashing."
I have done nothing of the sort. You bashed me, not the other way around. If you see my posing an argument as bashing then it is probably because you feel threatened by the contents of my post. If that is the case then you may want to figure way you are threatened by such things. I would assume its because you don't want to listen logical statements that make sense.
I would again like you too look at Bortlett's posts. He or she has done no bashing and is having a conversation. You are not.
I also know that it is logical for the human race to go extinct in that scenario. That is my point.
And "If anything" heterosexuality is "one of the most natural things there are considering" it is the most common form of sexuality among animals.
On the note of mutation, If you believe that you were born gay then you must believe that it is a mutation. If you think you are born gay then you are genetically predisposed with a "mutation" that makes you differ from straight people.
Otherwise you believe you are gay because of your life experiences.
Those are the only options, choice or born that way.
I would like it if you did not waste any more of my time on nonsense.
|
On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay .
Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad".
If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well.
|
On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay .
It is confusing to discover the gay self. You should really trust the genetic evidence here, sport. It is more like using a fully functioning eye differrently, as if the organism prefered dark to light instead (if that is possible). Now that is weird, but it is not "bad" or "wrong." There is a choice involved in whether or not involve in gay sex, but not in the desire, that is pretty hard wired.
|
On May 19 2011 09:30 krbz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:07 dunc wrote:On May 19 2011 07:37 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 07:06 R1CH wrote:On May 19 2011 06:56 krbz wrote:
I would argue that there is obviously something wrong with being homosexual (aka not natural), in terms of how species survive. How do feel about this situation? What if homosexuality is nature's way of dealing with overpopulation? I'd argue that disease and famine are natures methods for controlling population, because if homosexuality ever "got out of hand", it could force the human race into extinction. If it was a method of controlling population that still makes it something that should only happen in an unhealthy population. For, as your argument states, if we weren't overpopulated we wouldn't need or have gay people. They are not normal for a healthy population. On May 19 2011 07:00 dunc wrote:On May 19 2011 06:56 krbz wrote:
If the whole human race was to turn gay and not have sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, we would effectively kill the entire human population. Having straight intercourse is centrally important to any species that is not a-sexual. Its one of our main roles while being a human (as with any animal), to have children. I would argue that there is obviously something wrong with being homosexual (aka not natural), in terms of how species survive. How do feel about this situation?
In terms of you being born gay, it is almost as if natural selection tries to weed homosexuality out of the gene pool, because gay couples cant have children, and therefore cant pass down their genes, that is "if" you are born gay.
Something to think about... and I'd love to know peoples opinions on this topic, not just the typical "omg how could you think that way".
Just to note, I do not hate homosexual people, I am merely stating things I see in nature.
Also I'd appreciate not having this post immediately removed, as i feel i should be allowed to speak my mind.. just as much as the people comparing homosexuality to races. Can you speak your mind on a forum devoted to retarded discussions about shit like that. Honestly it's a thread for gay people, not people "speaking their mind" about how homosexuality is bad because if everyone was gay it would wipe out the human population. There are literally millions of posts that describe exactly the same thing you are. In terms of you being born gay, it is almost as if natural selection tries to weed homosexuality out of the gene pool, because gay couples cant have children, and therefore cant pass down their genes, that is "if" you are born gay. I'm sure everyone here decided one day to suddenly be attracted to the same sex because the opposite sex was getting boring . I'd appreciate it if you didn't post ill formed responses, bashing what i think. My discussion is in no way "retarded", as i gave valid examples of what i thought, and then asked the people of this thread for their opinions on the matter. "I'm sure everyone here decided one day to suddenly be attracted to the same sex because the opposite sex was getting boring" This has nothing to do with natural selection and i would appreciate it if you shut your mouth, and did not respond with useless nonsense. You should take a lesson from R1CH. He posed a question and did not bash or flame a single thing. You are very unproductive. It's hard when every forum that has these kind of threads has people like you saying stuff like that. I'm not sure what you expect. You are bashing gays, though in a subtle way and you expect people to respond nicely? Honestly if you're so interested in what others feel about homosexuality you can google "Is being gay not natural" and get at least a thousand results where you could spend a lot of time reading. It's logical the human race would go extinct if it ever came to that scenario, that doesn't mean being gay isn't natural. If anything it's one of the most natural things there is considering homosexuality is very common among animals as well. edit: Also please stop calling it a mutation, holy shit. I never once bashed gays. I think you are confuse as to what is bashing. These are some examples. 1. "You calling my post retarded, is bashing." 2. "Someone calling you a dumb cock sucking flaming piece of shit, is bashing." I have done nothing of the sort. You bashed me, not the other way around. If you see my posing an argument as bashing then it is probably because you feel threatened by the contents of my post. If that is the case then you may want to figure way you are threatened by such things. I would assume its because you don't want to listen logical statements that make sense. I would again like you too look at Bortlett's posts. He or she has done no bashing and is having a conversation. You are not. I also know that it is logical for the human race to go extinct in that scenario. That is my point. And "If anything" heterosexuality is "one of the most natural things there are considering" it is the most common form of sexuality among animals. On the note of mutation, If you believe that you were born gay then you must believe that it is a mutation. If you think you are born gay then you are genetically predisposed with a "mutation" that makes you differ from straight people. Otherwise you believe you are gay because of your life experiences. Those are the only options, choice or born that way. I would like it if you did not waste any more of my time on nonsense.
There is a much overlooked third choice the bisexual option. SO yeah, as long as some gays have sex with women, we are fine, thank you very much.
|
lol I only used eyesight because it was the first thing that popped into my head. A better comparison would probably be eye color I think - being gay doesn't influence your quality of life in a physical sense, although it does in a societal sense because of bullying, not equal rights, lack of acceptance, etc.
edit: Also, I am male 
|
I love how (some) straight people know how gay people really aren't gay. live and let live. It especially pisses me off with this "people choose to be gay" yet i've never seen a gay person say, "yea when i was 12 i decided to be gay."
logic makes sense none.
|
On May 19 2011 09:44 darthfoley wrote:
I love how (some) straight people know how gay people really aren't gay. live and let live. It especially pisses me off with this "people choose to be gay" yet i've never seen a gay person say, "yea when i was 12 i decided to be gay."
logic makes sense none.
There are "gays" who are in denial and like it that way. One of my friends is like that, and he only wants women. Whether you call him gay, bi, or heterosexual is a tricky thing.
|
On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well.
No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly their fault (because of a lot of reasons) and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everything that goes on around them...
|
On May 19 2011 09:44 darthfoley wrote:
I love how (some) straight people know how gay people really aren't gay.
Haha, brilliant. I get so tied up in the debates I totally forget that.
"Oh, wait, I'm gay. You're straight. How are you the expert on homosexuality?!"
|
On May 19 2011 09:54 FearTheReaperMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well. No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly there fault because of a lot of reasons and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everythign that goes on around them .
This issue is that you are comparing a genetic trait to something that you say people can be confused about.
If its genetic then you will not be confused.
If its something you can be confused about then it is a choice.
|
On May 19 2011 09:56 jarrydesque wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:44 darthfoley wrote:
I love how (some) straight people know how gay people really aren't gay. Haha, brilliant. I get so tied up in the debates I totally forget that. "Oh, wait, I'm gay. You're straight. How are you the expert on homosexuality?!"
Exactly, at least there's someone sensible 
|
On May 19 2011 09:58 krbz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:54 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well. No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly there fault because of a lot of reasons and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everythign that goes on around them . This issue is that you are comparing a genetic trait to something that you say people can be confused about. If its genetic then you will not be confused. If its something you can be confused about then it is a choice.
Unless you make a distinction between hardwired desire and actual behavior, you cannot unlock this issue. seriously as I wrote, you can be a gay homosexual, or a bi homosexual, or even a straight homosexual.
|
On May 19 2011 09:58 krbz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:54 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well. No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly there fault because of a lot of reasons and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everythign that goes on around them . This issue is that you are comparing a genetic trait to something that you say people can be confused about. If its genetic then you will not be confused. If its something you can be confused about then it is a choice.
Didnt you just read? I said it was a bad analogy... I understand in what you are saying, but all I was saying its somewhat their choice and partly it isnt. So its neither, or in between both.
|
On May 19 2011 10:03 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 09:58 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:54 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well. No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly there fault because of a lot of reasons and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everythign that goes on around them . This issue is that you are comparing a genetic trait to something that you say people can be confused about. If its genetic then you will not be confused. If its something you can be confused about then it is a choice. Unless you make a distinction between hardwired desire and actual behavior, you cannot unlock this issue. seriously as I wrote, you can be a gay homosexual, or a bi homosexual, or even a straight homosexual.
You do not have a clue about what you are talking about.
GAY
Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
BI
Bisexuality is sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical and/or romantic attraction to both males and females.
STRAIGHT
Heterosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the opposite sex or gender.
A gay homosexual is redundant. "I'm a gay, gay."
A bi homosexual doesnt make sense. "I'm a guy and i like guys and girls, but I also like guys."
A straight homosexual is contradictory. "I only like guys, and I only like girls."
|
On May 19 2011 10:12 krbz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 10:03 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:On May 19 2011 09:58 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:54 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well. No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly there fault because of a lot of reasons and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everythign that goes on around them . This issue is that you are comparing a genetic trait to something that you say people can be confused about. If its genetic then you will not be confused. If its something you can be confused about then it is a choice. Unless you make a distinction between hardwired desire and actual behavior, you cannot unlock this issue. seriously as I wrote, you can be a gay homosexual, or a bi homosexual, or even a straight homosexual. You do not have a clue about what you are talking about. GAYHomosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. BIBisexuality is sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical and/or romantic attraction to both males and females. STRAIGHTHeterosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the opposite sex or gender. A gay homosexual is redundant. "I'm a gay, gay." A bi homosexual doesnt make sense. "I'm a guy and i like guys and girls, but I also like guys." A straight homosexual is contradictory. "I only like guys, and I only like girls."
This is not exactly like logic. I know a lot about what I talk about being bisexual. There is a saying in the gay community "bi now, gay later." Anyway, my terms are not at all contradictory if you refer to homosexuality as the root hardwired desire, and leave terms like gay, lesbian, straight, bi to mark lifestyle preferences instead. Does that make sense to you?
|
On May 19 2011 10:16 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2011 10:12 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 10:03 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:On May 19 2011 09:58 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:54 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:34 krbz wrote:On May 19 2011 09:29 FearTheReaperMan wrote:On May 19 2011 09:19 il0ves0ulmirr0rrr wrote:
Somebody compared being gay to bad eye sight, this is a dangerous alusion. I would much rather compare it to the few people who are born withtaste buds that favor bitter flavors, as opposed to the sugary salty majoirty. It is much harder to make an argument that taste preferences ties into morals. It is like having bad eye sight. IMO people are gay because they are confused, for what ever reason. Though social interactions and etc... they have decided become gay. True ill never know for sure because I will never be gay . Bad eye sight is a genetic flaw. Which is the reason it has "bad" appended to it. If you say the two are similar then you are saying homosexuality is also a flaw, and "bad". If you are confused then it is a choice, not a genetic mutation. Therefore not relate able to eye sight. No one choose to have bad eye sight, they were never confused as to whether they wanted to not be able to see very well. No but its not all their fault that it was brought up upon them. It was kind of a bad analogy but its somewhere inbetween both. Its partly there fault because of a lot of reasons and its somewhat not their fault because they cannot control everythign that goes on around them . This issue is that you are comparing a genetic trait to something that you say people can be confused about. If its genetic then you will not be confused. If its something you can be confused about then it is a choice. Unless you make a distinction between hardwired desire and actual behavior, you cannot unlock this issue. seriously as I wrote, you can be a gay homosexual, or a bi homosexual, or even a straight homosexual. You do not have a clue about what you are talking about. GAYHomosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. BIBisexuality is sexual behavior or an orientation involving physical and/or romantic attraction to both males and females. STRAIGHTHeterosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the opposite sex or gender. A gay homosexual is redundant. "I'm a gay, gay." A bi homosexual doesnt make sense. "I'm a guy and i like guys and girls, but I also like guys." A straight homosexual is contradictory. "I only like guys, and I only like girls." This is not exactly like logic. I know a lot about what I talk about being bisexual. There is a saying in the gay community "bi now, gay later." Anyway, my terms are not at all contradictory if you refer to homosexuality as the root hardwired desire, and leave terms like gay, lesbian, straight, bi to mark lifestyle preferences instead. Does that make sense to you?
Pretty pro troll.
I wonder why the mods allow this shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
