Valacirca

Tongue-in-cheek is hard to convey over the internet, but if you missed that, well, you're going to have a tough life, so I'll save you the insults.

You homo's have a nice night.

Fun's over.

Fark safe.

-Dino

Valacirca: You did what to the what now?

DinoVomit:

Being gay is like taking a shiat.

What beautiful and touching prose. Weighty philosophical thought indeed!

*wipes away tear of joy*

You know you're shiat son.

/skoal

eraser8-

just to clear it up, I am not implying gay people are illegit or weird in any way, and by definition a 3 chambered peanut is not normal.

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

2. Could land you some weight to your arguement though.

3. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.

ie. a. Correspondence to a norm.


You can argue that homosexuality/bisexuality is abnormal but perfectly natural without hateing anyone.

DinoVomit


Tongue-in-cheek is hard to convey over the internet, but if you missed that, well, you're going to have a tough life, so I'll save you the insults.

Wait, so you're saying your last post was a humorous attempt at acknowledging that what you wrote is trollish? I'm confused.

Lets see how long we can keep him in the thread.

If you don't want to see the pics in the thread, check the option "don't interpret html".

That is, if you truly don't want to see them. If yer just looking for a reason to complain...well...I guess you've chosen to view them.

/had to check the box...at work.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=normal&db=*

was the source by the way.

DinoVomit:

Being gay is like taking a shiat.

'cause it's even though it's fun, more often than not it's just a pain in the butt?

Hell0?

I, for one, welcome our new winged, queer Overlords.

/funny brown water make teeth wiggly

Comsiquemuffin
If I were in a prison for the rest of my life? I absolutely could choose to be homosexual. If the only sex I was going to get was gay sex, I guess that beats none at all. I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality that the thought of homosexuality doesn't really bother me (cept open mouth kissing, I could never kiss a guy on the mouth). We're talking about sex, meeting physical needs (sometimes the hand is not enough), not love or marriage (wether gay or heterosexual). In short, my prison biatch would never be more than a booty call. Or, are you and Pantropik implying that love is a condition of sexuality, because I don't believe that.

2005-06-05 03:50:19 AM An Angry Boil
In a discussion about sexuality I characterize heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality all as lifestyle choices. I choose to be hetero because I like boobies, you choose to be homo because you like weeners (presumptively), what's the big farking deal? Seriously, No matter how I characterize it, I'm going to offend someone. I figured I'd use terminiology that implied an individual had a choice because I'm the type of person that like to think I'm evolved enough to make my own decisions without being dominated by primitive instinct.

When did you CHOOSE to like boobies? Why haven't you CHOSEN to like weiners? (as noted above, we bisexuals have twice the chance of finding a date on Saturday night -- which doesn't explain why I'm here at work on Sunday morning)

eraser8

haha ok, thought I got the wrong message across earlier, s'why I replied like that, And I have the simpsons to thank for my peanut reference. (just got done watching that episode)

An Angry Boil

You're hetero so you like boobies, not you are hetero because you like boobies. I'm a lesbian and love boobies, but I'm not a lesbian because I like boobies.

If there's anything odd is that like a bunch of the men here I've never had sex with a guy. But I have no aversion to it, just a total lack of interest in doing it.

speaking of homophobes,

I had a buddy in high school who would wear two pairs of underwear, I shiat you not, because he thought that if a gay man tried to rape him, that second pair would give him the extra seconds needed to escape. True story.

The wierd thing wasn't even that he hated gay people (which he did), but the way he was afraid of them. Yeah yeah, I know thats technically what homophobe means, but I have no doubt he spent sleepless nights fretting about them

I haven't seen him in a few years now, but I like to think he realized that he was actually gay, and is now leading a happy, one-pair-of-underpants life.

Speaking personally, I didn't choose boobies, boobies chose me.

And god bless them, every one.

An Angry Boil

No matter how I characterize it, I'm going to offend someone.

You like boobies, so you choose to be straight. I don't, so I choose to be gay. You say the terminology means nothing, which I find not so much offensive as silly.

What you're saying simplifies to "I choose to be straight because I am straight," (that is, you like the boobies so you chase the boobies) and I am gay because I am gay (I don't like the boobies). That is literally equivalent to saying, "I come down after jumping into the air because I choose to obey the pull of gravity." Obeying the pull of gravity (just like obeying the pull of boobies) is a "lifestyle choice." You could no more cease liking boobies at your whim than you could cease returning to the earth after a leap (without some sort of technological contrivance).

Seems a tad pointless to me. But consider this: if being gay is an integral part of who I am, then I may be flawed (that is, statistically abnormal due to a quirk of genetics) but I can not be said to be evil (except by design, which means "God" to the religious man, who can not accept that my not liking the boobies is anything other than choice, for obvious reasons).

The way it is phrased means nothing to you, a straight man, because the way it is phrased is not used to paint you as evil (by choice, rather than design). It is easy for you to say, "Don't be so sensitive" because nature has given you that luxury. Must be nice, but I can't say I'd trade if given the chance.

BearToy

There's also the curse of likeing friends a bit more than just friends. It's incredibly akward, no matter how open minded, to try and tell your friend you don't like him in that way but you're still a friend, etc etc. sappy speech blah blah... and not offend em/depress em in any way.

Science proves being gay is a birth defect. Maybe they can cure it with gene therapy.

But don't let my morals stop you, go out and live to your basest desires, natured or nurtured. Eat three times a day at McDonalds, get drunk, do drugs, have sex with animals, masturbate in front of kids at the park, no one is getting hurt so do what makes you feel good. That's the answer to life; doing anything and everything to feel good in the moment no matter the consequences.

It will be a really fun, albeit short, life.

Or you could try to be stronger than your temptations and see where that gets you.

The only justice is that what you do is all your choice.

eraser8:

Okay. But, honestly, I was just talking about the peanut.

Peanuts are gay? That would explain Mr. Peanuts pose and jaunty attire (not to mention the monocle thingee).

Mmmmmmmmm peanuts.

/kids, don't drink and FARK

ACF-

I heard being a troll was a birth defect, maybe they could cure you with gene therapy?

ACF

Beelzebub just called, he's wondering where his sammich is.

Guido Libido-

Bahahaha, You sir win an internet.

If a Fly doesn't have any wings is it called a "Walk?"

/Welllll...beddy bye time
//Wifey standing in doorway, glaring at me
///must now explain "Gay Thread" surfing
////Mmmmmm, heterosexuality

Xbodo99:

Yeah, I thought my argument on that particular point was pretty coherent and people drew a lot of unwarranted conclusions about my religious beliefs and stance on homosexuality.

Anyway, since you asked, my personal belief in what the state of the law should be regarding homosexuals is that there shouldn't be any specifically aimed at their sexual life. The only moderately reasonable argument for why there should be that I can think up off-hand only applies to anal/genital sodomy regardless of sexual orientation, which is to say that it's a greatly increased risk for STDs, and that the government has a duty to protect against that increased risk. However, the risk isn't so enormous to justify that, nor does there seem to be a problem of lack of awareness of the risks on the part of the consenting parties, so that argument doesn't really fly in my book. But then, I also think consenting adults should be able to smoke weed and do a lot of the currently regulated drugs without government interference.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, I disagree with the Court's reasoning in Lawrence that the due process clause of the 14th amendment extends to privacy in the bedroom/sexual relationships and therefore anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. I mean, it'd be great if there WERE a constitutional amendment that said that, but I think we're stretching due process a bit with that interpretation. Just to clear things up, this isn't me saying that we should have anti-sodomy laws, this is me calling shenanigans on the SC saying they're unconstitutional for the reasons they set out in Lawrence.

Regarding gay marriage: Ideally, I'd have government stay out of marriage entirely, as I see it as a relic of religious ceremonies. There is a government interest to be served by marriage in that it promotes economic structures that help individuals raise children, but I think the same can be accomplished through tax breaks and credits to people with dependent children, and there are clearly a lot of people who get civilly married who have no intention of having kids. The distribution of property can be handled through regular contract and property law that applies to anyone, whether they love each other or not. This would also solve the problems with gay marriage and polygamist marriage, since the government wouldn't be outlawing either (which it shouldn't), and both could still have religious or private ceremonies to their hearts' content.

But since they won't drop government-recognized marriage anytime soon, and since the good reasons for having government recognize marriage obviously don't apply to all heterosexual couples anyway, I see no reason not to allow gay couples to marry. It's not much different from allowing non-procreating heterosexuals marry, nor is allowing adoptive homosexual couples different from allowing adoptive heterosexuals parents to marry.

Anyway, I'm signing off for the night. If anyone else wants to continue this, just e-mail me at the address in my profile. Bigforearms out.

"Guido Libido : must now explain "Gay Thread" surfing"

Hahahaha. I just had to explain the same thing to my roomate a couple minutes ago

pantropik-

Plus we can't even make a pill that doesn't have side effects yet, I severely doubt gene therapy is beyond the "infancy" point in science yet.

Oh yes, having consential (sorry it's late, my spelling leaves me at 12) sex with another person cannot be compared to masturbating in front of kids or having sex with animals. And it's most definitely not a health concern, like eating 3 meals a day of McDonalds (Isn't it funnier that most of the fattest cities in America are in states that aren't very supporting of gays?), getting drunk, or doing drugs.

Guido Libido

No, Mr. Peanut is just a dandy. Just a garden variety aesthete is all. At least that's what he tells his wife....

Oh that last post of mine was to ACF.

Anyone else think that nature is just trying to slow us the fark down on the breeding thing?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=birth%20defect
Birth defect: A physiological or structural abnormality that develops at or before birth and is present at the time of birth especially as a result of faulty development, infection, heredity, or injury. Also called congenital anomaly.

---
It doesn't apply? It would have to be considered faulty development because a species couldn't otherwise procreate. I'll apologize if I'm wrong.

Hehehehe, this thread was great.

xenomino starts off with some flamebait....and everyone took a big bite. But if you take his point and forget that he didn't present it in a more P.C. fashion it makes sense and it wouldn't have caused 1/10th of the response.

Even if being gay is tied to a gene somewhere, at best it's a predisposition. Just like being an alcoholic. We know that there are genetic factors that increase the risk - I don't know the details of it...maybe the genes make the alcohol taste better? Or makes the person feel better when drunk....whatever. The point is a person with the 'gay' gene might be 'attracted' to someone of the same sex, but to act on that attraction is a concious choice. When you date someone you are choosing to date them. Just like an alcoholic who decides to drink.

I don't find tall women attractive. I *choose* not to date them...but I can date them (just like an alcoholic deciding not to drink).

Now, given that it's a choice it should be treated as such. When you go to get hired for a job - there are certain protected classes...you can't say to a black man 'Sorry, you are black'. But you can say to a drug user 'Sorry, you take drugs'. Currently, you can not say to a homosexual 'Sorry, you are gay'. But, if it's a choice why do they get that legal protection?

Now, I don't agree *at all* with what xenomino said - but so, so many people just started flaming or responding with comments that didn't even come close to addressing his points.

cargrrl82-

I think he's just a dapper gentleman with a cannibalistic side, selling his own kind roasted in cans and all. He's like the nut equivilant of hannibal lector.

Zackman
If you think I'm comparing any of the actions I mentioned against another, you misread what I said.

But, if it's a choice why do they get that legal protection?

But it isn't a "choice". Dating and engaging in sexual activities with persons of the same gender is a choice, but being attracted to them is not a choice, thus it is fundamentally dishonest to call homosexuality a "choice".

You were comparing them all as "base."

I hate when people try to swallow their words badly.

Dimensio
But it isn't a "choice". Dating and engaging in sexual activities with persons of the same gender is a choice, but being attracted to them is not a choice, thus it is fundamentally dishonest to call homosexuality a "choice".

I'm sorry if I was unclear. Yes, I agree - I meant that people don't choose who to be attracted to, but they are making an active decission in who to date, have sex with, etc, etc...

In my book, a homosexual is someone who engages in sexual activities with someone of the same sex - not just someone who has urges to do so. I might think about killing someone, but tha tdoesn't make me a killer.

ACF: By your logic having Blond hair, for example, is a birth defect.