Opinion's on sexuality

[Imp_Emissary]

It really doesn't bother me in the slightest if someone is homosexual, bisexual, or straight. I notice a lot of people say they don't have problems with gay people unless they hit on them. If I ever got hit on by a gay guy I would feel flattered. Hell, I wouldn't mind being bisexual myself as it doubles your odds of finding a suitable mate.

No, it really doesn't

Also... oh look, this thread again XD Not sure why I always click on this thread when I have seen it here like, a billion times, and the results are always the same. Hundreds of posts saying "I don't mind at all" or" as long as it doesn't affect me" or some equivalent, about fifty posts saying that they are actually for it, a few obvious trolls who say they are against it just to go against the tide, and a smattering of intellectual opinion pieces that still don't manage to say anything new. No offense to the OP, but this has been done and redone on the escapist many many times before.

Well, just cause it was done before doesn't mean we can't do it again. It's not like everything to say about the topic was said, or that everyone on the Escapist got to talk about it. This is the first "do you care about sexuality" topic I commented on. Not that there weren't a few similar topics before this that I commented on.

 

[Artina89]

What goes on in your personal life is no business of mine, and as long as you are comfortable and happy with your own sexuality, then that's all that matters.

CAPTCHA: the rtiessi. Whats a rtiessi? is it a dessert of some kind?

 

[Alon Shechter]

I like gay people.
I like bisexual people.
BUT NO! NO!
DAMN YOU, STRAIGHT PEOPLE! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

 

[SadakoMoose]

Do it with a lot of people in a lot of different ways...
But always safely...

 

[Nieroshai]

To make claims like this, you assume that atheists are naturally more moral and innocent people. More blood has been shed in the name of land and progress and "societal perfection" than all the world's religions have ever slain. Even most of the Crusades were actually battles over land that had a religious flavor to encourage the troops.

Actually, precisely, Most of the hate spewers are doing exactly the same thing. sorry if my point was unclear. They are only using religion to go "Look God says it's wrong, you can't disagree with that!" regardless of their personal beliefs on the existence or not of God.

Any time you have to justify an action with an appeal to authority it's clearly a big pile of balls.

Ultimately, the point is that whether there is a god or not, anyone is willing to use absolutely anything from God to love to national/racial pride to justify their evil, and those people themselves are evil. That does not make Christians, Buddhists, [insert race here]s, [insert country here]s, or [insert political alignment]s followers of a destructive force in general. It just means that just like everyone else on the planet, someone who agrees with them (or pretends to) can and will be a dick to get what they want whether they're obeying their creed or not.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

What goes on in your personal life is no business of mine, and as long as you are comfortable and happy with your own sexuality, then that's all that matters.

CAPTCHA: the rtiessi. Whats a rtiessi? is it a dessert of some kind?

Don't mention the Rtiessi! They'll come for you...

 

[MrGameluvr92]

My opinion is that everyone is free to choose what they want, as it is their opinion on the matter that... matters. Not ours.

Also, society isn't helping the topic by adding religion into the matter.

This.

 

[lightningmagurn]

I am a not gay, and don't like the idea of personally beening gay. That aside, people can do what they want. Just because I am not doesn't give me the right to impose on those who are. What I don'y like are gay pride parades. That's asinie. Great. Good for you, if I had a strait pride parade it would be "Hateful and homophobic." That's a double sandard, and if we really want equality then we need to noy make a big deal about somebody being openly gay, to congradulate or condem.

I'm trying to cut back on doing this, but... damn.

I'm confused. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I assume you disagree?

 

[JediMB]

You can't control who you're attracted to.

and

No harm, no foul.

 

[NightlyNews]

You can't control who you're attracted to.

and

No harm, no foul.

I'm special I can control who I'm attracted to. I know it's a burden of a superpower to have. I call myself paper-bagit-man.

My powers are as mysterious as they are powerful.

 

[Wintermoot]

as long as you are happy and don,t try to hump my dog or have bumsex with me.

 

[JediMB]

You can't control who you're attracted to.

and

No harm, no foul.

I'm special I can control who I'm attracted to. I know it's a burden of a superpower to have. I call myself paper-bagit-man.

My powers are as mysterious as they are powerful.

If there was a Like button, I would click it for you.

 

[BigTortoise]

as long as you are happy and don,t try to hump my dog or have bumsex with me.

You see that right there is what's offensive. If you didn't want me to fuck you I wouldn't. If I did I wouldn't be gay, I'd be a rapist. And when did your dog come into play? You're probably not my type anyways.

It's not like straight people go around screwing women because they want to and because they're straight. No, we have to work for sex just like anyone else.

Then again we're men so we don't let petty little "emotions" get in the way. *bro-five*

 

[Wintermoot]

as long as you are happy and don,t try to hump my dog or have bumsex with me.

You see that right there is what's offensive. If you didn't want me to fuck you I wouldn't. If I did I wouldn't be gay, I'd be a rapist. And when did your dog come into play? You're probably not my type anyways.

It's not like straight people go around screwing women because they want to and because they're straight. No, we have to work for sex just like anyone else.

Then again we're men so we don't let petty little "emotions" get in the way. *bro-five*

what I,m saying is that I don,t really care what people are into (rape,bestiality,erotic asphyxiation,etc.) as long as I,m not involved.
for all I care people hump a wall socket as long as I don,t have to clean up the mess.
PS
and I know that not all homosexuals are like Big Gay All.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

as long as you are happy and don,t try to hump my dog or have bumsex with me.

You see that right there is what's offensive. If you didn't want me to fuck you I wouldn't. If I did I wouldn't be gay, I'd be a rapist. And when did your dog come into play? You're probably not my type anyways.

It's not like straight people go around screwing women because they want to and because they're straight. No, we have to work for sex just like anyone else.

Then again we're men so we don't let petty little "emotions" get in the way. *bro-five*

what I,m saying is that I don,t really care what people are into (rape,bestiality,erotic asphyxiation,etc.) as long as I,m not involved.
for all I care people hump a wall socket as long as I don,t have to clean up the mess.
PS
and I know that not all homosexuals are like Big Gay All.

Of course not. Some of us are like Mr. Slave. ;p

I have to say, BigTortoise, that I am slightly disturbed by your choice to use the bro-five. It seems rather low-bro to me. Then again, it is slightly better than high-bro pretentiousness.

 

[SillyBear]

Man and woman are designed/evolved to go together. Homosexual couplings are unnatural.

The problem with this argument is your definition of "unnatural". To me, unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Homosexuality exists in nature quite clearly. How can something that exists be "unnatural"? Everything that exists in this world exists in nature. Nature encompasses all. From a flower to a sky scraper, they both exist in the natural world and are both products of the natural world and it's inhabitants.

And your "design" argument doesn't make much sense either. Human beings weren't "designed" to fly, but we do that every day. Human beings weren't "designed" to travel at 50mph, but we do that too. How is any of that wrong? You imply that being homosexual is wrong because humans weren't "designed" to be gay, but do you also feel the same about humans who travel in cars and airplanes? I doubt it.

This just proves everyone's point. There is not one logical opposition towards homosexuality. All arguments about homosexuality come from a fear or a hatred of difference. "They don't act like me, so I don't like them/don't approve of them".

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Man and woman are designed/evolved to go together. Homosexual couplings are unnatural.

The problem with this argument is your definition of "unnatural". To me, unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Homosexuality exists in nature quite clearly. How can something that exists be "unnatural"? Everything that exists in this world exists in nature. Nature encompasses all. From a flower to a sky scraper, they both exist in the natural world and are both products of the natural world and it's inhabitants.

And your "design" argument doesn't make much sense either. Human beings weren't "designed" to fly, but we do that every day. Human beings weren't "designed" to travel at 50mph, but we do that too. How is any of that wrong? You imply that being homosexual is wrong because humans weren't "designed" to be gay, but do you also feel the same about humans who travel in cars and airplanes? I doubt it.

This just proves everyone's point. There is not one logical opposition towards homosexuality. All arguments about homosexuality come from a fear or a hatred of difference. "They don't act like me, so I don't like them/don't approve of them".

I like your zeal, I really do, but you need to work on this counterargument a bit. Okay, a LOT.

He clearly didn't mean "unnatural" to mean "doesn't exist anywhere in nature," and I don't think anyone really uses it that way. If we were to take your meaning and your meaning only, then by definition everything in existence is "natural," and by extension, acceptable. I mean, that's what we're ultimately getting at here, isn't it? That's some dangerous ground to be treading; if we saw some woman fuck her brother and then eat their babies, we wouldn't exactly label that as "natural" behavior, nor would we try to justify it. ("but animals do it!")

And those design arguments? About flying and exceeding 50 mph and whatnot? No one can do either of those things. Not "naturally," anyway. Now if someone evolved a la the X-Men to grow wings or move at super-speed, then the analogy is apt. But trying to compare questions of "natural" functions with technological advancements/additions isn't exactly sound.

I don't know if all arguments against homosexuality are based solely on fear/hatred, but that criticism is understandable, if also a bit overstated. Again, I like your passion, but ya gotta work on the argumentation.

 

[SillyBear]

He clearly didn't mean "unnatural" to mean "doesn't exist anywhere in nature," and I don't think anyone really uses it that way. If we were to take your meaning and your meaning only, then by definition everything in existence is "natural," and by extension, acceptable.

That's my definition of natural, and I know many people who really use it that way.

I mean, that's what we're ultimately getting at here, isn't it? That's some dangerous ground to be treading; if we saw some woman fuck her brother and then eat their babies, we wouldn't exactly label that as "natural" behavior, nor would we try to justify it. ("but animals do it!")

You're one of these people who uses natural as a synonym for good and unnatural as a synonym for bad. You know, under your definition of "unnatural" it is unnatural for a human being to live any longer than fifty years. Is that bad? It is unnatural for us to be talking right now. Is that bad?

It is natural for infanticide (i.e: Step fathers killing their step children) to occur. Is that good? It is natural for human beings to hate difference, and to rip each other to shred over petty details. Is that good? It is natural for mothers to experience horrible pain and quite often die in child birth. Is that good? It is natural for parasitic worms to bury their way into innocent things and kill them from within. Is that good?

No. Natural and unnatural are entirely meaningless terms that are loaded with so much bullshit you could shoot a gun out of them. Both terms are irrelevant and shouldn't be used as arguments at all.

Even if homosexuality is unnatural (which it isn't. It occurs in every species of mammal on the planet Earth and has done for thousands and thousands of years) that doesn't make it bad.

And those design arguments? About flying and exceeding 50 mph and whatnot? No one can do either of those things. Not "naturally," anyway.

Uhhh... That's exactly my fucking point lol. No one can naturally fly or exceed 50mph. Therefore to do so is "unnatural". The very fact you travel at above 50mph most days is unnatural, and by his definition, bad.

This is what I'm talking about. Unnatural doesn't mean bad and natural doesn't mean good. You're doing the same thing he is. You're implying that unnatural=bad and natural=good. It doesn't!

Now if someone evolved a la the X-Men to grow wings or move at super-speed, then the analogy is apt. But trying to compare questions of "natural" functions with technological advancements/additions isn't exactly sound.

What are you talking about? I'm not comparing the actions of "natural" functions. He said homosexuality is unnatural, therefore I am comparing the actions of technology (unnatural according to him) with homosexuality (unnatural according to him).

He implies homosexuality is bad because it is "unnatural" (which it isn't). I gave him examples of unnatural things that he obviously does not think is bad. Therefore showing a complete disconnect in his logic.

I don't know if all arguments against homosexuality are based solely on fear/hatred

Name one that isn't. Even arguments against homosexuality that stem from religion, ultimately come from a fear of difference. When the bible was written, it was very normal for human beings to despise anyone different from them, so naturally the people who wrote the bible wrote about homosexuality negatively, because it was a negative thing in their society.

Again, I like your passion, but ya gotta work on the argumentation.

I think you should work on your ability to not come across as patronising and your ability to correctly interpret what someone is saying.

 

[Extragorey]

Man and woman are designed/evolved to go together. Homosexual couplings are unnatural.

The problem with this argument is your definition of "unnatural". To me, unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Homosexuality exists in nature quite clearly. How can something that exists be "unnatural"? Everything that exists in this world exists in nature. Nature encompasses all. From a flower to a sky scraper, they both exist in the natural world and are both products of the natural world and it's inhabitants.

And your "design" argument doesn't make much sense either. Human beings weren't "designed" to fly, but we do that every day. Human beings weren't "designed" to travel at 50mph, but we do that too. How is any of that wrong? You imply that being homosexual is wrong because humans weren't "designed" to be gay, but do you also feel the same about humans who travel in cars and airplanes? I doubt it.

This just proves everyone's point. There is not one logical opposition towards homosexuality. All arguments about homosexuality come from a fear or a hatred of difference. "They don't act like me, so I don't like them/don't approve of them".

We don't see homosexual couplings in nature, no. With animals, perhaps, but not humans. Humans are outside of the conventional definition of "nature". We're not talking "nature = natural" here, we're talking "nature = not influenced by man".

As for my "design" argument, I had none. I deliberately wrote "designed/evolved" to encompass the majority of views and beliefs. Because either way, the point remains consistent; it is not man's intended purpose. And before you go picking apart my word choice with "purpose", know that no words I could think of capture my exact meaning here. One of the obstacles to communication that language presents, I guess. But "purpose" is close enough.

 

[SillyBear]

Man and woman are designed/evolved to go together. Homosexual couplings are unnatural.

The problem with this argument is your definition of "unnatural". To me, unnatural means that which does not exist in nature. Homosexuality exists in nature quite clearly. How can something that exists be "unnatural"? Everything that exists in this world exists in nature. Nature encompasses all. From a flower to a sky scraper, they both exist in the natural world and are both products of the natural world and it's inhabitants.

And your "design" argument doesn't make much sense either. Human beings weren't "designed" to fly, but we do that every day. Human beings weren't "designed" to travel at 50mph, but we do that too. How is any of that wrong? You imply that being homosexual is wrong because humans weren't "designed" to be gay, but do you also feel the same about humans who travel in cars and airplanes? I doubt it.

This just proves everyone's point. There is not one logical opposition towards homosexuality. All arguments about homosexuality come from a fear or a hatred of difference. "They don't act like me, so I don't like them/don't approve of them".

We don't see homosexual couplings in nature, no. With animals, perhaps, but not humans. Humans are outside of the conventional definition of "nature". We're not talking "nature = natural" here, we're talking "nature = not influenced by man".

As for my "design" argument, I had none. I deliberately wrote "designed/evolved" to encompass the majority of views and beliefs. Because either way, the point remains consistent; it is not man's intended purpose. And before you go picking apart my word choice with "purpose", know that no words I could think of capture my exact meaning here. One of the obstacles to communication that language presents, I guess. But "purpose" is close enough.

Why does an intended purpose even matter? "Intended purpose" is bullshit. Human beings do not have an "intended purpose". We make our own purpose. Each of us have different priorities, goals and purposes. I guess you could argue that breeding and passing on our genetic code is our purpose, so therefore homosexuals aren't in line with our purpose.

But who the fuck cares? why does it matter? We don't need more children to be born and why is it your business if people have children or if people fulfill your arbitrary bullshit "purposes" that you just make up.

We can say the same about couples who choose not to have children or are incapable of having children. We can say they aren't "fulling our purpose" because they aren't breeding. Is that wrong too?