Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ask a gay guy huh?

Does it irk you when you get poop on your prick?

 

[BDBoop]

Ahh, ok. By the way my wife's blood quantum is 25% Sioux and 50% Chippewa. She is from your neck of the woods and a tribal member. She says from the way you post that she thinks you are a wanna-be Cherokee.

Good for her. Is she also part gypsy?

I'm just telling you what she thinks. Now if you two are both tribal members, from the same tribe, that would be important. You know I have NEVER met a Native American who was embarrassed to talk about their tribal membership ~shrug~ and I know hundreds of those fine folks. And they all laugh at fags, everyone of them think that fags are lower then animals.

And we're supposed to believe you just now stopped talking out your ass? Bitch, please.

 

[Sunni Man]

Why talk to a fag when we have you?

I am a fag. And a very happy faggot I am.

How long have you been HIV+ ??

 

[Missourian]

Nothing good comes of these kind of threads Max.

I'm happy that you are happy...so just be happy.

 

[Bigfoot]

Ask a gay guy huh?

Does it irk you when you get poop on your prick?

LOL, your killing me!

 

[Bigfoot]

How about that new sitcom "Leave it, it's Beaver".

 

[MaxCha]

Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.

There are many things that are perfectly nature that aren't right. Violence, hate, lying, apathy, are all very natural emotions/behaviors, yet despite being natural, we would all agree that they are wrong.

Okay. Well I was trying to think of an objective way to categorize "wrong" and didn't try too hard as I thought people would pretty much get the idea.

And yes, violence, murder and some behaviors we humans have categorized as wrong (due to their harmful effects on other humans) are natural in that they exist in the animal world.

What's important there is the harm each of these things cause. Murder = death of another person. Violence = bodily harm to another person, possible physical injuries, unstable and unsafe in the community. These things are actions which people can resist.

Homosexuality, is not harmful (the point of this thread was to have someone show some evidence that it is, and that has not happened yet, and as is stated by the APA ) and is also not an action, but a trait and an identity. A gay person is gay whether or not they have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Can you just tell if someone is gay because you caught them having sex with someone of the same sex? I would bet you have been able to tell an individual is gay based on their personality and traits - even if you don't even know them. Even if they were dressed the same as you. Why is this? Because it is an aspect of who they are, not an action like murdering someone.

And so nature proves it is natural and exists in nature - so any argument that it is a choice is shown incorrect (along with a slew of other evidence which I will present if you wish). And since it is harmless, why not allow someone to live the way they were made by god if it is natural, unchangeable and harmless?

 

[Missourian]

Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.

If you oppose the gay agenda, fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If everyone was gay would it be considered an extinction level event?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.

If you oppose the gay agenda, fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.

People of all walks of life are the brunt of jokes daily. If one can not stand the heat, one should not bring it up.

Personally I couldn't care less what they do but the material is too easy to pass up. Plus I find the lifestyle disgusting.

 

[MaxCha]

Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.

If you oppose the gay agenda, fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.

I expected it would end up like this, but I was really interested to see if any of them had any evidence to support what they believe.

And no need to defend me, I honestly feel great seeing them get caught making poop/aids/gerbil/fag jokes because that's all they have.

When men likely twice my age spend more of their time than me looking at threads about gay people and trying with all their might to insult gay people, I realize how pathetic their lives must really be.

 

[MaxCha]

"Hey bro, guess what, I just spent more than an hour ripping on fags in a online forum!"

"Whoa bro, that's fucking awesome! You've got such an awesome life!"

 

[Missourian]

Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.

If you oppose the gay agenda, fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.

People of all walks of life are the brunt of jokes daily. If one can not stand the heat, one should not bring it up.

Personally I couldn't care less what they do but the material is too easy to pass up. Plus I find the lifestyle disgusting.

"Do unto others...", Brother.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.

If you oppose the gay agenda, fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.

People of all walks of life are the brunt of jokes daily. If one can not stand the heat, one should not bring it up.

Personally I couldn't care less what they do but the material is too easy to pass up. Plus I find the lifestyle disgusting.

"Do unto others...", Brother.

I catch shit daily on here from the loons. Probably why I dish it so much now. Not to mention I'm sick of hearing about all these stupid issues that don't belong in our political discourse. Don't you find it odd that liberals bitch regularly about the GOP "invading their bedrooms" yet they shove the shit in our face constantly. We probably get 5 or 6 gay threads every week. I'm worried about our countries future not someone's sex habbits.

This thread is screaming "approve of me and what I do"

Fuck that

 

[Lakhota]

People of all walks of life are the brunt of jokes daily. If one can not stand the heat, one should not bring it up.

Personally I couldn't care less what they do but the material is too easy to pass up. Plus I find the lifestyle disgusting.

"Do unto others...", Brother.

I catch shit daily on here from the loons. Probably why I dish it so much now. Not to mention I'm sick of hearing about all these stupid issues that don't belong in our political discourse. Don't you find it odd that liberals bitch regularly about the GOP "invading their bedrooms" yet they shove the shit in our face constantly. We probably get 5 or 6 gay threads every week. I'm worried about our countries future not someone's sex habbits.

This thread is screaming "approve of me and what I do"

Fuck that

Yeah, but it all falls under POLITICS.

 

[Bigfoot]

There is some funny stuff in here, this place is usually good for some laughs

 

[flacaltenn]

Thanx for the opportunity.. I'll bite...

1) Why is it that gay groups spend so much time advocating for "gay education" initiatives for children too young to watch Harry Potter?

2) Why is it that gay organizations fixate on the "marriage" term instead of defining their OWN brand of coupling? Can we agree to identify a husband and a wife in that relationship? I would work my ass off for LEGAL PARITY -- but I'm not gonna INSIST that it be called marraige. That seems spiteful to me.

3) Are you aware of the potential damage that could be done to Women's issues if "MARRAIGE" is redefined? For instance, if courts start discounting preference for the wife in custody. Or in spousal abuse cases where the wife is assumed to be the less aggressive, passive partner..

Ok, I researched my response to your first question and by the time I come back here to post (15mins), there are 4 new pages of comments i haven't read, so I'll try be brief. The longer answer I wrote out is below, but I'll address the next two questions quickly.

2) Why is it that gay organizations fixate on the "marriage" term instead of defining their OWN brand of coupling? Can we agree to identify a husband and a wife in that relationship? I would work my ass off for LEGAL PARITY -- but I'm not gonna INSIST that it be called marraige. That seems spiteful to me.

I think the desire for using the term marriage comes from the desire to be completely equal. I understand that gay people can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else, but equal is a decent term because gay people (according to the APA) are not capable of being genuinely intimately attracted to someone of the opposite sex, so they can only fall in love and find a partner in someone of the same sex. I wouldn't mind if people said they were okay with equal protection under the law, but wished to have gay unions called something other than marriage. The problem is a) the word marriage is really the only commonly used word in the english language to refer to such a partnership b) few people against gay "unions" speak as rationally, and instead antagonize gay people, making any reasonable common ground difficult to reach and c) many gay people would argue that not being allowed to use the word "marriage" means gay relationships are considered less important than straight ones. I don't think its spiteful, but maybe not the best method of attaining rights when one can walk as opposed to run.
But I understand your point.

{flacaltenn}

With all the literary and artistic talent in the GBLT community -- I'm SURE they could creatively come up with a term. I've suggested "Pairrage". Simple, descriptive and something to be proud about... Let's admit that marraige is "commonly used" but has a specific defination that shouldn't be messed with. I understand your desire to acheive equality under the law -- but not the insistence to mutate an ancient definition. With Pairrage, you'd have support of over 70% of the straight population.


3) Are you aware of the potential damage that could be done to Women's issues if "MARRAIGE" is redefined? For instance, if courts start discounting preference for the wife in custody. Or in spousal abuse cases where the wife is assumed to be the less aggressive, passive partner..

My dad said the same thing to me when he and I discussed gay marriage. Honestly, I cannot see the potential damage done to women. If courts were to discount the notion that women are less aggressive (and assuming they did this because gay people were getting married and divorced) and discount preference for women, wouldn't it then be replaced by a preference for who is deemed the less aggressive/better partner through their actions as opposed to assumption based on sex? I see that as a good thing, actually.

{flacaltenn}

If the courts start ruling on custody in gay marraiges, they will insist on a more gender neutral check-off list. This would (as you say) "be a good thing" for men, but NOT for women. Gender neutrality in all aspects of the law, however noble would be a huge shock to centuries of special legal consideration for women under the law. Personally I can't wait til the NOW organization gets a load of the blowback.

1) Why is it that gay groups spend so much time advocating for "gay education" initiatives for children too young to watch Harry Potter?

If you could direct me to some links that show a group advocating for an LGBT education in such children, I could more specifically respond and understand your concerns. I did a search myself though and was linked to this - http://fota.cdnetworks.net/truetolerance/curricula.pdf - which is a group condeming the actions of a “gay group” in promoting a day of silence for opressed people (clearly the groups main focus is acceptance of homosexuality) as well as materials to normalize and “stop discrimination” of LGBT people. From the stuff I’ve seen, this is certainly a more extreme gay group in terms of its desire for schools to have a “transgender day of remembrance” - (and it can be assumed that this is one of the more “extreme” groups out there as they are the target and focus of an article condeming such practices). I, personally, would not support, especially in the current political climate, having a transgender remembrance day, and I would bet money the majority of gay people feel similarly. It’s an extreme group, but I know its actions will be reflected on all of us so I’ll try answer for them.

Let us assume that being gay is natural (congruent with the statements of the American Psychological Association), and that it will always exist in a certain proportion of people (and hence, students). I understand and agree that homosexuality should be something students should be at least made aware of at some point in their education (should be included whenever the topic of human sexuality comes up, usually in middle school I think, as it is an aspect of human sexuality that will likely effect between 4 and 10 percent of the students).

All the organizations wishing to insert “gay education” into schools all (all the ones I’ve seen) have the same goal of making students aware of homosexuality, and teaching them that it is not wrong to be gay (congruent with the APA and all other major psychological associations in the US). I believe it is fear mongering to think any of these groups have the goal of “recruiting” students and turning them gay (people cannot become gay, they are born gay, as says the APA).

So I see no harm in educating students about the truth of human sexuality, including the fact that a minority of people (4 to 10%) are born gay. The focus of sex education will still be sexual reproduction, and most students will be straight.

No, “ass sex” should not be discussed in sex ed anymore than it already is, just the same as oral sex. Sex ed is about education and the science of reproduction, not how to get off. It never has been, and that won’t change.

Gay people, by definition, occur in equal proportions throughout every race/background/social status, so therefore gay people are all different and have differing views. Some groups may wish to push things like transgender day, but their actions have no reflection on gay people as a whole.

If there was a gay group wishing to teach children about sex earlier than they already are, wishes to emphasize homosexuality more than heterosexuality or has anything other than the goal of education and acceptance, I’d disagree with it.

{flacaltenn}

Students as young as 7 or 8 are being exposed to sexual topics at the behest of local school boards who believe that in fairness, gay issues ought to be part of the curriculum at those young ages. Dozens of GBLT orgs pushing lesson plans (quite successfully) to fill the "need". See for instance -- K-12 Curricula and Lesson Plans | GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

Much of the desire to start a student dialogue about gay issues disregards the basic fact that SEX needs to be discussed at inappropriately young ages. I'm surprised you're not aware that this "in your face" activism is a HUGE source of resentment and generates dangerous blowback again for the LGBT folks. My guess is that this issue alone alienates A LOT of potential supporters since they see this large effort to alter curriculum as "recruiting" kids at impressionable ages.



_____

If you have any links you want to show me, let me know and I'd like to see them so I can answer any concern you have more specifically.

Hope this is what you had in mind for the thread. Appreciate the dialogue. You really do need to see what the activists in your community are doing in your name and see if you agree with the tactics and demands. Nothing worse than getting represented by folks you don't trust or who don't represent your views.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

"Do unto others...", Brother.

I catch shit daily on here from the loons. Probably why I dish it so much now. Not to mention I'm sick of hearing about all these stupid issues that don't belong in our political discourse. Don't you find it odd that liberals bitch regularly about the GOP "invading their bedrooms" yet they shove the shit in our face constantly. We probably get 5 or 6 gay threads every week. I'm worried about our countries future not someone's sex habbits.

This thread is screaming "approve of me and what I do"

Fuck that

Yeah, but it all falls under POLITICS.

Only because liberals keep shoving it in.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.

There are many things that are perfectly nature that aren't right. Violence, hate, lying, apathy, are all very natural emotions/behaviors, yet despite being natural, we would all agree that they are wrong.

Okay. Well I was trying to think of an objective way to categorize "wrong" and didn't try too hard as I thought people would pretty much get the idea.

And yes, violence, murder and some behaviors we humans have categorized as wrong (due to their harmful effects on other humans) are natural in that they exist in the animal world.

What's important there is the harm each of these things cause. Murder = death of another person. Violence = bodily harm to another person, possible physical injuries, unstable and unsafe in the community. These things are actions which people can resist.

Homosexuality, is not harmful (the point of this thread was to have someone show some evidence that it is, and that has not happened yet, and as is stated by the APA ) and is also not an action, but a trait and an identity. A gay person is gay whether or not they have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Can you just tell if someone is gay because you caught them having sex with someone of the same sex? I would bet you have been able to tell an individual is gay based on their personality and traits - even if you don't even know them. Even if they were dressed the same as you. Why is this? Because it is an aspect of who they are, not an action like murdering someone.

And so nature proves it is natural and exists in nature - so any argument that it is a choice is shown incorrect (along with a slew of other evidence which I will present if you wish). And since it is harmless, why not allow someone to live the way they were made by god if it is natural, unchangeable and harmless?

Harmless? I wouldn't claim that. It harms those involved and generations who will never be born because of such activity. And yes, having sex with a member of the opposite sex, undermines the argument that they have no control over what they do.

Let's for the sake of argument that it is natural. Christianity specifically teaches that human nature can be changed through the Atonement of Christ. We can be born again and through the grace of God, our sinful nature can be overcome and we can be reborn.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.

There are many things that are perfectly nature that aren't right. Violence, hate, lying, apathy, are all very natural emotions/behaviors, yet despite being natural, we would all agree that they are wrong.

Okay. Well I was trying to think of an objective way to categorize "wrong" and didn't try too hard as I thought people would pretty much get the idea.

And yes, violence, murder and some behaviors we humans have categorized as wrong (due to their harmful effects on other humans) are natural in that they exist in the animal world.

What's important there is the harm each of these things cause. Murder = death of another person. Violence = bodily harm to another person, possible physical injuries, unstable and unsafe in the community. These things are actions which people can resist.

Homosexuality, is not harmful (the point of this thread was to have someone show some evidence that it is, and that has not happened yet, and as is stated by the APA ) and is also not an action, but a trait and an identity. A gay person is gay whether or not they have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Can you just tell if someone is gay because you caught them having sex with someone of the same sex? I would bet you have been able to tell an individual is gay based on their personality and traits - even if you don't even know them. Even if they were dressed the same as you. Why is this? Because it is an aspect of who they are, not an action like murdering someone.

And so nature proves it is natural and exists in nature - so any argument that it is a choice is shown incorrect (along with a slew of other evidence which I will present if you wish). And since it is harmless, why not allow someone to live the way they were made by god if it is natural, unchangeable and harmless?

With Thousands of board posts under my belt, I don't have but a handful on this topic, but I question the whole "choice vs DNA" fight. I'm not schooled on this as much as environmental, scientific issues. So from a scientific point of view, I think there's TWO different facets of being "gay". One is the inate (probably DNA driven) characteristics of mannerism, temperment, expression, predilection for excellence at certain activities like "interior decorating" and a general EASINESS with same sex relationships. .... That one is definately NOT choice. But there is also desire and the sexual angle. This to me is more likely to be choice. Why? Because I've known a few BI-sexuals (one intimately) and that IS a choice. A clear choice. And on the desire and sexual angle there are SHADES and DEGREES of "being gay" as witnessed by those who "tried it and quit it" or the loyal hetereo wife or husband who would LOVE an occasional mixed threesome.. I think BOTH choice and biological determinism is at work...