FARK.com: (1515755) Queer eye for the fruit fly

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Queer eye for the fruit fly (news.independent.co.uk)		694
		More: Interesting

• • •

13564 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jun 2005 at 11:23 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1515755

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

694 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

BrotherLove		2005-06-05 04:30:53 AM

2005-06-05 04:02:59 AM An Angry Boil
If I were in a prison for the rest of my life? I absolutely could choose to be homosexual... In short, my prison biatch would never be more than a booty call.

Oh, you SO do not get it.

If you had a "booty call" with a woman, would you think of her as your biatch? Is the concept of a casual sexual encounter that does not involve one partner degrading the other that impossible for you to imagine?

So if you were in prison, you could choose to have someone suck your cock. Bully for you (so to speak). Could you choose to suck your "biatch's" cock -- and ENJOY IT?

RobDude		2005-06-05 04:31:54 AM

Yeah, zack_man, I agree that definition of a birth defect seems to be lacking.

Anything that is 'abnormal' when a baby is born is a birth defect? Sounds a bit too all encompassing.

eraser8		2005-06-05 04:32:15 AM

RobDude writes: Even if being gay is tied to a gene somewhere, at best it's a predisposition.

First, what are you basing that judgment on?

Second, if homosexuality is at best a predisposition, then the same could be said for heterosexuality, right?

If that's the case, let's remove the religiou-moral aspect altogether. "But, Jesus said" should have no bearing on the debate.

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.

That's true. But, of absolutely no pracitcal importance.

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'.

And, you can't say "sorry, you're Catholic" or "sorry, you're Muslim." You can't say these things even though religion is a choice.

Maybe you need to think through your argument a little more carefully. Protected classification is not based on the immutability of the characteristic but upon the seriousness of the discrimination.

kindablue		2005-06-05 04:32:31 AM

ACF
Well, it's just an argument of semantics. Here's the thing, homosexuals may very well help the survival of a species. To explain: Penguins. There are a lot of gay penguins. There are a lot of penguin eggs that become abandoned. Gay penguins mate for life and "adopt" abandoned eggs, hatch them, and raise them. These gay penguins helped another penguin survive. Homosexuality could be nature's way of leveling parent/child ratios. It's still not so known.
Could it be considered a defect? Maybe, but only in that it is the minority genetically. Minority variation is a more specific, more scientific and less hurtful term.

ACF		2005-06-05 04:32:39 AM

Zackman
I'm not swallowing my words, you still don't understand what I said.

If you do whatever the genes in your brain want you to, that is not base?

RobDude		2005-06-05 04:33:23 AM

BrotherLove
What about all the straight women who are into men but don't love sucking cock? :P

ACF		2005-06-05 04:33:59 AM

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

Having blond hair doesn't stop the continuation of a species.

eraser8		2005-06-05 04:34:41 AM

RobDude asks: What about all the straight women who are into men but don't love sucking cock?

Fark 'em.

etoof		2005-06-05 04:35:38 AM

Neither does 3-10% of the population that is gay.

pantropik		2005-06-05 04:35:55 AM

RobDude

Could you choose to have sex and romantic relationships with men? Could you be happy that way or would you be pretty damned miserable and miss the boobies? Why would you want to live that way, waking up next to some man every day when it's the female you desire? Failing that, would you just give up sex and relationships and other intimate human contact entirely? Wouldn't that be a miserable existence and a hell of a thing for someone to ask you to "choose"? Seems downright cruel to me to ask someone to either betray their fundamental nature or to deny themselves physical and emotional happiness for all time. But I try to be a nice guy, so maybe you'd enjoy expecting that of someone. I have no way of knowing.

I certainly wouldn't wish that on you or anyone else.

zack_man		2005-06-05 04:35:55 AM

ACF:

I missed the part of the definition you provided that mentioned anything about reproduction.

zack_man		2005-06-05 04:37:45 AM

etoof:

I've heard 11%, actually (that includes gay, bi, lesbian, and tran)

etoof		2005-06-05 04:39:13 AM

Ok, point taken, but that 11% still doesn't stop the continuation of a species.

ACF		2005-06-05 04:39:27 AM

Zack_man.
Yes, I see, you did miss it. It was where I specifically mentioned faulty development.

Normal development would create a person or animal that continues development of its genetic code with offspring. Faulty development would not.

zack_man		2005-06-05 04:39:40 AM

If anything, we need to level off pretty soon.

BearToy		2005-06-05 04:40:14 AM

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

Heehheehee.
That's the way it goes.

It reminds me of a lesbian (Lesberterian) commedianne who had a joke:
People ask me, do you think you had a choice in being gay? She pauses and then strikes an almost Urban Cowboy Victory Pose and shouts "I was chosen!".

pantropik		2005-06-05 04:41:01 AM

Having blond hair doesn't stop the continuation of a species.

Okay, stop and think about that for a second. In most mammal species, homosexuality has been observed (hundreds of them, anyway from monkeys and elephants to whales and dolphins and humans and apes). Those species exist. Humans exist. Homosexuality has existed for all of recorded human history and there's not one piece of evidence to suggest it hasn't existed for all of human history, period.

Therefore, homosexuality in a given population does not hurt that population's "continuation," as evidenced by the SIX BILLION PLUS HUMANS ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW. Having a certain percentage of humanity (which is overpopulated) that is predisposed AGAINST breeding is a GOOD thing for the species. The fact that I will not have children means that there will be more resources and opportunities for YOUR children. Is that wrong? Or should we just keep breeding like rabbits until even MORE of our number is starving to death than already is?

zack_man		2005-06-05 04:41:19 AM

Yes, and if you include the number of gays that had children before they "came out" they have even less effect on the species.

BrotherLove		2005-06-05 04:42:46 AM

2005-06-05 04:24:22 AM RobDude
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'.

That may be the case where you live. It's far from being the case in many states, and it's certainly not the case at the federal level in the U.S.

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

Do you think you should be allowed to discriminate against hiring on the basis of religion? Hiring discrimination on the basis of religion IS against the law in the U.S.

etoof		2005-06-05 04:43:38 AM

Maybe I'm just tired, but are we arguing? I think we're making the same point.

/sees two monitors right now
//wait, I own two

ACF		2005-06-05 04:46:01 AM

pantropik:
Let's say a woman is born without the ability to have children. That has probably happened for all of human history too. It's a genetic defect. Does it mean she's a bad person? No. But she has a genetic defect.

She can't pass on the gene on with offspring, so the rate of people with her genetic defect stays about the same throughout history.

pantropik		2005-06-05 04:46:28 AM

Do you think you should be allowed to discriminate against hiring on the basis of religion? Hiring discrimination on the basis of religion IS against the law in the U.S.

In the case of housing, at least, you can't discriminate on the basis of whether someone is married or single or whether they have kids or not (familial status, I believe they call it). Those are protected choices, too. It's kinda comical that there are plenty of protected choices around, but we're told homosexuality, which really is NOT a choice, cannot be protected ... because it's a choice and choices cannot be protected except for the choices that are already protected ...

cargrrl82		2005-06-05 04:47:22 AM

ACF

In a population it doesn't matter if every individual reproduces. All that matters is that enough individuals reproduce so that there's enough offspring making it to reproductive age so they can reproduce. The more robust the species the fewer offspring and the less need for every individual to reproduce. There's tons of stuff that can keep a fish from living long enough to reproduce so fish have lots and lots of offspring. There's very little that will keep an elephant from living long enough to reproduce, so elephants have just one offspring at a time. And then don't have another for quite a while. That is those elephants who even reproduce. Humans are the same, a very robust species with no intrinsic need for large amounts of offpsring nor for every individual to reproduce.

ACF		2005-06-05 04:48:11 AM

pantropik:
By the way, people starving to death is a financial problem, not a resource problem. You're free to donate all your money to feeding others if you like. That would solve the starvation problem for many people.

But I digress.

RobDude		2005-06-05 04:51:15 AM

eraser8
Just to be clear, I want to remind everyone that my Boobies was really just a nicer way of saying what xenomino said. But, I'll still do my best...

First, what are you basing that judgment on?
Many things....but the easiest to explain would be that people can choose when to come out of the closet. There are plenty of men that admit they are gay now, but were in marriages before. There genes didn't change, but for a time they *choose* not to be gay. (again, I'm using 'gay' to describe someone who engages in same-sex activities). So clearly, without any doubt it has to be a choice.

Second, if homosexuality is at best a predisposition, then the same could be said for heterosexuality, right?
Of course. A person with no genetic disposition twards being gay could choose to be gay.

If that's the case, let's remove the religiou-moral aspect altogether. "But, Jesus said" should have no bearing on the debate.
Consider it gone. Besides, we all know Jesus was a fag. (jk)

That's true. But, of absolutely no pracitcal importance.
It's just saying what we said above. It a choice, nobody is forced to be one way or another (at least by my definition of being gay or straight).

And, you can't say "sorry, you're Catholic" or "sorry, you're Muslim." You can't say these things even though religion is a choice.
Well, the easiest way to my argument logically sound would be to say that I disagree with not being able to discriminated baised on religous faith. And, personally, I think you should be able to. If a muslim and a catholic are both going for the same teaching job at a catholic school....I don't think the muslim should get the job :P

Okay, Protected classification is baised on the seriousness of the discrimination. If a black man, or a woman walks into a job...I know the black man is black and I know the woman is a woman. I don't know if either of them are gay. It's pretty hard to discrimiate based on something you can not possibly know.

----

But really, I was more commenting on how I found it interesting that so many people flamed the guy when a more rational debate should have followed. Personally, I see absolutly nothing wrong with being gay and I really have trouble understanding how anyone could find something wrong with it.

RadiomanATL		2005-06-05 04:52:14 AM

Here's the bottom line for me:

I don't care if homosexuals are born that way or have chosen to be that way. Couldn't care less. I'm not gay, and don't plan on ever becoming gay, or choosing to be gay, or discover that I am gay, or whatever method of becoming gay floats yer boat.

What two consenting adults do in private is none of my business, nor do I want to make it my business. As long as it remains in private (notice I'm not differentiating between gay and straight there).

So fark, fap, lick, whatever to yer hearts content in yer own home.

pantropik		2005-06-05 04:53:34 AM

cargrrl82

Exactly. In the case of humans it would be disastrous if every member of the species was a breeder. Earth is only so big, after all, and getting smaller all the time.

That's why the (usually religious) argument about non-procreative sex bugs me. In a few decades when the population has doubled again and the worldwide standard of living drops precipitously I wouldn't be surprised to see priests handing out condoms at Mass every morning ... the Church's stance on birth control (especially the crap about condoms not preventing HIV infection) is, to my mind, anyway, not just criminal but actively evil.

RobDude		2005-06-05 04:54:32 AM

BrotherLove
Do you think you should be allowed to discriminate against hiring on the basis of religion? Hiring discrimination on the basis of religion IS against the law in the U.S.

Maybe this is because I don't have any sort of religous background but I believe people should be treated equally. The idea that everyone of one particular faith should be able to say 'Not coming in to work today - Holiday' bothers me. I don't believe in God, but I can find a lot of things that are more fun that going to work.

And really, if people can tell your religous faith from your everyday activities at work then you are probably distracting everyone else. Work should be work, not a time of worship. But that's just my opinion.

I also think it's B.S. that at many places smokers get 'smoke breaks' while non-smokers do not. That's not fair.

An Angry Boil		2005-06-05 04:55:17 AM

Honestly, what does evil or god have to do with a person's sexuality? That's like saying the tooth fairy made you gay (and far more probably give the fiscal proof I had as a child of the tooth fairy's existence). I am equating the act with the orientation. You think I'm wrong in doing so, but would you rather me think there's something wrong with a homosexual lifestyle? Believe me, you have much bigger fish to fry when it comes to people passing judgement on your lifestyle than me. You guys seem to be trying to project some sort of gay-bashing image on me, which I think is rather silly. I'll say it for a 3rd time, I don't care who you fark just as long as they're adults and are consenting. Seriously, do you care who I fark? Why should it be any different? I just wanted to increase my knowledge to better understand a (omg, I know this will come back to bite me in the ass) lifestyle that I'm unfamiliar with. Honestly, given the hate and ignorance that's run rampant in this thread, why is it so many people take umbrage and made so many posts about my choosing to view sexuality (and not just homosexuality) as a lifestyle? It's a personal opinion, not a condemnation of anyone. Regardless of all of the falacious arguments being made (Yes, you can defy the laws of gravity, hence space exploration. Yes, you having sex with a tree would make you an herbisexual (???) during said copulation.).

Comsique, you're argument of liking boobies is inapplicable because you're female. We're not talking about boobies and weiners, we're talking about same/opposite sex attraction. I apologize for that attempt at levity and will henceforth make sure that it is very clear without any oblique attempts at humor. So, to clarify that point for you: I'm attracted to physical features of the opposite sex at this time, this make me heterosexual at this time. Pantropik, you, etc are attracted to members of the same sex at this time, that makes you homosexual at this time. I didn't realize that such a simple point would have to be illustrated. Quit trying to find hostility and confrontation where there is only an honest desire to further understand so as to function better within a social group. I'm not a stupid person, I've got gay friends and I've heard the whole "I have no choice" speech before. Everyone has a choice as to who they have sex with unless you're raped. The difference being, when I've explained how I'm defining "lifestyle" to them, they aren't so defensive that they can't accept someone might have a different definition for something that by it's very nature (hence bisexuality) is ambigous.

I'll bow out now and leave you guys to play with the closet cases and fag bashers. That seems to be the direction of choice and I'd rather be educated than watch the (sometimes entertaining) "Watch the intelligent homosexuals turn the table on the ignorant inbreds and mentally abuse them".

BrotherLove		2005-06-05 04:57:20 AM

2005-06-05 04:51:15 AM RobDude
Okay, Protected classification is baised on the seriousness of the discrimination.

How's that again? You're saying that if your big gay boss fired you for being straight, that that would be less serious to you than being fired if s/he discovered your grandmother was black (or white, depending)?

RobDude		2005-06-05 04:58:26 AM

pantropik
I know you are right about the housing rights thing - I just moved into a new appartment myself. Here's the thing though I *do not* want to live next to someone with kids.

It was one of the first things I'd ask at the different apparement places I went to. I'm working 9-5 M-F and I want to live next to people doing the same. I know how kids are, they are loud. It doesn't seem fair to me that the apartment places can't turn down people because they have kids when I'm sure a lot of people, like myself, don't want to live around them.

It's not *just* kids, really, anyone that's going to be making noise at 2am. but I realise when someone has a baby or young children, these things happen.

ACF		2005-06-05 05:00:17 AM

Here's the bottom line for me:

All you smokers can smoke all you want as long as I don't have to breathe it. Realize you're probably going to be looked at as a second-class citizens, people are going to be uncomfortable around you, and you're bringing a bunch of hardships on yourself that are all of your choosing. Remember that when our tax money is paying for your lung cancer research and Medicaid is paying for your drugs.

Oh wait, we were talking about homosexuals, not smokers. Well, you guys can do whatever you want.

RobDude		2005-06-05 05:00:49 AM

BrotherLove
How's that again? You're saying that if your big gay boss fired you for being straight, that that would be less serious to you than being fired if s/he discovered your grandmother was black (or white, depending)?

I said:Okay, Protected classification is baised on the seriousness of the discrimination.

After eraser8 said: Maybe you need to think through your argument a little more carefully. Protected classification is not based on the immutability of the characteristic but upon the seriousness of the discrimination.

I was just agreeing. I think he'd have to be the one to answer your Q.

Rutir		2005-06-05 05:03:39 AM

/obvious.

oh wait no, tons of gay guys get into a marriage try to get it to work and force themselves to be straight, but still fall out of the marriage because being gay is just learned. duh. yeah..

/sarcasm for the dumbasses out there.

RobDude		2005-06-05 05:09:01 AM

pantropik
Could you choose to have sex and romantic relationships with men? Could you be happy that way or would you be pretty damned miserable and miss the boobies? Why would you want to live that way, waking up next to some man every day when it's the female you desire? Failing that, would you just give up sex and relationships and other intimate human contact entirely? Wouldn't that be a miserable existence and a hell of a thing for someone to ask you to "choose"? Seems downright cruel to me to ask someone to either betray their fundamental nature or to deny themselves physical and emotional happiness for all time. But I try to be a nice guy, so maybe you'd enjoy expecting that of someone. I have no way of knowing.

I certainly wouldn't wish that on you or anyone else.

Personally, if I were attracted to men I'd go with it. Hell, if I could sit down and pick if I wanted to be attracted to men or women...I think, logically, I'd rather be gay. Men are way more likely to engage in meaningless sex (always a plus), Men are way more likely to have similar interests as me (sports, porn, computer games), and a lot of things would just work out better....I remeber trying to play soccer with my girlfriend. It was a joke - she was no good, she couldn't keep up.

But yeah - I don't think anyone should live like that, but nothing I said, even in my Boobies supported the idea that people shouldn't - but I do think it's important to realise just because we find evidence or even *proof* of a genetic link to something we still realise that as complex human beings we all have a choice in the actions we take.

This might sound bad, and again, I don't think anything is wrong with being gay - but, let's assume that it turns out gay people are attacted to teh same sex because of a certain gene. And then, it's found that pedophiles are attracted to children because of another gene. That attraction is beyond their control - but any actions they take because of it is there choice and something they are responsible for.

Now, when it comes to gays - it's all good - I have no problem. But if we say 'Oh it's a gene - no control' that line of logic could lead to problems, IMHO.

cargrrl82		2005-06-05 05:10:21 AM

ACF

I wouldn't associate someone that viewed a smoker as a second class citizen. Just as I don't associate with anyone who views the disabled as second class citizens or humans, and other various nefarious attitudes. How you think other people are looked at says a lot about how you look at people.

eraser8		2005-06-05 05:11:40 AM

RobDude writes: people can choose when to come out of the closet.

That has no bearing whatever on whether or not homosexuality is "at best" a disposition.

for a time they *choose* not to be gay.

No. For a time they chose not to engage in gay sex acts.

I'm using 'gay' to describe someone who engages in same-sex activities

That's a bad definition. The research and the relevant argument concerns sexual orientation and is not restricted to sexual acts.

It a choice

The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. You are making the terrible mistake of conflating the orientation with the commission of sexual acts.

If a muslim and a catholic are both going for the same teaching job at a catholic school

Parochial schools have a greater scope of discretion in that regard than other employers. Belief in the faith is a bona fide occupational qualification for instructors, so a religious test for employment is allowed. Do you also think that religious beliefs ought to play a role in the hiring of bank officers or policemen or public school teachers?

It's pretty hard to discrimiate based on something you can not possibly know.

The Jew looks like the Gentile; the Protestant looks like the Catholic; the Irishman looks like the Englishman. Nevertheless, employers may happen upon the religion or national origin of the applicant or employee -- either by accident or by deliberate investigation. But, the law protects the right of people to exercise their religious beliefs without coercion from employers. In any case, discrimination against members of religious or national groups is no less serious simply because such discrimination cannot be implemented on sight. Likewise, that homosexuality is not immediately visually apparent makes no difference to the seriousness of the discrimination.

I found it interesting that so many people flamed the guy when a more rational debate should have followed.

His arguments were completely irrational. It wasn't just the way he phrased them.

I see absolutly nothing wrong with being gay

That's something that I find irrelevant. I don't care whether people like gays or blacks or women or Muslims or Catholics or whites or men. I only care that they don't try to translate their personal prejudice into public policy.

An Angry Boil		2005-06-05 05:14:18 AM

BrotherLove
I made that post about "prison biatches" before I realized the absolute lack of any sense of humor deomnstrated by many of the people in this thread. If you've led such a sheltered life that you have never heard the phrase "prison biatch" before, maybe someone else would care enough about your wounded feelings to explain it to you, I don't.

I tried to understand and to educate myself, and the gay community on this thread showed me that the only thing applicable is their own narrow view and my thoughts have no value on this subject (being a hetero autmatically negates my view on the subject and makes me the enemy, it appears), so I'm not going to try to explain, educate, or learn anymore. I'll discuss any further questions I have with my friends who aren't looking for an excuse to get offended.

BearToy
Moran? real classy.. Let's resort to calling names now right?

BeastlyBitt		2005-06-05 05:15:38 AM

"Being gay is like taking a shiat. Maybe it's natural, but I don't want to hear about it, nor see your disgusting pictures proving how natural it is."-dinovomit

Hah, funniest thing I've heard all day..

etoof		2005-06-05 05:15:42 AM

Ok, looks like the fundies are waking up. This thread was fun while it lasted. Goodnight all.

BrotherLove		2005-06-05 05:17:59 AM

2005-06-05 04:54:32 AM RobDude

Maybe this is because I don't have any sort of religous background but I believe people should be treated equally. The idea that everyone of one particular faith should be able to say 'Not coming in to work today - Holiday' bothers me. I don't believe in God, but I can find a lot of things that are more fun that going to work.

And really, if people can tell your religous faith from your everyday activities at work then you are probably distracting everyone else. Work should be work, not a time of worship. But that's just my opinion.

In the case of religion, your boss would have to prove that your ACTIONS were a work distraction before s/he could legally fire you. S/He could NOT legally fire you if s/he discovered that you pray to a brazen idol on your free time. Homosexuals and bisexuals do not have that protection for their "choice" in most jurisdictions in the U.S.

BearToy		2005-06-05 05:21:58 AM

RadiomanATL: So fark, fap, lick, whatever to yer hearts content in yer own home.

That sounds awfully open minded. Open minded means "Liberal".
I think that means that you hate freedom, America, Jebus, and puppies. You might even now officially be a "tururist".

TheAgeOfEgos		2005-06-05 05:29:10 AM

Concerning the study...it's fruit flies. I honestly hope the technology allows for such studying of the human gene to the same degree. Although the thought is both fascinating and somewhat disconcerting (Nailing down genes that may influence behavior to that degree).

Concerning homosexuals...honestly, I'm straight and I don't care if homosexuals want to bump uglies while watching Wizard of Oz. As long as they don't make me watch or participate, hey whatever floats your boat.

That said, I somewhat chuckle at homosexuals. Nature pretty much states you shouldn't continue to exist and God wants to burn you in hell....that's indeed a tough road to walk. I guess at least bisexuals can fall back on nature?

Anyways, make all marriages civil unions homosexual or not. Let the Church decide if they allow homosexuals marry within. Everyone has equal rights, church still has freedom to decide...Mom, apple pie and all that good jazz.

eraser8		2005-06-05 05:29:22 AM

An Angry Boil, don't know who your post was addressed to -- but, I'll comment anyway.

I am equating the act with the orientation.

That's just silly. Are you gay? Are you straight? By your reasoning, you shouldn't be able to answer either question until the moment you actually engage in sexual activity. Similarly, you mentioned earlier that you work with gay guys. But, how do you know? If they weren't actually having gay sex while you were discussing the topic, then they weren't gay, according to your formulation.

Sexual orientation regards sexual attraction and not necessarily sexual acts. It is the orientation that evidence strongly suggests is genetically determined.

would you rather me think there's something wrong with a homosexual lifestyle?

I don't think it makes a difference what you think about any lifestyle -- so long as you don't try to use government to force others to live your beliefs.

That seems to be the direction of choice and I'd rather be educated than watch the (sometimes entertaining) "Watch the intelligent homosexuals turn the table on the ignorant inbreds and mentally abuse them".

What the hell is the matter with anti-gay bigots? Newsflash: many of us defending gays against arguments in favor of discrimination ARE NOT GAY. I do not take my position becuase I'm gay (especially considering I'm not gay). I take my position because discrimination against gays is repugnant.

pantropik		2005-06-05 05:34:50 AM

This might sound bad, and again, I don't think anything is wrong with being gay - but, let's assume that it turns out gay people are attacted to teh same sex because of a certain gene. And then, it's found that pedophiles are attracted to children because of another gene. That attraction is beyond their control - but any actions they take because of it is there choice and something they are responsible for.

If I go in the next room and have sex with the guy I've been in a relationship with for nearly four years, who is harmed? We're just two informed, consenting, adultpeople doing whatever we do in the privacy of our own home.

How is that in any way like what a pedophile does, no matter why he does it?

Some people seem compelled to have sex with animals, but, like children, animals lack the ability to relate to adult humans on an equal level and should be protected from those who would violate them.

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see how the end result of homosexuality, pedophilia, and beastiality are alike at all, even if they are at some point shown to have a common physiological source (along with heterosexuality and who knows what other psychosexual weirdnesses, of course).

BrotherLove		2005-06-05 05:37:32 AM

2005-06-05 05:14:18 AM An Angry Boil
I made that post about "prison biatches" before I realized the absolute lack of any sense of humor deomnstrated by many of the people in this thread. If you've led such a sheltered life that you have never heard the phrase "prison biatch" before, maybe someone else would care enough about your wounded feelings to explain it to you, I don't.

I tried to understand and to educate myself, and the gay community on this thread showed me that the only thing applicable is their own narrow view and my thoughts have no value on this subject (being a hetero autmatically negates my view on the subject and makes me the enemy, it appears), so I'm not going to try to explain, educate, or learn anymore. I'll discuss any further questions I have with my friends who aren't looking for an excuse to get offended.

You're running away, and I'm the sensitive one with easily-wounded feelings? Whatever, dude.

And you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it:
Could you choose to suck your "prison biatch's" cock -- and ENJOY IT?

pantropik		2005-06-05 05:41:00 AM

Could you choose to suck your "prison biatch's" cock -- and ENJOY IT?

I honestly don't understand all the mansex that goes on in prison. As a gay guy, let me tell ya, I would have to be locked up with women for a loooooooooooooong time before they started to look good to me. At any rate, I don't think I'd be able to do the deed when it came right down to it. Maybe with some viagra or something ... but I'm pretty sure I'd thoroughly hate it and that masturbation would be infinitely better.

RobTheNerd		2005-06-05 05:41:12 AM

So there are still people trying to sound intelligent while also saying it's not OK for people to be gay/people who are gay to get married?

Wow.

Seriously, there are only two types of people who would argue against gay rights. People who are secretly -very- gay themselves...and people who are straight but have never been and never will be laid.

Gays will not hurt America. MTV, Republicans, Bush, and fundamentalist religious zealots will.

-><-

Dansker		2005-06-05 05:42:27 AM

Pam EL [TotalFark]
Cool about the research, but I'd have more faith in results in something a little farther up the food chain.

Maybe someone has already posted this, but I cant be bothered to RT entire FT, so here it is:

"But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom."

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate, National Geographic News, july 23, 2004 (pops)

whoflungpoop		2005-06-05 05:42:58 AM

Let the Church decide if they allow homosexuals marry within. Everyone has equal rights, church still has freedom to decide...

I completely agree. However, I don't think any church that discriminates or slanders a group of people for what they do as consensual adults should recieve tax-exempt status or any degree of governmental funding, no matter how indirectly.

That kind of publicly supported bigotry and intolerance is very
~~un-American~~
unbecoming of the fake image of America as a bastion of freedom and liberty that we're supposed to pretend it is.

Displayed 50 of 694 comments