Brawl at Gay Pride Fest in Seattle , God Squad at it Again

MonaPizza · 08-07-2013 05:25PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

I am bigoted against against beastilaity, necrophilia and homosexuality. Can you explain what exactly is wrong with that?

I am also bigoted against house breaking and many other things.

Bigotry isnt necessarily bad.

Pretty retarded comparison. Being intolerant of something or someone whose actions/beliefs/sexual orientation/skin colour are not illegal is bigotry.

You can't say that being opposed to the actions of rapists is being bigoted. That's just plain stupid.

Christ the Redeemer · 08-07-2013 05:27PM

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

Will it ever be acceptable for a guy to be gay in society?

It already is. Aside from the low IQ segment of our society, most people do not see it as a problem.

Killer Wench · 08-07-2013 05:33PM

Lapin wrote: »

Well it is Seattle like. Not southern California.
The place gets more rain and cloudy days annually than Dublin.

As for the topic - Nobody has ever been able to give me an adequate explanation as to what God has to do with people's sexual orientation.

We get more inches of rain than Dublin but Dublin has more rainy days than Seattle sees in a year.

wp_rathead · 08-07-2013 05:35PM

So that is what Matt Lucas is up to these days

CdeC · 08-07-2013 05:36PM

nucker wrote: »

Correct on all statements, some of the crass on this site is unbelievable to say that being gay isn't a choice. I mean its blindingly obvious its a choice, yet they questioned me as to whether I chose not to be gay, of course I did choose not to be gay, that is why I'm not gay.

Nucker, it is not a choice.

When I think about naked men I get sexually aroused, when I think about naked women I don't.

I did not choose this physical response, it just happened (although I was somewhat confused about it at the time). As you mature and grow your sexuality becomes evident. Your experiences then influence this base sexuality such as you might develop a like for red heads or tall people or glasses. These are responses to events that occur during sexual development. You may also develop fetishes such as dressing up, leather or whatever. In any case your sexuality is not a choice. It simply is. I don't choose to be turned on by men and not by women. If I had made a choice then my natural sexuality would be bisexual and I have simply shut out the part of me that contains same sex attraction.
I feel that you are not explaining your position very well as noone I know conciously "chose" their sexuality. They jsut started having sexual urges/thoughts around 11-13 and it just came from there.

efb · 08-07-2013 05:37PM

For some people it has to be a choice as god wouldn't make them evil so they rationalise it as them choosing it.

MonaPizza · 08-07-2013 05:42PM

nucker wrote: »

Political correctness has been used to tell people to shut up as in they have no right to an opinion. If someone had an opinion on homosexuality that homosexuals didn't agree with, it will be immediately be called homophobia. Which is not what you are trying to say about racism and sexism which is about someone race or gender. Homosexuality is a lifestyle and choice

So then we're all born both gay AND straight and at some point we choose? At what point in time did you choose that the gay part of you was going to be ignored and suppressed while the straight part of you was going to be embraced?

Wattle · 08-07-2013 05:48PM

gallag wrote: »

I think gay people need to manage expectations as to how they are accepted and stop trying to convince the world that being gay is normal, its not normal and the resentment to it is so deep in our genetic make up it will never leave. I completely agree that gays should fight for every equal right under the sun, its ridiculous that some of us cant fight our inbuilt desire for the continuation of our race enough to grant people equal opportunities without prejudice of sexual orientation but they will never win the fight against evolution telling us that being gay is wrong and damaging to our species, evolution will do amazing things like the neck of a giraffe to enforce survival so it wont mess up by turning everyone gay. Some will do it under the guise of religion but people need to understand that being anti-gay is a defence mechanism to ensure our race continues and we have little choice in the matter.

human beings are basically like a bacteria that spreads, bacteria A will "engage" with bacteria B and split causing a third bacteria, if bacteria A decides to only engage with other A's then this is a defective bacteria and evolution will do everything in its power to make sure these defective bacteria remain uncommon, the point is that A's that like B's will never be anything other than the default majority or else our species will cease to exist, makes sense if you think about it.

I am probably not doing a good job putting my opinion into words as usual but the main point is this, yes fight for equality, fight for rights like marriage etc but dont waste your life's fighting human nature looking acceptance from all people, ignore them and pardon them because just as people don't choose to be gay some people dont choose to be anti-gay.

I don't feel any of this natural resentment towards gay people. I'm straight and one of my best friends is gay.I'm ok with that because it doesn't impinge on my life in any kind of negative way. It's also none of my business. There's more to people than just their sexuality.

Why do we need a defense mechanism to ensure our race continues? At any one time 10% of the world's population is gay. I don't think that percentage varies much. Put it this way there's 7 billion people on earth in another 50 years that will double to 14 billion. I don't think we're in danger of running short of people anytime soon.

aloyisious · 08-07-2013 05:58PM

nucker wrote: »

Who said that I was discriminating against you? I for one have read the bible where it says "those without sin cast the first stone". I live by those principles, but I don't believe that being gay is not a choice, there is no evidence to support this. What we do in our lives is all a choice, albeit, as a child we are brought up by society's constraint on people

I thought some in the church preached "love the sinner, not the sin" meaning that homosexuals are recognized by the church as individuals, and it's the practice, not the person, that is condemned.

You've explained what you think in what you wrote above. Quote: What we do in our lives is all a choice, albeit, as a child we are brought up by society's constraint on people; Unquote. Constraints put upon people until they get to adult age and ability to think for themselves.

Most Ho's have got past the bit about "no evidence", accepted who and what they are and got on with their lives. There are still a lot of Ho's, young and old, out there (or in the closet) still suffering from self-doubt due to the constraints you mentioned above and the mindset you have that being gay is a choice. It is NOT a choice.

Ho's (myself included) go through life having occasional wishes that they were born straight, as they get sick of the snide personal remarks and physical attacks they get to suffer every so often for being Homo. It's bull**** to say that names do NOT hurt, they do when used as abuse and bullying and are invariably used when a group (an audience for the bully) is around the victim.

What is a choice is to go about spreading the notion that one's sexuality and gender is something one has choices about. It spread's distrust of Ho's and breed's hate. Hate is a choice and lead's to actual harm.

Understand that I am NOT saying that YOU hate gays (I don't know you from Adam) just that others who can hear/read your belief may well be guided to take a hateful stance towards gays.

clairefontaine · 08-07-2013 06:04PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/mar/16/ameliahill.theobserver

Some straight guys pretend to be gay.

If its such an oppressed state why would you do something like that?

RDM_83 again · 08-07-2013 06:05PM

1ZRed wrote: »

Homosexuality as been shown to be around just as long as straight attraction has been too. Straight people kept on reproducing and didn't care if gay people paired up. When you're trying to survive you don't care about things that don't effect you. And if it's only 10% of the population that won't reproduce, but still aid the group the population is not going to plummet. If anything I've shown it can give an advantage to that group and the straight people can benefit from it.

Wattle wrote: »

I don't feel any of this natural resentment towards gay people. I'm straight and one of my best friends is gay.I'm ok with that because it doesn't impinge on my life in any kind of negative way. It's also none of my business. There's more to people than just their sexuality.

Why do we need a defense mechanism to ensure our race continues? At any one time 10% of the world's population is gay. I don't think that percentage varies much. Put it this way there's 7 billion people on earth in another 50 years that will double to 14 billion. I don't think we're in danger of running short of people anytime soon.

Where's this 10% figure coming from? I thought the figure was closer to 3/4% or are you referring to Bisexuality which is a different thing.

Note I'm not arguing with the "game theory" based idea about homosexuality being a "natural" occurrence, but if your using that idea you would separate Gay from Bisexual as they have a very different impact on your population model.

It also raises the issue of choice in relation to bisexuality, the % of people that exhibit Bisexual behavior would appear to vary greatly depending on the culture they are brought up in and their social circumstances.

In my view and this is should not be considered a controversial/trolling opinion when the plasticity/spectrum* of human sexual behavior is considered, for a % there is an element of choice (both choices being equally valid!).

* the idea of human sexual behavior being plastic and having a wider spectrum than the binary Gay/Straight viewpoint is not a right wing/theocratic theory at all!

gallag · 08-07-2013 06:05PM

Wattle wrote: »

I don't feel any of this natural resentment towards gay people. I'm straight and one of my best friends is gay.I'm ok with that because it doesn't impinge on my life in any kind of negative way. It's also none of my business. There's more to people than just their sexuality.

Why do we need a defense mechanism to ensure our race continues? At any one time 10% of the world's population is gay. I don't think that percentage varies much. Put it this way there's 7 billion people on earth in another 50 years that will double to 14 billion. I don't think we're in danger of running short of people anytime soon.

I am talking about all of humanity right across our evolution from primordial spawn but if that does not apply exactly to you then it must be wrong? 10% of the population is not gay, why exaggerate 10 fold? And every animal on this planet is geared towards breeding, evolution does not care that in 50 years the pop will be 14billion.

Micky Dolenz · 08-07-2013 06:09PM

You can be gay and have kids.

floggg · 08-07-2013 06:11PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I thought some in the church preached "love the sinner, not the sin" meaning that homosexuals are recognized by the church as individuals, and it's the practice, not the person, that is condemned.

You've explained what you think in what you wrote above. Quote: What we do in our lives is all a choice, albeit, as a child we are brought up by society's constraint on people; Unquote. Constraints put upon people until they get to adult age and ability to think for themselves.

Most Ho's have got past the bit about "no evidence", accepted who and what they are and got on with their lives. There are still a lot of Ho's, young and old, out there (or in the closet) still suffering from self-doubt due to the constraints you mentioned above and the mindset you have that being gay is a choice. It is NOT a choice.

Ho's (myself included) go through life having occasional wishes that they were born straight, as they get sick of the snide personal remarks and physical attacks they get to suffer every so often for being Homo. It's bull**** to say that names do NOT hurt, they do when used as abuse and bullying and are invariably used when a group (an audience for the bully) is around the victim.

What is a choice is to go about spreading the notion that one's sexuality and gender is something one has choices about. It spread's distrust of Ho's and breed's hate. Hate is a choice and lead's to actual harm.

Understand that I am NOT saying that YOU hate gays (I don't know you from Adam) just that others who can hear/read your belief may well be guided to take a hateful stance towards gays.

What the hell have ho's got to do with it? Are you equating gay people with prostitutes now?

Anyway, most ho's will switch up from their usual orientation if enough money is offered, so they are a bad example when arguing whether sexual orientation is fixed or not.

PS - thanks, I'm going to be signing this all day now too....

jill_valentine · 08-07-2013 06:12PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/mar/16/ameliahill.theobserver

Some straight guys pretend to be gay.

If its such an oppressed state why would you do something like that?

Do you ever read your own links there boss?

They are 'Strays' - enthusiastic players of a new dating game gaining currency across the country when STRaight men pretend to be gAY to attract women. It's a trick, they insist, that delivers the required results.

'I never actively claim to be gay, but by simply giving women the impression I might be I find practically without exception there's more chance they will sleep with me when they realise I'm heterosexual,' admitted Graham, a 28-year-old computer expert from south London.

Wanderer2010 · 08-07-2013 06:14PM

What the hell is it with people and thinking that being gay is a choice. ITS NOT. Plain and simple. If you get aroused (bodily reactions) thinking of the same sex you are most likely gay, if you get aroused (bodily reactions) thinking of the opposite sex you are straight. Simple as that. Why on earlth would you deny yourself sexual relations with the person you are attracted to? Is it better to live a lie, bring kids into a loveless marriage and deny the person you are just to keep a few narrow minded idiots happy? The simplicity of the gay issue just evades some people altogether..

floggg · 08-07-2013 06:16PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Where's this 10% figure coming from? I thought the figure was closer to 3/4% or are you referring to Bisexuality which is a different thing.

Note I'm not arguing with the "game theory" based idea about homosexuality being a "natural" occurrence, but if your using that idea you would separate Gay from Bisexual as they have a very different impact on your population model.

It also raises the issue of choice in relation to bisexuality, the % of people that exhibit Bisexual behavior would appear to vary greatly depending on the culture they are brought up in and their social circumstances.

In my view and this is should not be considered a controversial/trolling opinion when the plasticity/spectrum* of human sexual behavior is considered, for a % there is an element of choice (both choices being equally valid!).

* the idea of human sexual behavior being plastic and having a wider spectrum than the binary Gay/Straight viewpoint is not a right wing/theocratic theory at all!

Yes, evidently bisexual people do have a choice on whether to act upon their same sex/opposite sex attractions, and are likely to suppress the same sex attractions more if they face significant societal disapproval of same sex relations.

However, i take it you would agree that they do not choose to be bisexual in the first place, so there is no case that their orientation was a choice.

Further, the fact that bisexual people have a fluid range of attraction does not preclude that homosexual and heterosexual identified people can have a fixed attraction towards one sex or the other.

Wattle · 08-07-2013 06:17PM

gallag wrote: »

I am talking about all of humanity right across our evolution from primordial spawn but if that does not apply exactly to you then it must be wrong? 10% of the population is not gay, why exaggerate 10 fold? And every animal on this planet is geared towards breeding, evolution does not care that in 50 years the pop will be 14billion.

Ok maybe 10% is too high but it's not 1% like you stated. I agree that every animal on this planet clearly has the equipment for breeding but not all of them have the inclination to do so (and that goes for heterosexuals who have no desire to breed as well). My point about the 14 billion is that the existence of homosexuals is clearly no threat whatsoever to the continued existence of our species.

jill_valentine · 08-07-2013 06:20PM

I thought the figure was closer to 3/4% or are you referring to Bisexuality which is a different thing

Almost all studies put it higher. Not quite 10% certainly, but it almost always hovers around 7 or 8%, and people tend to round up for convenience.

The 3% figure is verrrry doubtful and not treated with much credence because it's such an outlier tbh. As far as I remember, the methodology that returned that was cold calling landlines - ie. Some randomer ringing people at home asking them if they were straight or gay and noting the results. Personally, that's not information I'd feel obliged to share over a phone call from the blue, and being realistic, the age group most likely to have landlines in this day and age is the one least likely to be out in the first place. So I'd be wary of that figure in the extreme.

RDM_83 again · 08-07-2013 06:37PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

Almost all studies put it higher. Not quite 10% certainly, but it almost always hovers around 7 or 8%, and people tend to round up for convenience.

The 3% figure is verrrry doubtful and not treated with much credence because it's such an outlier tbh. As far as I remember, the methodology that returned that was cold calling landlines - ie. Some randomer ringing people at home asking them if they were straight or gay and noting the results. Personally, that's not information I'd feel obliged to share over a phone call from the blue, and being realistic, the age group most likely to have landlines in this day and age is the one least likely to be out in the first place. So I'd be wary of that figure in the extreme.

Yes but are they are differentiating properly between bisexuality and homosexuality properly?

I've a gay friend of mine who went through a phase of sleeping with woman while also being in a gay relationship, I'm 99% certain that at that time he would have self identified as being Gay not Bisexual, but his behavior was Bisexual, and if he was a heterosexual behaving the same he would probably have been considered Bi regardless of his own self identification.

Now this distinction doesn't really matter so much in a social/political sense as they are part of the general LGBT movement, but it matters a lot if your considering it from a biological/psychological viewpoint.

gallag · 08-07-2013 07:14PM

Wattle wrote: »

Ok maybe 10% is too high but it's not 1% like you stated. I agree that every animal on this planet clearly has the equipment for breeding but not all of them have the inclination to do so (and that goes for heterosexuals who have no desire to breed as well). My point about the 14 billion is that the existence of homosexuals is clearly no threat whatsoever to the continued existence of our species.

Again, I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about us as a collective, in our genetic blueprint it says "dont be gay" so at least can we agree 97% (that 3% includes bi sexuals) of us are not gay, it also says breed and that is why most of us will have or try to have children, now of course out of 7billion people there will be deviations from the norm like some people will be gay and some will have no interest in reproducing, hell some people will only have eight toes but on the whole as a society we will mostly make children with a partner of the opposite sex and have ten toes.

On the choice debate, of course people dont choose to be gay, my entire family knew my nephew was gay before he knew what sexuality was, he recently came out to very little surprise. Sorry to be crude but you do not choose to have sex with the same sex, it is either something that excites you or disgusts you!

I know some people will think I am arguing an antigay angle here by saying evolution tries to steer us away from homosexuality but I am not, I have supported every push for gay rights and frankly feel embarrassed that we are still discussing what rights to give different people and have gay friends/family but that doesn't change the fact that the reason so few people are gay and it is so taboo is that it in not beneficial to our species.

Think about this, a person with 8 toes will have a harder time finding a partner to reproduce with that the exact same person with ten toes simply because it is a deviation, you can be fully accepting of the person with less toes and know its not logical to hold it against them but when you see the foot you feel disgusted ( obviously not everyone will feel strongly) this is evolutions way of ensuring mr 8 toes does not get to pass on his deviant DNA, its the same response that at a base level makes homosexuality repulsive to most people.

to my original point, gay people should stop seeking acceptance from everyone, some people do not choose to be gay and some don't choose to be anti-gay, it just is.

1ZRed · 08-07-2013 07:14PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Where's this 10% figure coming from? I thought the figure was closer to 3/4% or are you referring to Bisexuality which is a different thing.

Note I'm not arguing with the "game theory" based idea about homosexuality being a "natural" occurrence, but if your using that idea you would separate Gay from Bisexual as they have a very different impact on your population model.

It also raises the issue of choice in relation to bisexuality, the % of people that exhibit Bisexual behavior would appear to vary greatly depending on the culture they are brought up in and their social circumstances.

In my view and this is should not be considered a controversial/trolling opinion when the plasticity/spectrum* of human sexual behavior is considered, for a % there is an element of choice (both choices being equally valid!).

* the idea of human sexual behavior being plastic and having a wider spectrum than the binary Gay/Straight viewpoint is not a right wing/theocratic theory at all!

The 10% is coming from Kinsey's studies. This would include self identified bisexual men also, but the % of them is so minute in comparison to gay men believe it or not, despite the studies and statistics that show that we have more predominant tendencies to have bisexual leanings, so using these stats your idea that they'd have a different impact on population doesn't hold up strongly, though I get your point.

The statics can rage from 4% up to or near enough 10%, but it varies in region as many wouldn't identify as gay or bisexual because of societal pressures which are harsher in some places than others.

What's interesting about the bisexual stats is that is so low when same-sex experiences are higher than people would think, but many wont admit to them because of societal pressure and expectations. Even from my own experience there's an absolute heap of men who cheat on their girlfriends with other men, but would never in a million years admit to it and would identify as straight only.

This throws off the stats. It's the same thing for gay men, many are closeted or try their hardest to be straight and repress their sexuality. Until there's a time when anyone can freely experiment with the same, or opposite sex, with no reprocusions or stigma at all is the time when we'll know the more accurate statistic of gay and bisexual men.

Personally I believe that gay men are in the minority to bisexual men, eventhough the statistics say otherwise. We're still at a time when there's a huge amount of stigma involving same-sex experiences which you can even see from some of these posts.

1ZRed · 08-07-2013 07:35PM

gallag wrote: »

Again, I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about us as a collective, in our genetic blueprint it says "dont be gay" so at least can we agree 97% (that 3% includes bi sexuals) of us are not gay, it also says breed and that is why most of us will have or try to have children, now of course out of 7billion people there will be deviations from the norm like some people will be gay and some will have no interest in reproducing, hell some people will only have eight toes but on the whole as a society we will mostly make children with a partner of the opposite sex and have ten toes.

On the choice debate, of course people dont choose to be gay, my entire family knew my nephew was gay before he knew what sexuality was, he recently came out to very little surprise. Sorry to be crude but you do not choose to have sex with the same sex, it is either something that excites you or disgusts you!

I know some people will think I am arguing an antigay angle here by saying evolution tries to steer us away from homosexuality but I am not, I have supported every push for gay rights and frankly feel embarrassed that we are still discussing what rights to give different people and have gay friends/family but that doesn't change the fact that the reason so few people are gay and it is so taboo is that it in not beneficial to our species.

You just ignored my post which pretty much dispels your notions that nature is against being gay. No it's not, it doesn't know one way or the other, but if evolution produced homosexuality it did so for a valid reason which brought about a benefit and increased the rate of survival, which I explained it did.

You seem to think that we all are following the same path that we all must breed. That's not necessarily my path. I'm gay, so back then I wouldn't be reproducing, even though I'm capable of it. My role would be that of a hunter and protector of the group because I wouldn't be weighed down by children so I could commit myself fully to the group as a whole.
The straight people bred but we aided the group by consuming less resources by not having children and giving those saved resources to the group, thus strengthening it. That was the role of gay people back then, it wasn't to breed. Had the only purpose have been to breed gay people would've died off, yet here we are because we brought an advantage.

But you're saying it's not beneficial based on whatever opinion you've come up with yourself without looking into the biology and mechanisms behind it. It's more than a bit ignorant to do so.

Think about this, a person with 8 toes will have a harder time finding a partner to reproduce with that the exact same person with ten toes simply because it is a deviation, you can be fully accepting of the person with less toes and know its not logical to hold it against them but when you see the foot you feel disgusted ( obviously not everyone will feel strongly) this is evolutions way of ensuring mr 8 toes does not get to pass on his deviant DNA, its the same response that at a base level makes homosexuality repulsive to most people.

You don't understand evolution clearly. If the man with 8 toes had a clear advantage in his environment, that trait would stick around as his offspring would have the higher rate of survival to his competitors, and eventually his trait would become commonplace in the population because it was strongest. That's how evolution works, it's not for aesthetic reasons things happen. If a mutation is valuable it will stick around.

Having 8 toes and claiming it doesn't stick around only because it's is "disgusting" is a ridiculous statement. Had that been the norm now and it gave us an advantage we wouldn't know any better.

to my original point, gay people should stop seeking acceptance from everyone, some people do not choose to be gay and some don't choose to be anti-gay, it just is.

Again, this is you making up BS despite what people have posted to you. A child is not born racist, it's learned from their environment. It's the same with homsexuality. People don't hate gay people because it's in their genetic make up to do so, as you said, because it's impossible -it's learned.

I showed you that before our society was so anti-gay there was no issue with being gay. So explain to me if it's built in us to hate gay people that that was so back then as well?

Wattle · 08-07-2013 07:43PM

gallag wrote: »

Again, I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about us as a collective, in our genetic blueprint it says "dont be gay" so at least can we agree 97% (that 3% includes bi sexuals) of us are not gay, it also says breed and that is why most of us will have or try to have children, now of course out of 7billion people there will be deviations from the norm like some people will be gay and some will have no interest in reproducing, hell some people will only have eight toes but on the whole as a society we will mostly make children with a partner of the opposite sex and have ten toes.

On the choice debate, of course people dont choose to be gay, my entire family knew my nephew was gay before he knew what sexuality was, he recently came out to very little surprise. Sorry to be crude but you do not choose to have sex with the same sex, it is either something that excites you or disgusts you!

I know some people will think I am arguing an antigay angle here by saying evolution tries to steer us away from homosexuality but I am not, I have supported every push for gay rights and frankly feel embarrassed that we are still discussing what rights to give different people and have gay friends/family but that doesn't change the fact that the reason so few people are gay and it is so taboo is that it in not beneficial to our species.

Think about this, a person with 8 toes will have a harder time finding a partner to reproduce with that the exact same person with ten toes simply because it is a deviation, you can be fully accepting of the person with less toes and know its not logical to hold it against them but when you see the foot you feel disgusted ( obviously not everyone will feel strongly) this is evolutions way of ensuring mr 8 toes does not get to pass on his deviant DNA, its the same response that at a base level makes homosexuality repulsive to most people.

to my original point, gay people should stop seeking acceptance from everyone, some people do not choose to be gay and some don't choose to be anti-gay, it just is.

Yes but why should it be taboo at all? If a percentage of people are consistently born gay then surely that is evolution acting naturally? I don't have this natural aversion to gay people that you're talking about because the people that I know have a lot more to their personalities than just being gay. I don't tend to judge them on who they want to go to bed with. And if two people are choosing to do that and making each other happy then surely that's a good thing? Maybe the idea of gay sex does repulse you but far too many people use that revulsion to propagate hatred when in reality it is none of their business.

aloyisious · 08-07-2013 08:57PM

floggg wrote: »

What the hell have ho's got to do with it? Are you equating gay people with prostitutes now?

Anyway, most ho's will switch up from their usual orientation if enough money is offered, so they are a bad example when arguing whether sexual orientation is fixed or not.

PS - thanks, I'm going to be signing this all day now too....

I'm sorry you made the generalization that Gay people will switch their sexual preferences for money. Some people may choose to have sex for pay but that doesn't mean that their inherent sexuality (Straight, Gay or Bi) will have changed. I fail to understand your point, QUOTE;so they are a bad example when arguing whether sexual orientation is fixed or not; UNQUOTE, reference examples, as I only know of three, Gay, Straight and Bi-sexual.

I never used the word - or referred to - prostitutes in connection with homosexuals. I was referring to Nucker's biblical mention and his statement how upbringing can have an effect on one's behaviour.

I regret that you brought prostitution into this debate and then followed it up with the remark "Anyway, most ho's will switch up from their usual orientation if enough money is offered".

Cheer's.

Canard · 08-07-2013 09:37PM

Again, I don't think evolution really comes into it at all. If you explain to a young child what being gay is, they don't care, and if they learn young not to care, then they never will. I still think it's no different to saying "if a man sees an attractive woman with a lot of skin showing he can think wow I'd like to have kids with her, and her, and that one over there too and just have sex with all of them because it's our natural instinct to keep our species going". Plus 1Z's explanation makes a lot of sense - if it was so undesirable that straight people hated gay people innately, they wouldn't be around anymore. You're kind of saying that straight people avoid having sex with gay people in order to stop them reproducing...but...gay people don't want to do that anyway.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm sorry you made the generalization that Gay people will switch their sexual preferences for money. Some people may choose to have sex for pay but that doesn't mean that their inherent sexuality (Straight, Gay or Bi) will have changed. I fail to understand your point, QUOTE;so they are a bad example when arguing whether sexual orientation is fixed or not; UNQUOTE, reference examples, as I only know of three, Gay, Straight and Bi-sexual.

I never used the word - or referred to - prostitutes in connection with homosexuals. I was referring to Nucker's biblical mention and his statement how upbringing can have an effect on one's behaviour.

I regret that you brought prostitution into this debate and then followed it up with the remark "Anyway, most ho's will switch up from their usual orientation if enough money is offered".

Cheer's.

I think you both misunderstood each other. I misinterpreted your post in the same way and thought by ho's you meant hoes as opposed to homosexuals. What I think the other poster meant was that hoes/people who you pay for sex will go with whatever gender to make more money.

bgrizzley · 08-07-2013 09:44PM

Sofaspud wrote: »

People should start picketing at religious events.

Go to the vatican, Easter parades or christmas mass with signs saying "Homosexuality is brilliant" or "Rock music and alcohol are quite fun, actually".

I'd love to see the response to that.

"It must be fun, though.
Not the Not the, you know, but the nightclubs and the whole rough and tumble of homosexual activity."

floggg · 08-07-2013 10:31PM

Canard wrote: »

Again, I don't think evolution really comes into it at all. If you explain to a young child what being gay is, they don't care, and if they learn young not to care, then they never will. I still think it's no different to saying "if a man sees an attractive woman with a lot of skin showing he can think wow I'd like to have kids with her, and her, and that one over there too and just have sex with all of them because it's our natural instinct to keep our species going". Plus 1Z's explanation makes a lot of sense - if it was so undesirable that straight people hated gay people innately, they wouldn't be around anymore. You're kind of saying that straight people avoid having sex with gay people in order to stop them reproducing...but...gay people don't want to do that anyway.

I think you both misunderstood each other. I misinterpreted your post in the same way and thought by ho's you meant hoes as opposed to homosexuals. What I think the other poster meant was that hoes/people who you pay for sex will go with whatever gender to make more money.

I understand. I was being tongue in cheek.

Apparently "ho's" is some new term for homosexual I gather.

I doubt it will stick - the term is already taken. See The video for an example of the term in use. I kinda thought it would be obvious to the poster coining this new fangled term but evidently not.

I guess not everybody listens to as much hip-hop as I do.

aloyisious · 09-07-2013 10:04AM

Canard wrote: »

Again, I don't think evolution really comes into it at all. If you explain to a young child what being gay is, they don't care, and if they learn young not to care, then they never will. I still think it's no different to saying "if a man sees an attractive woman with a lot of skin showing he can think wow I'd like to have kids with her, and her, and that one over there too and just have sex with all of them because it's our natural instinct to keep our species going". Plus 1Z's explanation makes a lot of sense - if it was so undesirable that straight people hated gay people innately, they wouldn't be around anymore. You're kind of saying that straight people avoid having sex with gay people in order to stop them reproducing...but...gay people don't want to do that anyway.

I think you both misunderstood each other. I misinterpreted your post in the same way and thought by ho's you meant hoes as opposed to homosexuals. What I think the other poster meant was that hoes/people who you pay for sex will go with whatever gender to make more money.

OK ta. It's an abbreviation of homo's, not to be connected with huer's/whores

aloyisious · 09-07-2013 10:05AM

floggg wrote: »

I understand. I was being tongue in cheek.

Apparently "ho's" is some new term for homosexual I gather.

I doubt it will stick - the term is already taken. See The video for an example of the term in use. I kinda thought it would be obvious to the poster coining this new fangled term but evidently not.

I guess not everybody listens to as much hip-hop as I do.

OK ta, Ho's is just an abbreviavtion of Homo's, not to be connected with huers/whores

Brawl at Gay Pride Fest in Seattle , God Squad at it Again

Comments