NationStates Jolt Archive

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?

Nothing, why?

Nothing, why?

Eh, exactly what I was going to say. I have a feeling, though, that we're supposed to be dissenting.

just wonderin

having been reading all the posts by losers with nothing better to do that pick on people with lives about gays been wrong

it justs annoys me

i wanna know why people think been gay is ok and why its wrong (im bi)

Go freedom.

just wonderin

having been reading all the posts by losers with nothing better to do that pick on people with lives about gays been wrong

it justs annoys me

i wanna know why people think been gay is ok and why its wrong (im bi)

gay is ok
straight is ok
It's those evil bisexuals we should worry about!!! :D

*shrug*

Because religious extremists say God said so.

gay is ok
straight is ok
It's those evil bisexuals we should worry about!!! :D

I know, jesus christ. So un-christian.

gay is ok
straight is ok
It's those evil bisexuals we should worry about!!! :D

In my school, it's the new trend to become "bisexual". It bothers me. Not because I have a problem with bisexuality, but because people are turning it into a fad. I have friends who are gay, bi, and straight, and like I said, there is nothing wrong. But waves and waves of people waking up one morning to "discover" that there actually bisexual drives me up the wall.

So I just try not to let it get to me. :p

Anyhow, nothing's wrong with being gay, to answer your question. No dissention in these ranks.

I still wonder where jesus says gays are going to burn in hell.

Anyway, I can't believe people actually take that book seriously. I think they shouldn't alow people under the age of 16 to read the bible. The only reason people actually believe that junk is because they cram it into you while your brain is still soft as mush.

Cant we all just get along? :mp5: :sniper:

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?

Not a damn thing. Love is the greatest thing anyone can experience. Anyone who thinks there is anything bad about love should have their head examined ... then be lobotomized.

There's nothing wrong with being gay or having homosexual desires. It's a natural drive in the majority of the population and can be expressed in very healthy and mature ways. The onus shouldn't be on queers to defend themselves but anti-queers to defend their positions. The problem with the black/white gay/straight definitions is that it overlooks a more realistic definition like 'queer' something more applicable to the works on Kinsey where people's sexuality moves along a sexuality gradient.

In my school, it's the new trend to become "bisexual". It bothers me. Not because I have a problem with bisexuality, but because people are turning it into a fad. I have friends who are gay, bi, and straight, and like I said, there is nothing wrong. But waves and waves of people waking up one morning to "discover" that there actually bisexual drives me up the wall.

So I just try not to let it get to me. :p

Anyhow, nothing's wrong with being gay, to answer your question. No dissention in these ranks.


Or maybe its because everyone in the world is in fact bisexual and just now people are realizing it.

Or maybe its because everyone in the world is in fact bisexual and just now people are realizing it.

Yes... it could be that, too. :) It's just a personal pet peeve, it may very well be unfounded.

In my school, it's the new trend to become "bisexual".

Feh ... people have been saying that since I was in high school ... 16 years ago!

In my school, it's the new trend to become "bisexual". It bothers me. Not because I have a problem with bisexuality, but because people are turning it into a fad. I have friends who are gay, bi, and straight, and like I said, there is nothing wrong. But waves and waves of people waking up one morning to "discover" that there actually bisexual drives me up the wall.

So I just try not to let it get to me. :p

Anyhow, nothing's wrong with being gay, to answer your question. No dissention in these ranks.

It does seem to be trendy. But social science is tending to point to the possibility that it's quite common. Popular new theory says most people fall somewhere in the spectrum between totally heterosexual and totally homosexual. It's not necessarily either or.
For example, lets say heterosexual is 1 and homosexual is 10. If someone is primarily hetrosexual but is not adverse to occasional dalliances with the same sex, they might be a 3.
BTW, I like your sig. I love Mark Twain.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with gays. Mr. Bush can't even come up any reason other then "god says so" If i remember correctly, "God" supposedly has no authority in the U.S Government. Bush whines and bitches about bin laden doing the same thing he his, baseing legislation on some ancient "holy" book. BS if you ask me. :fluffle:
hell, even animals are gay, and i dont think they just decide to be gay.

But then, people do like the shockvalue of being gay. Which explains why a lot of kids at school can act very gay.

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other?

Nothing, reduces the competetion

or two woman loving each other?

Unless they're loving eachother while loving me, everything seeing as it reduces the number of women out there that I might have a chance with.

:p

This thread is boring without the compulsory conservative nutjob. It's just a bunch of liberals giving each other props for being so smart.

Here's what's wrong with gays. It's unnatural. Hmph.

I was going to say that I had a problem with gays just to break up the monotony of the conversation, but Pythagosaurus did that for me. Thanks!!! There are nothing wrong with gays/lesbians. The most important thing is that the two people love and respect each other!

I still wonder where jesus says gays are going to burn in hell.

Anyway, I can't believe people actually take that book seriously. I think they shouldn't alow people under the age of 16 to read the bible. The only reason people actually believe that junk is because they cram it into you while your brain is still soft as mush.

Cant we all just get along? :mp5: :sniper:

Eh...ban the Bible for anyone under 16? If we're going to ban everything that could influence people to have opinions that we don't like, we might as well declare a police state now and move on. The problem is when people say that you can ONLY read the Bible. Parents should let their kids read the Bible, and stuff that contradicts the Bible too, and then let the kids draw their own conclusions.

I was going to say that I had a problem with gays just to break up the monotony of the conversation, but Pythagosaurus did that for me. Thanks!!! There are nothing wrong with gays/lesbians. The most important thing is that the two people love and respect each other!
Yes there is! Yes there is! Yes there is!

It's wrong! It's wrong! It's wrong!

I find nothing inherently "wrong" about homosexuality, I just dont want it spewed at me in public. Just as I don't want to see a guy making out with his girlfriend/female significant other of some sort, I don't want to see 2 guys making out (would say something about not wanting to see 2 ladies make out, but I won't kid myself, this IS one of the very few subjects I'm hypocritical in). So, here's my point, if it's kept behind doors, or to a minimum in public (holding hands, hugging, etc.) I'm fine with it, other than that, I'm VERY uncomfortable with the whole thing. (P.S. Consider yourself lucky, Amarenthe, in MY school, about half the guys are emo pansies and kiss other guys for the hell of it, but then turn right around and go "I'm 100% straight, not homosexual or bi at all." I mean, why don't they just admit to themselves the truth?)
Edit: To Krinovia: Thumbs up, that's a perfect example of REAL logic.

They'll never cherish the sweet sweet smell of a women in the morning. :p

Oh.. and maybe children of their own genes. I guess thats about it..

If Freddy Mecury can do it, so can anyone :D

(NOT GAY BTW)

If Freddy Mecury can do it, so can anyone :D

(NOT GAY BTW)

Yeah, and naming the band Queen and all... :cool: Mercury kicks ass.

Eh...ban the Bible for anyone under 16? If we're going to ban everything that could influence people to have opinions that we don't like, we might as well declare a police state now and move on. The problem is when people say that you can ONLY read the Bible. Parents should let their kids read the Bible, and stuff that contradicts the Bible too, and then let the kids draw their own conclusions.

Actually - I totally disagree.

Children shouldn't be allowed to read the bible, and anyone who reads a bible aloud to a child should be charged with some form of abuse.

If I wrote a book now, that promoted genocide, intolerence of other religions, the subjugation of women, slavery, and all the other multitude of hates... That featured main cast characters engaged in acts of incest and murder, and, what's more, tried to make THOSE characters the 'heroes' of the piece...

If I tried that, my book would certainly be rated as being unsuitable for children... and would possibly NEVER be published at all... and the Christian right would be at the vanguard of the movement to oppose my text.

Let them read it when they are adults. When they have sufficient experience to question the hypocisy they are fed, and sufficient maturity to cope with the adult themes.

This thread is boring without the compulsory conservative nutjob. It's just a bunch of liberals giving each other props for being so smart.

Here's what's wrong with gays. It's unnatural. Hmph.
I have a lot more experience than you at dealing with nutjobs. I can do a better/more realistic argument.

"I'm not a homophobe. Some of my best friends are gay. But it's not right. I've never had man ass, so it must not be right to want it. We should ban all sex, too, until I can get some. You can use that 'science' of yours to keep the race going 'til then, the folks who can't afford it don't deserve to reproduce anyway."

But then, people do like the shockvalue of being gay. Which explains why a lot of kids at school can act very gay.
Yes I'm sure people are just gay for the shock value, because I'm sure I wasn't scared of getting the shit kicked out of me in highschool.

I have a lot more experience than you at dealing with nutjobs. I can do a better/more realistic argument.

"I'm not a homophobe. Some of my best friends are gay. But it's not right. I've never had man ass, so it must not be right to want it. We should ban all sex, too, until I can get some. You can use that 'science' of yours to keep the race going 'til then, the folks who can't afford it don't deserve to reproduce anyway."
Nah, that was a bit over the top. Mine is more believable. My argument is more convincing, too.

They'll never cherish the sweet sweet smell of a women in the morning. :p


The lesbians probably will.


Oh.. and maybe children of their own genes. I guess thats about it..

I know several gay couples that have children. Just not the child of BOTH parents.

Yeah, and naming the band Queen and all... :cool: Mercury kicks ass.

Yes he does. :D :D

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?


The real question to me is how come there are so many threads about homosexuality on the nation states message board? I don't care if you are homosexual but man a lot of you must have some issues with it of some sort because you are always talking about it.

Actually - I totally disagree.

Children shouldn't be allowed to read the bible, and anyone who reads a bible aloud to a child should be charged with some form of abuse.

If I wrote a book now, that promoted genocide, intolerence of other religions, the subjugation of women, slavery, and all the other multitude of hates... That featured main cast characters engaged in acts of incest and murder, and, what's more, tried to make THOSE characters the 'heroes' of the piece...

If I tried that, my book would certainly be rated as being unsuitable for children... and would possibly NEVER be published at all... and the Christian right would be at the vanguard of the movement to oppose my text.

Let them read it when they are adults. When they have sufficient experience to question the hypocisy they are fed, and sufficient maturity to cope with the adult themes.

So you object to a religious text having people who are actually imperfect, like the rest of us? Or you prefer only the sanitized versions?

The real question to me is how come there are so many threads about homosexuality on the nation states message board? I don't care if you are homosexual but man a lot of you must have some issues with it of some sort because you are always talking about it.
I smell repression!

Nothing, well if it starts causing the birthrates of first-world countries to fall below self sustaining levels and you can prove it then that would be the only real problem.

So you object to a religious text having people who are actually imperfect, like the rest of us? Or you prefer only the sanitized versions?

I object to the fact that incest, rape, murder etc. is portrayed as a positive thing.

I object to the fact that such a text could not be succesfully written as a political document, or as a work of fiction, without a hell-storm of opposition.

I object to the fact that a text filled with genocide, hatred, intolerance and morally bankrupt rhetoric - is actively encouraged reading for small children.


I see no reason that makes the 'Bible' an acceptable text for children to read.

I see no value in it as a philosophical text, or guide to morality.

Nothing to do with people being 'flawed' or 'imperfect'.

I just oppose the celebration of sickness and depravity, and calling it 'god'.

No idea.

People say, it's not normal. So what's normal?

Basically, normal is when you have brown eyes and black hair. That is what the majority of the people are like. (In the eyes of some people, anything that is abnormal, like blonde hair, blue eyes, lefthandedness, homosexuality, etc. should be outlawed.)

In America it is normal to own a gun, so you can shoot someone.
Violence on TV is normal, while skin is not. Skin is also frowned upon by the Mullahs, who don't like to see God's image (man was made in God's image) and prefer to cover up all his "mistakes" (God doesn't make mistakes).

Interestingly enough, Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists share the same opinion in many ways. The headscarf is common to catholic nuns and muslim women, just like the burka.

And well, gays are different. People should be uniform or at least be in uniform, like the Mao Suit. In some states people who differ from the masses are outlawed. And regarding being in uniform - gays don't produce soldiers; although Alexander the Great was a great warrior.

Then people like to judge other people, because they don't trust God's Judgement.


To sum it up, accepting homosexuality has something to do with freedom and democracy (didn't the Greek invent democracy?); being against it rather with fundamentalism, totalitarism, dictatorship and interference of the state in private affairs.

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?

The same thing that's ALWAYS been wrong about it.... other people finding it impossible to mind their own business and let consenting adults live their own lives.

You guys should look up the silly laws still on the books.... for instance, if I recall correctly, in some states in the US it is still illegal to kiss your own spouse on a Sunday.

The real question to me is how come there are so many threads about homosexuality on the nation states message board? I don't care if you are homosexual but man a lot of you must have some issues with it of some sort because you are always talking about it.

Almost right. Part of the explanation is that the USA has a two party system and that many people here are from this country. Since both parties need to appeal to an enormous wide spectrum of voters, it is hard to find an issue that will apeal to most of them. Homosexuality and Christianity[1] is one of those - which means that that issue gets a disproportionate amount of media attention compared to much more important issues - like welfare etc.

Another reason is that homosexuals are currently viewed as 'subhuman' by many - similar to black people and women until very recently were (and are in some cultures). It is an other words oppurtunity to discuss equal rights, religious interpretations, relevance of religion in todays society, evolution vs creationism etc. etc. etc.

And to the person who said it wasn't natural.. define natural please.
Because it does occur in nature.. and besides that people do many things that are not natural. Wearing clothes. Using knife and fork. Going to church. All very unnatural acts ;) So what exactly did you mean (besides being a voice for the opposition in a rather heavily pro thread)

[1] For some reason I never understood the conservative rightwing almost has a 'monopoly' on Christianity. I find this odd because to me Jesus the carpenter appeared to be left wing and crucified by the conservatives of his time.

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?
1. God doesn't like it. Okay, well, MY God doesn't like it, and MY God is the only one that really counts.
2. Gay sex is icky. Okay, well, just male gay sex. But it's okay for two women to get it on, or for a straight couple to have any kind of wild kinky sex they like.
3. Think of the children. Would you want your 5 year old having gay sex????!!! Okay, well, I suppose you wouldn't want your 5 year old having sex at all, but the point is that gay people are trying to have sex with your 5 year old. Shut up, faggot, they are too.
4. Gays don't make babies, so obviously they are bad and wrong. Now, infertile straight people are just fine, and straight people who use contraception to have procreation-free sex are just fine, but any sex that doesn't involve a man orgasming into a woman's vagina is Wrong.
5. A gay man hit on me once, and my friends laughed at me. I hate fags.

So you object to a religious text having people who are actually imperfect, like the rest of us? Or you prefer only the sanitized versions?
dude, it is one thing to have a book that shows imperfect humans in all their natural beauty. it is quite another to write a book featuring a God who REWARDS AND ENCOURAGES SLAUGHTER OF OTHER PEOPLES. if i were to write a book that depicted genocide, rape, slavery, and torture, but i depicted these things in a non-favorable way, there could be a positive lesson to my story...but if i write a book where the supposed GOOD GUYS are doing all these things, and where God is rewarding the people committing these attrocities, kids might start getting a little confused by the moral of the story (even if i introduce a friendly hippy guy midway through who suggests people might want to stop with the mass murder and be nice to each other instead).

Yes there is! Yes there is! Yes there is!

It's wrong! It's wrong! It's wrong!


Can you possibly explain WHY its wrong?

Actually - I totally disagree.

Children shouldn't be allowed to read the bible, and anyone who reads a bible aloud to a child should be charged with some form of abuse.

If I wrote a book now, that promoted genocide, intolerence of other religions, the subjugation of women, slavery, and all the other multitude of hates... That featured main cast characters engaged in acts of incest and murder, and, what's more, tried to make THOSE characters the 'heroes' of the piece...

If I tried that, my book would certainly be rated as being unsuitable for children... and would possibly NEVER be published at all... and the Christian right would be at the vanguard of the movement to oppose my text.

Let them read it when they are adults. When they have sufficient experience to question the hypocisy they are fed, and sufficient maturity to cope with the adult themes.

Wow, this explains a lot about your arguments.

If I were gay I had to change my name to Dirk or Lewis.

Plus I'm not keen on the smell of vaseline.

Vaseline is baaaad for condoms; use an actual lubricant that's latex friendly.

Vaseline is baaaad for condoms; use an actual lubricant that's latex friendly.
I wouldn't know :p

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?

I suspect you would be better off asking someone who is gay. :)

It's just so grose! How can anyone think it's alright!!!???

Wow, this explains a lot about your arguments.

I don't think I've ever concealed the fact that I think religion should be an adult pursuit, or the fact that I think the Bible has some very disturbing content. (The same is obviously true of other Holy Books, but the Bible was the one raised here).

But, that doesn't mean I am part of a political movement to ban the bible, or anything - or that I interfere in the rights of individuals to worship.

I just find the Holy Book distasteful, and hate having to explain to a 6 year old girl why hypocrisy is okay if it has the right cover.

If I were gay I had to change my name to Dirk or Lewis.

Plus I'm not keen on the smell of vaseline.
FFS. Somebody get the reference! :headbang:

FFS. Somebody get the reference! :headbang:
Lyrics, but don't know who's. :(

Enlight us! Make us smarter!

Lyrics, but don't know who's. :(

Enlight us! Make us smarter!
Bloodhound Gang - I wish I was queer so I could get chicks :D

I think it's perfectly fine.

I would like someone to tell me just how gay people destroy the sanctity of marriage. :rolleyes:

Not a damn thing. Love is the greatest thing anyone can experience. Anyone who thinks there is anything bad about love should have their head examined ... then be lobotomized.
You can hold them down, I'll go get the spoon.

Ah lobotomy, a solution to all lifes problems.

Yes I'm sure people are just gay for the shock value, because I'm sure I wasn't scared of getting the shit kicked out of me in highschool.
No, seriously, that's what half the "bisexuals" in my school did. They didn't really like the same sex at all, they just wanted to piss people off and freak them out and such.

1. God doesn't like it. Okay, well, MY God doesn't like it, and MY God is the only one that really counts.
2. Gay sex is icky. Okay, well, just male gay sex. But it's okay for two women to get it on, or for a straight couple to have any kind of wild kinky sex they like.
3. Think of the children. Would you want your 5 year old having gay sex????!!! Okay, well, I suppose you wouldn't want your 5 year old having sex at all, but the point is that gay people are trying to have sex with your 5 year old. Shut up, faggot, they are too.
4. Gays don't make babies, so obviously they are bad and wrong. Now, infertile straight people are just fine, and straight people who use contraception to have procreation-free sex are just fine, but any sex that doesn't involve a man orgasming into a woman's vagina is Wrong.
5. A gay man hit on me once, and my friends laughed at me. I hate fags.
Ooh, I think Bottle's on to something. This is more convincing than all of those televangelists combined!

I don't think I've ever concealed the fact that I think religion should be an adult pursuit, or the fact that I think the Bible has some very disturbing content. (The same is obviously true of other Holy Books, but the Bible was the one raised here).

But, that doesn't mean I am part of a political movement to ban the bible, or anything - or that I interfere in the rights of individuals to worship.

I just find the Holy Book distasteful, and hate having to explain to a 6 year old girl why hypocrisy is okay if it has the right cover.

Why attempt to explain "why hypocrisy is ok"? Why not demonstrate the (very present) moral lessons in the stories, and point out that the faults are a demonstration that all human beings make mistakes?

I object to the fact that incest, rape, murder etc. is portrayed as a positive thing.

I object to the fact that such a text could not be succesfully written as a political document, or as a work of fiction, without a hell-storm of opposition.

I object to the fact that a text filled with genocide, hatred, intolerance and morally bankrupt rhetoric - is actively encouraged reading for small children.


I see no reason that makes the 'Bible' an acceptable text for children to read.

I see no value in it as a philosophical text, or guide to morality.

Nothing to do with people being 'flawed' or 'imperfect'.

I just oppose the celebration of sickness and depravity, and calling it 'god'.
Just as some people take things out of context to promote their twisted world views, so can you. If you read the whole thing, you can see none of the rubbish you mentioned is portrayed as a good thing. But hey, if one verse read by itself seems to kinda lead to maybe supporting genocide, more power to you, yes?

Ooh, I think Bottle's on to something. This is more convincing than all of those televangelists combined!

ok, this is funny!
seriously, about the whole everyone woke up and suddenly decided they were bisexual thing:
this happened at my high school too. like twelve years ago... goes to show how much this sort of thing happens. true by next summer the ones who were just in it for a fad will have forgotten, the cool thing is that the ones who are actually bisexual or gay will stay that way with very little fear or retribution from thier peers. of course! how can you be homophobic when you were bisexual last semester!?! anyway, it helps to create an open environment where people can truly express themselves, something that is hard to come by in high school where everyone has to have the right shoes or whatever. its a good thing in my opinion!

ok, i quoted the wrong quote, but you know what i'm talking about...

ok, this is funny!
seriously, about the whole everyone woke up and suddenly decided they were bisexual thing:
this happened at my high school too. like twelve years ago... goes to show how much this sort of thing happens.
Face it people, it is not a modern phenomenon, it has something to do with the fact that highschool and puberty fall in the same time of life. The awakening sexual needs are not neccessarily adamantly oriented into one direction at this point. So the teenagers do sort of tryouts. I messed around with people from both sexes at that time and found that i like both and prefer women. It stayed that for the last 18 or 19 years. It isnt always "just a phase", but it is at this time that preferences harden, even if sexual orientation is rooted in the childhood as well.

I don't have a problem with gay people. My cousin is gay, I still love him. I'll be honest, it makes me slightly uncomfortable when I'm around them. The only problem I have with gay people is when they choose to get married under God. That's the rediculous part. I don't mind if the USA creates a way for people to recieve the tax cuts and all that stuff without the unity under God, but uniting them under God is NOT right. Get married under 'the usa' or whatever you want. However, do not get married under the God who says homosexuality is a sin. That's rediculous.

Also, christians on these threads are terrible. The main point of christianity is love. I still love gay and bi-sexual people like I would anyone else. Sin is sin and we ALL do it.

I don't have a problem with gay people. My cousin is gay, I still love him. I'll be honest, it makes me slightly uncomfortable when I'm around them. The only problem I have with gay people is when they choose to get married under God. That's the rediculous part. I don't mind if the USA creates a way for people to recieve the tax cuts and all that stuff without the unity under God, but uniting them under God is NOT right. Get married under 'the usa' or whatever you want. However, do not get married under the God who says homosexuality is a sin. That's rediculous.

Also, christians on these threads are terrible. The main point of christianity is love. I still love gay and bi-sexual people like I would anyone else. Sin is sin and we ALL do it.
With so many different religions in the states, would you oppose two gays marrying under a God from another religion? What if some branch of the Catholic religion interpret marriage differently and thinks that it's OK for gays to marry?

What I'm driving at is why would YOUR God defines what is acceptable in the wholes United States? What about the other religions?

The Bible states that it is wrong. If a Bible believing church believes that it is not wrong, then they are corrupt. If you get married under a different religion I could care less. That's not my religion, that's not my God. Therefore, it's none of my business. I just see two gay people getting married under my God as two young high schoolers announcing that they're having sex before marriage and that they're in God's favor for it.

The truth is, in the christian Bible believing world, it's a sin. So are a lot of things that we do, but we don't do them 'by God.' That's when it crosses me.

As far as being acceptable in the whole united states: I was simply saying don't do it under my God, Jahova. The united states can say it's okay, whatever other religions can say it's okay. Great, get married and sanctify it by them.

I don't have a problem with gay people. My cousin is gay, I still love him. I'll be honest, it makes me slightly uncomfortable when I'm around them. The only problem I have with gay people is when they choose to get married under God. That's the rediculous part. I don't mind if the USA creates a way for people to recieve the tax cuts and all that stuff without the unity under God, but uniting them under God is NOT right. Get married under 'the usa' or whatever you want. However, do not get married under the God who says homosexuality is a sin. That's rediculous.

Also, christians on these threads are terrible. The main point of christianity is love. I still love gay and bi-sexual people like I would anyone else. Sin is sin and we ALL do it.

"What about forsaking all others for him/her alone" under the same God who has nothing against multiple wives and concubines?

Face it, fundamentalist bible reading is not the only conception of God in the world. Remember God is just as strict against a bride wearing a dress made out of more than one material (or anyone wearing anything made of more than one fabric), for example satin and lace. Is every wedding in the last hundred years now to be declared heretical because they didn't fit the dress code of Leviticus?

Unless they're loving eachother while loving me, everything seeing as it reduces the number of women out there that I might have a chance with.

:p

So true.....

The Bible states that it is wrong. If a Bible believing church believes that it is not wrong, then they are corrupt. If you get married under a different religion I could care less. That's not my religion, that's not my God. Therefore, it's none of my business. I just see two gay people getting married under my God as two young high schoolers announcing that they're having sex before marriage and that they're in God's favor for it.

The truth is, in the christian Bible believing world, it's a sin. So are a lot of things that we do, but we don't do them 'by God.' That's when it crosses me.

As far as being acceptable in the whole united states: I was simply saying don't do it under my God, Jahova. The united states can say it's okay, whatever other religions can say it's okay. Great, get married and sanctify it by them.

Actually Jerry Falwell's college forbids male students to wear their hair long enough to touch their ears in the name of Christian decency. The Bible forbids the cutting of men's hair at all.

A lot of the things that we pretend are against God are in fact against fairly irrational cultural phobias. It's like how Japanese Shintoists claim that it violates the way of the Kami to wear shoes inside the house. Even if such spirits exist, they don't give a rats ass about foot covering. What's going on is the same thing that's going on when your mother says "get your feet off the table!"

Same deal with homosexuality. God doesn't care about homosexuality, a bunch of old men from a long time ago thought it was icky and outlawed it and since they were also priests they said that God outlawed it.

When you leave bullshit lying around for a while it will eventually dry up and loose its stink.
It's still bullshit.

Bottle

2. Gay sex is icky. Okay, well, just male gay sex. But it's okay for two women to get it on, or for a straight couple to have any kind of wild kinky sex they like.

As a gay man, to me straight sex is icky, and I do know first hand because I tried to make sure!

3. Think of the children. Would you want your 5 year old having gay sex????!!! Okay, well, I suppose you wouldn't want your 5 year old having sex at all, but the point is that gay people are trying to have sex with your 5 year old. Shut up, faggot, they are too.

I take it you are refering to NAMBLA et al. they are nothing to do with the mainstream gay communi8ty and are villified and hated as much by us, IF NOT MORE, as they are by you 'normal' people.

4. Gays don't make babies, so obviously they are bad and wrong. Now, infertile straight people are just fine, and straight people who use contraception to have procreation-free sex are just fine, but any sex that doesn't involve a man orgasming into a woman's vagina is Wrong.

So you don't enage in fellatio then? Poor you!

5. A gay man hit on me once, and my friends laughed at me. I hate fags.

Insecure in your own masculinity? Sounds like it to me!

Helioterra

It's just so grose! How can anyone think it's alright!!!???

I bet there are foods you think are gross. Do you want them banned as well because of YOUR opinion. When you can give a decent reason as opposed to a fallacious opinionated one you are welcome to do so otherwise don't dismiss something just because YOU don't like it. The thought of straight sex sickens me as much as the thought of gay sex sickens most straight men. I don't go around telling people that 'eeew its gross we shouldn't let them do it", that of course would not only be foolish but hypocritical.

As they say:

Heterosexuality is NOT "Normal", it's just COMMON!

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?

About as much as is wrong with a man and a woman loving each other.

Bottle
As a gay man, to me straight sex is icky, and I do know first hand because I tried to make sure!
I take it you are refering to NAMBLA et al. they are nothing to do with the mainstream gay communi8ty and are villified and hated as much by us, IF NOT MORE, as they are by you 'normal' people.
So you don't enage in fellatio then? Poor you!
Insecure in your own masculinity? Sounds like it to me!
You *do* know that Bottle was being sarcastic?
She tends to do that a lot.
Also, I doubt she's insecure in her masculinity, as she's not a man.

You *do* know that Bottle was being sarcastic?
She tends to do that a lot.
Also, I doubt she's insecure in her masculinity, as she's not a man.

It says quite a lot about society actually, that when someone is being sarcastic and spouting crap like that, that people think they are sincere....

I almost though she was sincere too, I know plenty of people who think like that. Think worse actually, that gays should all be shot.... :mad:

I almost though she was sincere too
Bottle often does the sarcastic thing. There was a great thread where she starting going on about cooking babies. I forgot why, but it was really funny.

Yes I'm sure people are just gay for the shock value, because I'm sure I wasn't scared of getting the shit kicked out of me in highschool.

No, some people pretend to be gay because they like the look on the neo-con's faces. Not all, or even most, but still, some people are like that - they will do anything to shake the establishment.

1. God doesn't like it. Okay, well, MY God doesn't like it, and MY God is the only one that really counts.
2. Gay sex is icky. Okay, well, just male gay sex. But it's okay for two women to get it on, or for a straight couple to have any kind of wild kinky sex they like.
3. Think of the children. Would you want your 5 year old having gay sex????!!! Okay, well, I suppose you wouldn't want your 5 year old having sex at all, but the point is that gay people are trying to have sex with your 5 year old. Shut up, faggot, they are too.
4. Gays don't make babies, so obviously they are bad and wrong. Now, infertile straight people are just fine, and straight people who use contraception to have procreation-free sex are just fine, but any sex that doesn't involve a man orgasming into a woman's vagina is Wrong.
5. A gay man hit on me once, and my friends laughed at me. I hate fags.

1. Not really an argument. I could say, if I had a god, my god was the only one which matters and that would get us no where. Except maybe genocide.

2. No more than any other kind of sex. A penis still goes into a oriphis(sp?)

3. How will my five year old be having gay sex? I believe you are either think of rapists and applying that to a whole group of people are just a Christian/believer of another one of those religions.

4. Neither do single celled organisms. Or cells of the human body. In fact, alot of things just split into two organisms. Let's go and burn all those, shall we? Idiot.

5. Well, you must of looked gay to him (Thus showing to us that you look like a "fag".) or you've just made this up to make people support your out of date views.

There's an answer to all this, people. Jediism (http://www.jediism.org/). :)

1. Not really an argument. I could say, if I had a god, my god was the only one which matters and that would get us no where. Except maybe genocide.

2. No more than any other kind of sex. A penis still goes into a oriphis(sp?)

3. How will my five year old be having gay sex? I believe you are either think of rapists and applying that to a whole group of people are just a Christian/believer of another one of those religions.

4. Neither do single celled organisms. Or cells of the human body. In fact, alot of things just split into two organisms. Let's go and burn all those, shall we? Idiot.

5. Well, you must of looked gay to him (Thus showing to us that you look like a "fag".) or you've just made this up to make people support your out of date views.

There's an answer to all this, people. Jediism (http://www.jediism.org/). :)
Dude, are you seriously taking taking Bottle seriously?
Just the page before this I was talking about how Bottle is always sarcastic. She often says things like this. She's not being serious though.

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?
Everything according to the Bible! *snicker*

Bottle often does the sarcastic thing. There was a great thread where she starting going on about cooking babies. I forgot why, but it was really funny.
i dare you to find a single context in which baby-broiling is not funny.

i dare you to find a single context in which baby-broiling is not funny.

*tries*

...

Sorry, can't think of any.

1. Not really an argument. I could say, if I had a god, my god was the only one which matters and that would get us no where. Except maybe genocide.

MY God wrote a book that tells us He's the right God. Okay, well, technically some human beings wrote the book about how MY God is the right one, and they tended to disagree about what He wants and how He created us and pretty much all other details, but they all agreed that He is the only real God.

And hey, lots and lots of people believe that book! The more people you can get to believe in something, the truer that thing must be!


2. No more than any other kind of sex. A penis still goes into a oriphis(sp?)

But the vagina is where it's supposed to go. Because I said so.

3. How will my five year old be having gay sex? I believe you are either think of rapists and applying that to a whole group of people are just a Christian/believer of another one of those religions.

All the gays want to rape little kids, didn't you know that? Granted, 99% of child molestation cases are perpetrated by a heterosexual male, and another 0.5% by heterosexual females, but gays are clearly to blame.


4. Neither do single celled organisms. Or cells of the human body. In fact, alot of things just split into two organisms. Let's go and burn all those, shall we? Idiot.

God said be fruitful and multiply, and that clearly means that the only purpose of human life is to make as many babies as possible. Do you want to go to Hell? I didn't think so...SO GET BREEDING.

5. Well, you must of looked gay to him (Thus showing to us that you look like a "fag".) or you've just made this up to make people support your out of date views.

I ain't no fairy! I can kick your ass! You must be a queer!!

There's an answer to all this, people. Jediism (http://www.jediism.org/). :)
You are making Baby Jesus cry.

You are making Baby Jesus cry.
:(
Don't make baby Jesus cry. That's mean.
Listen to Bottle, she's got it all right.
;)

i dare you to find a single context in which baby-broiling is not funny.
I meant that I forgot why you started talking about it.
I agree, it's funny, as I started laughing as soon as I read "baby broiling".
:D

We need more male gays people!

More gays= more free girls!

I rule in Math!

Whats wrong with a man and another man loving each other? or two woman loving each other?

Nothing, as long as they are both consenting adults.

Of course, I've always wondered how a man could look at another man's hairy ass and find love.

We need more male gays people!

More gays= more free girls!

I rule in Math!
hmm, but more gay males = more girls who are so busy shopping for capri pants with their emaculately-groomed gay friend that they don't want to bother with your hairy heterosexual ass. :P

Nothing, as long as they are both consenting adults.

Of course, I've always wondered how a man could look at another man's hairy ass and find love.
but you don't wonder how a woman could look at a man's hairy ass and find love?

hmm, but more gay males = more girls who are so busy shopping for capri pants with their emaculately-groomed gay friend that they don't want to bother with your hairy heterosexual ass. :P
Shh, your logic will hurt his feelings. :P

Of course, I've always wondered how a man could look at another man's hairy ass and find love.

Because as we all know, the true nature of love lies in the ass of your partner. :rolleyes:
I wonder, weren't gays supposed to be the evil slutty bastards?

Vaseline is baaaad for condoms; use an actual lubricant that's latex friendly.

I wouldn't know :p

All kidding aside, that's just basic knowledge about safe sex... anything with petroleum in it will weaken and break a condom. No whipped cream, no hand lotion, no Vaseline.

This is useful for heterosexuals who don't want an 18 year responsibility as well.

Because as we all know, the true nature of love lies in the ass of your partner. :rolleyes:
I wonder, weren't gays supposed to be the evil slutty bastards?

No, love makes you blind. Either that, or you do it until you go blind. :fluffle:

All kidding aside, that's just basic knowledge about safe sex... anything with petroleum in it will weaken and break a condom. No whipped cream, no hand lotion, no Vaseline.

This is useful for heterosexuals who don't want an 18 year responsibility as well.
Wow, not only is Kat a mod, but Kat gives out useful life lessons too!
:D

I have nothing against gay people, but some people do, e.g. http://www.freewebs.com/factsqna/

Actually Jerry Falwell's college forbids male students to wear their hair long enough to touch their ears in the name of Christian decency.

So Jesus would not have been welcomed into their loving hands.... irony!

one of my (gay) friends was reading over my shoulder, and had this to say:

"You know how sometimes you say that an alcoholic 'has a problem' with booze? That's the kind of problem I have with gay men."

I have nothing against gay people, but some people do, e.g. http://www.freewebs.com/factsqna/
Questions and Answers:

Q. What happens to a person after death?
A. After death, Christians are destined to join God in heaven, while heathens will suffer eternal torment in Hell.

Q. How did the world come into existence?
A. It was made by God in 7 days.

Q. How did all the different species of animals originate?
A. God designed each and every one, and placed their species on the earth at the beginning.

Q. What is the cause of AIDS?
A. It is God's punishment for sexual immorality.
Hmm. So all the straight people that get it must be secretly gay?
Fuck you.
Q. What is Homosexuality?
A. It is one of the many sins that people may commit when tempted by the Devil.
It's hard to be tempted to be something naturally...
Q. Where is the earth in the universe?
A. The earth is at the center of the universe. All of the heavenly bodies orbit around it.
Wow.
Q. What shape is the earth?
A. It is a mostly-flat disk-shape.
Again, wow. These guys are like the Flat Earth people.

It's too bad half of their viewpoints have been disproved.

So Jesus would not have been welcomed into their loving hands.... irony!

Yeah, I know another place where they want everyone to have short hair. North Korea.

So Jesus would not have been welcomed into their loving hands.... irony!
Good point... i was going to say that.

one of my (gay) friends was reading over my shoulder, and had this to say:

"You know how sometimes you say that an alcoholic 'has a problem' with booze? That's the kind of problem I have with gay men."
My friend is with me, too and he says: "Yup, I know what you mean..."

hmm, but more gay males = more girls who are so busy shopping for capri pants with their emaculately-groomed gay friend that they don't want to bother with your hairy heterosexual ass. :P
harsh, but true.

Q. What shape is the earth?
A. It is a mostly-flat disk-shape.

LOL, someone tell me why people now believe that when no-one throughout history did. Loons i tell ye, loons.

I'm heterosexual, and I'm immaculately groomed.

I'm heterosexual, and I'm immaculately groomed.
>_>
<_<
>_>

Some get him. He cannot be allowed to live.

I'm heterosexual, and I'm immaculately groomed.
Who says a pretty boy is always gay? Not true at all.

Who says a pretty boy is always gay? Not true at all.
In my entire life, every woman I ever dated, lived with, or married, initially thought I was gay until...

The combination of being clean, well dressed, well spoken, having a neat apartment, a clean car, and being an excellent cook always got me the question, "are you gay?"

Which I took to mean, "are you a heterosexual, because if you are, you can fuck my brains out"

In my entire life, every woman I ever dated, lived with, or married, initially thought I was gay until...

The combination of being clean, well dressed, well spoken, having a neat apartment, a clean car, and being an excellent cook always got me the question, "are you gay?"

Which I took to mean, "are you a heterosexual, because if you are, you can fuck my brains out"
Heh Heh... basically how I take it, too... lol
As for the friend that's with me know, he's bi so he doesn't care either way, he'll fuck anything...

Heh Heh... basically how I take it, too... lol
As for the friend that's with me know, he's bi so he doesn't care either way, he'll fuck anything...
I take that very offensively, I will not fuck anything, just anything that's sexy and will let me... usually that means one fo us is wasted.

gays are only annoying when they try it on with straight people its like agh get away from me :mp5:


the :mp5: armed republic of ajems17 and smaller nations :sniper:

gays are only annoying when they try it on with straight people its like agh get away from me :mp5:


the :mp5: armed republic of ajems17 and smaller nations :sniper:
Well, that's why you make sure they're drunk cause at least if they're straight they won't remmeber. Just kidding.

learn to be flattered by it man- what better ego boost than the fact that *at least* someone finds you attractive.

Fenix- I'm disappointed with you're knowledge of history- the disc theory was one of the many that were considered prior to the realisation that the Earth is indeed flat (er I mean round!)- dispelled by Magellan, Drake et al. in the 16th century.

On the otherhand no one since Copernicus and Galileo have thought the Earth to be the centre (and for the Americans here- thats how you really spell that word) of the universe.

I've always thought it ironic that as a result of homosexuality being considered an abomination throughout the middle ages, parents would often internalise "troublesome" (read: Gay) offspring into a life of the clergy- to join the exact people who hate homosexuality the most, and the most tragic thing was they couldn use the power of knowing there was a fair percentage of fellow homosexuals among monks of the middle ages, as admitting that fact was enough to get yourself excommunicated- if not killed...

What's wrong with homosexuality?

Another question, what's right about heterosexuality?

Think about it, by far most tyranny, crime, subjugation and other bad things are all most prevalent in heterosexual males. Meanwhile the world continues to be over populated as a result of their selfish desire to procreate without contraception (and the occasions where said effects do not work- and no "rhythm" and "withdrawing" are not considered means of contraception) which has meant that incredible numbers of flora and fauna have been destroyed in order to continue to be able to allow for the ever increasing population of the planet. Meanwhile this of course is yet another problem with the major religions- what the f**k is wrong with contraception- if it were encouraged or even tolerated millions of people across the world would not be suffering from horrendous/dehabilitating diseases- a true disgrace! and proof that the belief in institutional religion is indeed morally corrupt!

Lennon Marx(who is sadly heterosexual)

Everything is wrong with it. If we were meant to be gay God would have created Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve. I think they should be lined up in front of a firing squad.

:fluffle: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Everything is wrong with it. If we were meant to be gay God would have created Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve. I think they should be lined up in front of a firing squad.

:fluffle: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
I hope you're being sarcastic...

Everything is wrong with it. If we were meant to be gay God would have created Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve. I think they should be lined up in front of a firing squad.

:fluffle: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
You're not a very funny gimmick.

oh, God said its wrong, well if God told you to jump off a cliff would you?

Everything is wrong with it. If we were meant to be gay God would have created Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve. I think they should be lined up in front of a firing squad.

:fluffle: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
a very well-thought-out, reasonable, and not at all cliche point, made even stronger by the number of "sniper" emotes! nothing with that many gun-toting cartoon heads can be wrong! well done!

[i Dont Think There Is Anything Wrong With It At All, Everyone Has Thier Rights And Preferences And Nobody Should Be Allowed To Judge That.

learn to be flattered by it man- what better ego boost than the fact that *at least* someone finds you attractive.

Fenix- I'm disappointed with you're knowledge of history- the disc theory was one of the many that were considered prior to the realisation that the Earth is indeed flat (er I mean round!)- dispelled by Magellan, Drake et al. in the 16th century.

On the otherhand no one since Copernicus and Galileo have thought the Earth to be the centre (and for the Americans here- thats how you really spell that word) of the universe.

And im dissapointed by your knowledge of history. None of the ancients or indeed moderately old civilizations believed the world was flat, and no sea faring nation has ever seriously considered the idea. Flat Earth, just like Wicca is a notion that has been inserted into history without it seems, the need for it ever to have occured.

Something I've wanted explained to me -

At the various rest stops run by the state along our interstate highways, some of them serve as gathering places for gay men. There, they seem to have sex (of any kind they seem interested in) as often as they can with as many men as they can - and it doesn't seem that they care if the men they have sex with are complete strangers.

Talked to a few, and they don't care if they even know who the other guy is.

Now, even if there was a generic restroom for both genders, I don't see that many women engaging in this activity (some, yes, but probably not a majority). Given the availability of willing women, the majority of men would probably indulge from time to time (my guess).

So I'm wondering - is this sort of promiscuity a gay thing, or just a male thing?

Why attempt to explain "why hypocrisy is ok"? Why not demonstrate the (very present) moral lessons in the stories, and point out that the faults are a demonstration that all human beings make mistakes?

And what would you say, was the moral lesson of the destruction of Sodom?

You worship a different god, you deserve to die?

Being a faithful follower of god makes it okay to have sex with your daughters?

Are you saying that you think that the content of the Bible is suitable material for children to be reading?

If you think yes for the bible, but no for the same material in another book - that IS hypocrisy.

Just as some people take things out of context to promote their twisted world views, so can you. If you read the whole thing, you can see none of the rubbish you mentioned is portrayed as a good thing. But hey, if one verse read by itself seems to kinda lead to maybe supporting genocide, more power to you, yes?

Curious response.

You don't think that the Old Testament portrays the Rape of Canaan as a good thing?

Yes, you are right - that's probably just me 'taking it out of context', to promote my 'twisted world view'.

Because, of course, the Bible clearly states that 'god' condemned the Hebrew massacre of Canaanites, doesn't it?

I'm surprised you refer to the material I reference as "rubbish". I assume that means you aren't a fan of the scripture, either?

I AM a little confused as to why you would think I want to 'support genocide', though... explain, please?

So I'm wondering - is this sort of promiscuity a gay thing, or just a male thing?

Both. Heterosexual men are on average also faster willing to have sex with strangers than females. A look at most adult dating sites will confirm that: the overwhelming majority is in general male, looking for a female - and many will respond immediately to anything that says it has a hole in a certain place regardless of other considerations.

But it is also in a way a gay thing; though varying from person to person. On one side of the spectrum we e.g. find the person who discoved he was gay in an anti-gay society due to some experimenting and multiple sexual contacts with both sexes. These persons will generally be pretty openminded about sex - so a personal thing.

On the other side we find those who are ashamed, or feel they would be rejected by the people they know/harassed/lose their jobs/etc. if they even attempted to have a serious relationship with another male and thereby openly admit they were gay. Going underground with lots of different contacts gets rid of some of the sexual tension without the risk of destroying your social and professional life. In this case the cause is society, not the gay personality.

Something I've wanted explained to me -

At the various rest stops run by the state along our interstate highways, some of them serve as gathering places for gay men. There, they seem to have sex (of any kind they seem interested in) as often as they can with as many men as they can - and it doesn't seem that they care if the men they have sex with are complete strangers.

Talked to a few, and they don't care if they even know who the other guy is.

Now, even if there was a generic restroom for both genders, I don't see that many women engaging in this activity (some, yes, but probably not a majority). Given the availability of willing women, the majority of men would probably indulge from time to time (my guess).

So I'm wondering - is this sort of promiscuity a gay thing, or just a male thing?
Its a male thing. If there were large numbers of women willing to have sex with men without as much as seeing their faces, there would be straight men willing to have sex with them. There aren't though, at least no straight man thinks there is. BUT when you are a guy and you know that you would have sex with anything that moves, you know there are guys who think the same way. Now thats not to say that these people constitute a very large part of the population, but do they really need to?

Both. Heterosexual men are on average also faster willing to have sex with strangers than females. A look at most adult dating sites will confirm that: the overwhelming majority is in general male, looking for a female - and many will respond immediately to anything that says it has a hole in a certain place regardless of other considerations.

But it is also in a way a gay thing; though varying from person to person. On one side of the spectrum we e.g. find the person who discoved he was gay in an anti-gay society due to some experimenting and multiple sexual contacts with both sexes. These persons will generally be pretty openminded about sex - so a personal thing.

On the other side we find those who are ashamed, or feel they would be rejected by the people they know/harassed/lose their jobs/etc. if they even attempted to have a serious relationship with another male and thereby openly admit they were gay. Going underground with lots of different contacts gets rid of some of the sexual tension without the risk of destroying your social and professional life. In this case the cause is society, not the gay personality.

Ah, instructive. I am beginning to believe that male homosexuality is not the same as female homosexuality.

I've read enough about historical instances of homosexuality that I'm beginning to believe that a lot of men would if society permitted it, if only under certain circumstances (prolonged voyages, on military campaigns, etc).

Society seems to wink at the homosexuality in prison. I'm beginning to think that men are just more horny and receptive than women.

I'm beginning to think that men are just more horny and receptive than women.

I thought women had already known that for a long time...

Actually Jerry Falwell's college forbids male students to wear their hair long enough to touch their ears in the name of Christian decency. The Bible forbids the cutting of men's hair at all.

A lot of the things that we pretend are against God are in fact against fairly irrational cultural phobias.
Same deal with homosexuality. God doesn't care about homosexuality, a bunch of old men from a long time ago thought it was icky and outlawed it and since they were also priests they said that God outlawed it.

When you leave bullshit lying around for a while it will eventually dry up and loose its stink.
It's still bullshit.

I took the part out about japanese stuff, because it's completely irrelivant. A big part of 'phobias' has to do with generalizations, which is exactly what you're trying to do with christianity. Let me explain the college's reasoning for you real quick, but let it be known that I could care less who has long hair. I'll also not quote the bible because if you believed in it you wouldn't bash it. Meaning quoting it would be pointless.
The reason the college has that rule is because in the bible it states that long hair is a womans glory, and that baldness is a man's glory. That's in the old testament though. Some people still feel that those things are very important, others think that stuff is trivial. Like Jesus said, worry about the inside (the heart) of a man, and not the outside (the appearance).
"a bunch of old men from a long time ago thought it was icky and outlawed it and since they were also priests they said that God outlawed it." Sodom and Gommorah! Hello? Have you read the bible? How do you develoe your opinions about it? God destroyed those towns because of homosexuality. I think that's self explanitory that he didn't like it.

"What about forsaking all others for him/her alone" under the same God who has nothing against multiple wives and concubines?

Face it, fundamentalist bible reading is not the only conception of God in the world. Remember God is just as strict against a bride wearing a dress made out of more than one material (or anyone wearing anything made of more than one fabric), for example satin and lace. Is every wedding in the last hundred years now to be declared heretical because they didn't fit the dress code of Leviticus?

You bring up a lot of Old Testament arguements. I'm not speaking about Judism, I'm talking about Christianity. Jesus came, some of the old laws are irrelevant.

Ah, instructive. I am beginning to believe that male homosexuality is not the same as female homosexuality.

I've read enough about historical instances of homosexuality that I'm beginning to believe that a lot of men would if society permitted it, if only under certain circumstances (prolonged voyages, on military campaigns, etc).

Society seems to wink at the homosexuality in prison. I'm beginning to think that men are just more horny and receptive than women.
Well, know shit we are!

Sodom and Gommorah! Hello? Have you read the bible? How do you develoe your opinions about it? God destroyed those towns because of homosexuality. I think that's self explanitory that he didn't like it.
actually, Sodom and Gomorrah was about what happens when you aren't a good host. indeed, depending on your translation of the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah CANNOT be condemnations of homosexuality; you see, in some translations, all the people of the town were members of the rapacious mob that came for the angels, including female citizens. yet Lot offers his DAUGHTERS to this mob to be raped, and his family is spared...if there were women in the mob, that would mean Lot would be giving his daughters up to lesbian sex! why would God spare him?

also, please remember that basing your sexual morality on a story in which the hero gets drunk and sleeps with his daughters is probably not a good idea.

Enough with these insufferable "what is wrong with being gay" threads everywhere! They are everywhere! I do not want to read any more extremism or over the top liberalism. It is boring!
If the original poster is gay then why do you want and sit to read why people think being you is wrong?

This topic seems to be mostly an "american" one, perhaps because gay-marriage has grown into a huge political matter in the United States.
As an European there are many things about which I find odd in the american culture (and I'm sure americans have similair views about us europeans). But why have sexual matters become so important when dealing with morals or religion? So there are people who are interested of the same sex and those interested of the opposite sex (and those lucky ones interested of both sexes, doubles your possibilities on a saturday night :) ) so what? As long as both partners are mentally healthy adults I personally see nothing wrong in whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes.
As for the religion part: I think that the most important part of the bible is when Jesus says: Love, and love only shall be the only command (translated directly from the finnish bible, the english language version is likely to be a bit different).

Jumala on rakkaus- God Is Love

I do not want to read any more extremism or over the top liberalism.

Then.. don't read it?

Enough with these insufferable "what is wrong with being gay" threads everywhere! They are everywhere! I do not want to read any more extremism or over the top liberalism. It is boring!
there's this little button on your computer monitor that can make all this go away so you don't have to read it. it's called "Off."

Oh haha, how originall.
Well, is still don't see why gay people want to read a load of people bashing who they are.

What's wrong with being gay?

Well ... it's just so ... gay.

You bring up a lot of Old Testament arguements. I'm not speaking about Judism, I'm talking about Christianity. Jesus came, some of the old laws are irrelevant.

How conveeeeeeenient, and political.

Simon Cowell is the leader of an ultra right-wing military underground movement of gays attempting to preach their message of gayness across the world. So, you don't believe me? Simon Cowell owns shares in the company that broadcasts SpongeBob Squarepants, a programme single handedly trying to make all the innocent little children be gay and take over the world. That's what's gay about being gay.

Why does there seem to be such an anti-Christian feeling on this post?

I know Christians who are gay! I have nothing wrong with it and have argued that its ok to be gay against atiests for years. I could list lots of reasons but most of you already agree with that. But here you are slagging my relgion off like anything. When Jesus said, "Love your neighbour as youself."

Christianity is a religion of love.
And there seems to be a lot of judging in here.

A lot of the stuff in the Bible was cultural and relevant to that time. I love how people against God always pick out things, like lets talk about the Old testament rule that says Women must cover their heads in public shall we. hey, I like hats, but I dont follow that. However I would go for rules like: Forgive and forget, or do not steal or do not grow angry quickly. Of course none of this could possibly do me any good. Not when Ive been living by it all my life and stuff.

Ban it for children? So parents who belive in God cant talk to their children about why they go to church? I became a Christian at 14. Why not ban Christianity while your at it. Would you therefore ban the Qu'ran too (which says similar stuff about homosexuality) and if you are onto religious books than any kind of books on paganism or anything else would have to go. So after all, lets just ban religion and force people to be athiests.

Phew. *rant over*

Actually being gay is great, as long as you are sure and dont just do it as fad.

Sodom and Gommorah! Hello? Have you read the bible? How do you develoe your opinions about it? God destroyed those towns because of homosexuality. I think that's self explanitory that he didn't like it.

Actually, I believe that you are the one who has not read the Bible. No story has ever been taken more out of context than this one. Jesus himself quotes Isaih (or was in Samuel .. . . I always get confused on taht point) who says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they had plenty and refused to share and because they were inhospitable.

The whole arugment for Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed for homosexuality depends on the English (perhaps Latin) translation of the passage that says the people of Gomorrah demanded Lot send out his angelic visitors so that they could "know" them. Now in English, to "know" someone in a Bibilical sense implies fornication. However, the Hebrew word used there literally means just "to know" with no implication fo fornication. Indeed, the word is used something like thirty other times and is NEVER otherwise conceived to be something of a carnal nature. You may ask me the word, I'm afraid I do not know it. However, I have spoken many, many times with PhDs and other scholars of ancient Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts and they have ALL assured me that the only way you can consture the Bible (in particular Sodom and Gomorrah) to be a damnation of homosexuality is if you are setting out to make it do so. Anything can be twisted for evil--including the Bible.

So, in short, Sodom and Gomorrah is dubiously condemnatory of homosexuality at best and (more likely) is deliberately used by people who should know better to get those who do not know any better to condemn somethign that they see as wrong.

you're not with Cowell are you?

maybe god didn't like gay people because deep down inside he was gay as well and got a funny feeling when looking at David Hasselhoff and didn't want to seem gay so he just killed loads instead. Complex I know but there could be some truth in it

You bring up a lot of Old Testament arguements. I'm not speaking about Judism, I'm talking about Christianity. Jesus came, some of the old laws are irrelevant.

Which ones? The ones you pick and choose to fit your view of what you think the world is?

Now, I'm not actually a proponent of keeping the Old Testament around as more than a semi-historical text. Of course, I don't follow the NT word for word either, I just sit back, try to love others and do right and let live--but I will defend the down-trodden when they are unjustly attacked.

Too bad most of my fellows cannot do the same.

Enough with these insufferable "what is wrong with being gay" threads everywhere! They are everywhere! I do not want to read any more extremism or over the top liberalism. It is boring!
If the original poster is gay then why do you want and sit to read why people think being you is wrong?

If you are sick of reading these threads, why are you still doing so? You have a choice not to you know.

Simon Cowell is the leader of an ultra right-wing military underground movement of gays attempting to preach their message of gayness across the world. So, you don't believe me? Simon Cowell owns shares in the company that broadcasts SpongeBob Squarepants, a programme single handedly trying to make all the innocent little children be gay and take over the world. That's what's gay about being gay.

Please, please, please tell me you are being facetious.

Praise the Lord for people who can debate well. I'll study the homosexuality subject a little tonight and I'll tell you what I come up with. I do read the bible, but I'm willing to take into consideration that something could have been changed in the translation.

The ONLY resources I will use will be a Bible and a concordance with Greek and Hebrew translations (it takes the original Hebrew/Greek word into consideration). I'll tell you EXACTLY what I find. I'm open minded about the subject, and like I said previously (page 3 or 5...ish), I'll love any homosexual person just as much as I love everyone else.

facetious? Is that some gay term? :fluffle:

Praise the Lord for people who can debate well. I'll study the homosexuality subject a little tonight and I'll tell you what I come up with. I do read the bible, but I'm willing to take into consideration that something could have been changed in the translation.

The ONLY resources I will use will be a Bible and a concordance with Greek and Hebrew translations (it takes the original Hebrew/Greek word into consideration). I'll tell you EXACTLY what I find. I'm open minded about the subject, and like I said previously (page 3 or 5...ish), I'll love any homosexual person just as much as I love everyone else.
Cool, see you tomorrow then.

facetious? Is that some gay term? :fluffle:

It means sarcastic but in a nicer way. It's also one of only two words (I think) that use all five vowels in alphabetical order.

It says in the old testament that one man shalt not lay with another, but it didn't say anything about women.

It says in the old testament that one man shalt not lay with another, but it didn't say anything about women.

And those verses refer to temple prositution--a common practice in the era. Or so my experts have told me.

Next.

It says in the old testament that one man shalt not lay with another, but it didn't say anything about women.

Perhaps this is proof that even in the old days of history lesbian pornography was bery popular in certain quarters.

my argument is simple: men don't have women parts, and women don't have man parts (there are excpeptions, but I'm not gonna go into that) back in the caveman days, sex was (probably) only for the continuation of the species. If people want to do it in private, I'm ok with that. But in some places people are actually screaming "GAY AND PROUD" on street corners, and when I hear a guy wearing pink pants and a purse say to me "hey sexy" in their mock-female voice... I get very angry :mp5:

I live in San Fransisco, I'm not republican or religious, and I think Bush is a total dumbass

my argument is simple: men don't have women parts, and women don't have man parts (there are excpeptions, but I'm not gonna go into that) back in the caveman days, sex was (probably) only for the continuation of the species. If people want to do it in private, I'm ok with that. But in some places people are actually screaming "GAY AND PROUD" on street corners, and when I hear a guy wearing pink pants and a purse say to me "hey sexy" in their mock-female voice... I get very angry :mp5:

I live in San Fransisco, I'm not republican or religious, and I think Bush is a total dumbass
Well, that's probably why you see all the gays around.
:D

my argument is simple: men don't have women parts, and women don't have man parts (there are excpeptions, but I'm not gonna go into that) back in the caveman days, sex was (probably) only for the continuation of the species. If people want to do it in private, I'm ok with that. But in some places people are actually screaming "GAY AND PROUD" on street corners, and when I hear a guy wearing pink pants and a purse say to me "hey sexy" in their mock-female voice... I get very angry :mp5:

I live in San Fransisco, I'm not republican or religious, and I think Bush is a total dumbass

So as long as gay people keep it behind closed doors you don't care. As long as they act like you do in public, its okay. As long as they don't make YOU uncomfortable they are free to do as they will.

Forget their freedom to be themselves, to express themselves, to live the lives they choose. It's afterall, all about you.

And if sex is nothing more than what part goes where to you, then I truly feel sorry for you. Also, just so you know, its not just about sex. Homosexuality is also about love and fulfillment--just like heterosexuality. Don't reduce us just to fucking machines. If it was just about sex, we wouldnt be screaming for equality and fair treatment by our government.

Actually, I believe that you are the one who has not read the Bible.

actually...he's probably read/studied more of the bible than really anybody i know(other than my pastor)...and that's just in the past 2 or 3 months...he read the gospels in a week. (i know this is kind of changing the subject, and that's not my point...just wanted to clear up the fact that yes, he does in fact read the bible... :) )

You bring up a lot of Old Testament arguements. I'm not speaking about Judism, I'm talking about Christianity. Jesus came, some of the old laws are irrelevant.

Which ones? The ones you pick and choose to fit your view of what you think the world is?

His point was, once Christ came, he blasted the "Old Covenant" out of the water, and established a new one based on love, tolerance, and forgiveness, and that the only difference between Jews and Christians is the Christian belief in Christ as savior, and the New Testament.

EDIT: i didn't realize that both of those quotes are from Pracus, sorry if i made it look like i was picking on you...because i really wasn't

actually...he's probably read/studied more of the bible than really anybody i know(other than my pastor)...and that's just in the past 2 or 3 months...he read the gospels in a week. (i know this is kind of changing the subject, and that's not my point...just wanted to clear up the fact that yes, he does in fact read the bible... :) )



His point was, once Christ came, he blasted the "Old Covenant" out of the water, and established a new one based on love, tolerance, and forgiveness, and that the only difference between Jews and Christians is the Christian belief in Christ as savior, and the New Testament.

His point was apparently that some of the old laws still stand while others do not. My true question is which ones? And who decides?

EDIT: Don't worry. . . I stopped taking things on here personally a long long time ago.

His point was apparently that some of the old laws still stand while others do not.
the thing is, i was siting right here when he typed it up and, whether he'd like to admit it, he sometimes looses his point to a small degree because of the way he says things...he's workin' on it though...it caused a prety good little squabble in another forum we're involved in, but we all learned from it, and moved on.

My true question is which ones? And who decides?
Jesus did. Part of thepoint of His coming to earth was to change/revise the rules. Some of them stayed, some of them were thrown out the window, but if you read/study the gospels, and the rest of the new testament, you can find exactly what those new laws are...

EDIT: cool deal... :cool:

the thing is, i was siting right here when he typed it up and, whether he'd like to admit it, he sometimes looses his point to a small degree because of the way he says things...he's workin' on it though...it caused a prety good little squabble in another forum we're involved in, but we all learned from it, and moved on.

My true question is which ones? And who decides?
Jesus did. Part of thepoint of His coming to earth was to change/revise the rules. Some of them stayed, some of them were thrown out the window, but if you read/study the gospels, and the rest of the new testament, you can find exactly what those new laws are...

EDIT: cool deal... :cool:

Okay, I see where you are coming from and understand the point now.

I agree that Jesus laid it out pretty carefully (love God and love your neighbors is pretty basic). I do not however put much stock in Paul . .. he just doesn't seem to have a good grasp on what Jesus tried to do . . but that's a decision each has to make for him/her self.

anywho...back to the topic...


i prety much agree with scot allen. While homosexuality may be looked down upon as a sin, it is no different from lying, or cheating, or any other sin that any one of us is guilty of at any given time. The Bible emphasizes prety clearly that no sin is better or worse than any other sin. Alot of christians have a problem with pornography...alot of christians are alcoholics (i am avoiding with everything i have making a bad catholic joke right now...mainly because my fiance, who is catholic, would kill me :p ), etc...etc...etc...These are all sins that have to be dealt with in your own life and in your own heart... Also we should understand that there are things that have, for one reason or another, become sins outside of the bible, and there are also things that have "ceased" to be sins depending on social values (profanity for instance, which somehow applies to both instances...).

What i'm trying to say is, people will do what they are gonna do...it doesn't matter what I, or anybody else says. All i can do is tell you what/how i believe, and let you decide. I believe that the way a sin is judged is whether or not it hinders your walk with God. My youth pastor used to have a saying that applies prety well even though it was directed at smoking, drinking, and things of that nature... "If you can put that beer, or that cigarette in your hand and at the same time raise your hands and praise God with a clear conscience, how can i tell you it's a sin?"

anywho...back to the topic...


i prety much agree with scot allen. While homosexuality may be looked down upon as a sin, it is no different from lying, or cheating, or any other sin that any one of us is guilty of at any given time. The Bible emphasizes prety clearly that no sin is better or worse than any other sin. Alot of christians have a problem with pornography...alot of christians are alcoholics (i am avoiding with everything i have making a bad catholic joke right now...mainly because my fiance, who is catholic, would kill me :p ), etc...etc...etc...These are all sins that have to be dealt with in your own life and in your own heart... Also we should understand that there are things that have, for one reason or another, become sins outside of the bible, and there are also things that have "ceased" to be sins depending on social values (profanity for instance, which somehow applies to both instances...).

What i'm trying to say is, people will do what they are gonna do...it doesn't matter what I, or anybody else says. All i can do is tell you what/how i believe, and let you decide. I believe that the way a sin is judged is whether or not it hinders your walk with God. My youth pastor used to have a saying that applies prety well even though it was directed at smoking, drinking, and things of that nature... "If you can put that beer, or that cigarette in your hand and at the same time raise your hands and praise God with a clear conscience, how can i tell you it's a sin?"


I think it would be appropriate to say Amen to that. You can respect my right to choose and I can respect your right to believe what you believe.

God bless America.

Homesexuality is (in broad terms) a decadence of the upper classes.
The occurence of homosexuality in middle to upper classes is vastly higher than in working and lower classes.
It's 95% nurture/5% nature. Moreseo now with all the TV shows and movies glamorizing it as a trendy lifestyle.

Homesexuality is (in broad terms) a decadence of the upper classes.
The occurence of homosexuality in middle to upper classes is vastly higher than in working and lower classes.
It's 95% nature/5% nurture. moreseo now with all the TV shows and movies glamorizing it as a trendy lifestyle.
I don't suppose you have any evidence of that whatsoever?

Also, I don't think you totally understand that nature/nurture thing you just spewed. What you said in general biological term is that being gay is 95% innate (genetic or whatever else) and 5% influenced by outside sources (eg parents, churches, and media) You sort of just refuted your whole argument.

But then, people do like the shockvalue of being gay. Which explains why a lot of kids at school can act very gay.


It's because homophobes are fun to mess with. My graduating class (2003) was nicknamed the "living, breathing, bitching gay joke"

Also, I don't think you totally understand that nature/nurture thing you just spewed. What you said in general biological term is that being gay is 95% innate (genetic or whatever else) and 5% influenced by outside sources (eg parents, churches, and media) You sort of just refuted your whole argument.
Quite correct, it was a typo. Fixed now, thanks for your assistance.

gay is ok
straight is ok
It's those evil bisexuals we should worry about!!! :D

but bisexual partys are fun!

Homesexuality is (in broad terms) a decadence of the upper classes.
The occurence of homosexuality in middle to upper classes is vastly higher than in working and lower classes.
It's 95% nurture/5% nature. Moreseo now with all the TV shows and movies glamorizing it as a trendy lifestyle.
And I suppose it's only the upper/middle class apes that are homosexual, too, right?

Quite correct, it was a typo. Fixed now, thanks for your assistance.
Ok I thought so.

Now to refute your point with actual evidence (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html).

Specifically
* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.It was Bailey, with colleague Richard Dillard of Boston University, who set off today’s zealous hunt for the genetics of sexual orientation. They put together a series of studies that almost everyone agrees established that there’s a genetic “something” in sexual orientation.

Your numbers are horribly flawed.

And I suppose it's only the upper/middle class apes that are homosexual, too, right?
yeah, and only the aristocratic penguins. and the wealthiest of the bottlenose dolphins. and the filthy rich giraffes. and the upper-crust songbirds.

Warning: Must have sense of humor to read:

I don't hate homosexuals, I just find the way they express their love to be very gross. I'm sorry but you arn't supposed to stick anything in the ass! I don't care if you're a heterosexual or homosexual (gay or lesbian) I just don't think anything belongs up there.

Warning: Must have sense of humor to read:

I don't hate homosexuals, I just find the way they express their love to be very gross. To be specific, gay men. I'm sorry but you arn't supposed to stick anything in the ass! I don't care if you're a heterosexual or homosexual (gay or lesbian) I just don't think anything belongs up there.
i'm bisexual, and i agree on that point...i personally think anal sex is just plain gross, no matter who is involved. however, unlike so many homophobes out there, i don't claim anal sex is wrong or immoral because i find it icky, any more than i claim mandarin oranges are immoral because i find them disgusting.

For those who are still interested in my opinion (I already know that there are very few, you don't need to tell me this), and my findings:
I've pretty well found over and over that grace is over law. As long as they're of the right heart it doesn't matter. His grace is new each day. That also covers the questions about Old Testament laws. Grace is more important than them, so don't worry about them until you're done with grace.

Warning: Must have sense of humor to read:

I don't hate homosexuals, I just find the way they express their love to be very gross. I'm sorry but you arn't supposed to stick anything in the ass!

So - why is that the only way to effectively stimulate the prostate?

For those who are still interested in my opinion (I already know that there are very few, you don't need to tell me this), and my findings:
I've pretty well found over and over that grace is over law. As long as they're of the right heart it doesn't matter. His grace is new each day. That also covers the questions about Old Testament laws. Grace is more important than them, so don't worry about them until you're done with grace.

Amen. IF homosexuality is in fact a sin according to the Bible (Jury's still out on that one currently reading through it again). Then its probably just like any other sin like drinking too much. Hell, it isn't even mentioned on the "big 10". Not sure if Jesus has said anything on it (like I said, going through again). And of course, God/Jesus' grace is so great it forgives all sins.

So - why is that the only way to effectively stimulate the prostate?

Did you read the first line?

Warning: Must Have Sense of Humor to Read:

Don't care..don't care...it's gross to put anything up the poop chute. :D

O Jeez, how many people have I just offended? :D

Homosexuality in animals is very rare. Most animals that engage in same sex copulation also mate with the opposite sex - in other words, of the small percentage of animals that engage in deviant sexual behavious, many more are "bisexual" than "homosexual". That's because these animals do it because it the act feels good.
Besides the fact that comparing any animal social/sexual behavious to that of humans is flawed in the extreme.
The statistical evidence of instances of homosexulaity in relation to social/economic class is quite convincing, on the other hand.

Homosexuality in animals is very rare. Most animals that engage in same sex copulation also mate with the opposite sex - in other words, of the small percentage of animals that engage in deviant sexual behavious, many more are "bisexual" than "homosexual". That's because these animals do it because it the act feels good.
Besides the fact that comparing any animal social/sexual behavious to that of humans is flawed in the extreme.
The statistical evidence of instances of homosexulaity in relation to social/economic class is quite convincing, on the other hand.
Despite your unwillingness to post said evidence.

Despite your unwillingness to post said evidence.
what, you mean you aren't just going to take his word for it? why ever not? :)

Did you read the first line?

Warning: Must Have Sense of Humor to Read:

Don't care..don't care...it's gross to put anything up the poop chute. :D

O Jeez, how many people have I just offended? :D

But, posted in jest by you, or not - people DO use that 'logic' - so I might just as well respond to your tongue in cheek reference, as to a serious right-wing attack of homophobia.

what, you mean you aren't just going to take his word for it? why ever not? :)
Yeah I'm being harsh. :(
Sure I went and posted a whole scientific study that he has yet to even acknowledge, but he did say he was right. I feel like such a jerk :( :(

what, you mean you aren't just going to take his word for it? why ever not? :)

If he has actual evidence to back it up or if evidence emerges someday to support it...then would you be willing to accept that homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality might be nurture instead of nature?

I'm just playing 'Devil's Advocate' here so please don't flame me in the form of a nuclear holocaust.

If he has actual evidence to back it up or if evidence emerges someday to support it...then would you be willing to accept that homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality might be nurture instead of nature?

I'm just playing 'Devil's Advocate' here so please don't flame me in the form of a nuclear holocaust.
No because his claims don't prove anything. Even if the evidence exists, it more likely shows that upper classes are more accepting of homosexuality as compared to lower classes, therefore more people are willing to admit to it. Its a correlation, not a causation.

It can be difficult to find this type of information online, due to the frequent squelching of any reports which contradict the interests of the gay lobby.
As extensive as Google is, it is not infallible. To be quite honest, I don't much care whether you believe me or not. The evidence exists, you can pretend it doesn't if it suits you, that's your privilege. For genuinely interested, the statistical evidence is out there, if you want to search hard enough.
I've noticed that pro-gay propogandists usually find the tactic of trying to belittle those who disagree with them easier than genuine debate.

I say man-man is bad. That's why.

Hot chick-hot chick is a whole 'nuther story! :D

If he has actual evidence to back it up or if evidence emerges someday to support it...then would you be willing to accept that homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality might be nurture instead of nature?

I'm just playing 'Devil's Advocate' here so please don't flame me in the form of a nuclear holocaust.
i already believe that homosexuality arrises as a combination of nature and nurture. i believe that genetic and physiological features give each individual a "predisposition" toward a certain area of the sexuality spectrum, but our upbringing and personal experiences determine how (or if) that predisposition will be expressed. i also believe that the vast majority of human beings are naturally predisposed to bisexuality rather than to exclusive homosexuality or heterosexuality.

i don't believe human sexuality could be 100% determined by nurture, since sexual behavior is so integral to the biology of sexually-reproducing organisms, but i have no problem embracing the idea of a nurture component to all complex human behaviors (including sexuality).

But, posted in jest by you, or not - people DO use that 'logic' - so I might just as well respond to your tongue in cheek reference, as to a serious right-wing attack of homophobia.

So Bottle is a right-wing homophobe because she finds anal sex gross (sorry I'm dragging you into this)? Or are you just saying its an argument used by homophobes. I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here. Honestly, I do find it gross, same as her. But to each his/her own. I was just being a smart ass though. Its probably going to get me in trouble one of these days. :D

It can be difficult to find this type of information online, due to the frequent squelching of any reports which contradict the interests of the gay lobby.
As extensive as Google is, it is not infallible. To be quite honest, I don't much care whether you believe me or not. The evidence exists, you can pretend it doesn't if it suits you, that's your privilege. For genuinely interested, the statistical evidence is out there, if you want to search hard enough.
I've noticed that pro-gay propogandists usually find the tactic of trying to belittle those who disagree with them easier than genuine debate.
...?

You come in with a claim, provide no evidence to support this claim then you blame this on some gay conspiracy and say we are not engaging in genuine debate.

This is Bizzaro World, right? Please tell me it is, because I seriously hope this didn't just happen the way I think it did.

So Bottle is a right-wing homophobe because she finds anal sex gross (sorry I'm dragging you into this)? Or are you just saying its an argument used by homophobes. I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here. Honestly, I do find it gross, same as her. But to each his/her own. I was just being a smart ass though. Its probably going to get me in trouble one of these days. :D
pretty much everybody who's been around General for a while knows that i am bisexual, and that includes Grave, so that would be one reason why i would not be suspected of right-wing homophobic ideals :).

A perfect example of flippant remarks and quips rather than real debate.

I direct you to the written work of Lumsden - and with that I say goodnight.

Its a correlation, not a causation.

Know what it means but those terms bring up bad memories. God I hated taking sociology. *sigh*

.... :headbang: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: ....



go gay rights!

(im straight)
;) :fluffle:

...?

You come in with a claim, provide no evidence to support this claim then you blame this on some gay conspiracy and say we are not engaging in genuine debate.

This is Bizzaro World, right? Please tell me it is, because I seriously hope this didn't just happen the way I think it did.

Would my Bizarro self be weird looking and gay (like on 'Drawn Together') or just weird looking and stupid like Bizarro Superman?

A perfect example of flippant remarks and quips rather than real debate.

I direct you to the written work of Lumsden - and with that I say goodnight.
Saying "Well I heard this!", isn't debate. Supporting your point of view with legitimate evidence is debate. You didn't give ANY evidence, and then blamed that on some gay conspiracy. Forgive me for not taking you seriously when you provide nothing even resembling a point.

I saw evidence that we never landed on the moon, I can't show you any place that has this evidence because there is probably some NASA conspiracy keeping that stuff down. Am I supposed to take this seriously? Its just as good as what you provided.

Would my Bizarro self be weird looking and gay (like on 'Drawn Together') or just weird looking and stupid like Bizarro Superman?
Hey, what happens is Bizzaro World, stays in Bizzaro World!

Sorry, but anyone I've ever known who has prejudice against gays always has other prejudices against other minorities.
Face it, homphobic=uses the word ****** in conversation.

Take it from a red state nonliberal.

Don't buy this bullshit people! Been there, heard crosses burning.
:rolleyes:

pretty much everybody who's been around General for a while knows that i am bisexual, and that includes Grave, so that would be one reason why i would not be suspected of right-wing homophobic ideals :).

Hey now. You don't want to stereotype right-wingers. I'm sure there are a bunch of gay-bashing, pot-smoking, left-wing, commie-pinko (running out of phrases) hippies out there.

It's wrong because nobody wants to see 'political statements' in public, if you know what I mean. Live that to the privacy of your room. Straight ones are a majority so if gays want their own laws and rules in their favor, let them get their own gay country were the majority wants them to have this special rights.

Congrats! I've taken time outta my day to come to you and say:

This Thread Sucks!
Have a wonderful day.

Homesexuality is (in broad terms) a decadence of the upper classes.
The occurence of homosexuality in middle to upper classes is vastly higher than in working and lower classes.
It's 95% nurture/5% nature. Moreseo now with all the TV shows and movies glamorizing it as a trendy lifestyle.

Or maybe upper and middle class people tend to come out more because they did to be better educated and better educated people tend to be more tolreant and accepting?

It's wrong because nobody wants to see 'political statements' in public, if you know what I mean. Live that to the privacy of your room. Straight ones are a majority so if gays want their own laws and rules in their favor, let them get their own gay country were the majority wants them to have this special rights.
I agree, and blacks should stay in their own neighborhoods. Whites are the majority. If they want rights, they can go back to Africa. We don't need no rabble rousing from the darkies. Speaking of which, I think there should be laws against blacks and whites marrying. They are recruiting our white daughters with their jungle loving.

pretty much everybody who's been around General for a while knows that i am bisexual, and that includes Grave, so that would be one reason why i would not be suspected of right-wing homophobic ideals :).
You were accused of being a "right-wing homophobe"?
:p
They don't have netlanguage for my reaction.

just wonderin

having been reading all the posts by losers with nothing better to do that pick on people with lives about gays been wrong

it justs annoys me

i wanna know why people think been gay is ok and why its wrong (im bi)

What's wrong is that there are these people running around thinking that they can live their lives how they want, going for people they are attracted to. They give no thought to those poor people who think that everyone should live their lives the way they think is correct. What about those people huh? What about themmmmmmmmmmm? :confused:


p.s.
bi = the better than gay or straight because we get teh best of both worlds - neener neener neener on you poor people who cannot just live and let live. Awwww you :(

:D

I agree, and blacks should stay in their own neighborhoods. Whites are the majority. If they want rights, they can go back to Africa. We don't need no rabble rousing from the darkies. Speaking of which, I think there should be laws against blacks and whites marrying. They are recruiting our white daughters with their jungle loving.

ROFLMFAO! :D:D:D You wouldn't happen to be Mr. Garrison would you? Trying to dress up as a ghost and scare all the black people out of town are we? Having a gay racist hanging around General would be so hilarious. Please?

I still wonder where jesus says gays are going to burn in hell.

Anyway, I can't believe people actually take that book seriously. I think they shouldn't alow people under the age of 16 to read the bible. The only reason people actually believe that junk is because they cram it into you while your brain is still soft as mush.

Cant we all just get along? :mp5: :sniper:
Well.... okay... so you aren't a christian I guess, huh? Don't mean to go off on a tangent here, but I don't really think the Bible is the problem at all. the problems are all of the people who try to tell you what it is supposed to mean to you. Don't condemn all people of christian faith due to the loud ramblings of a vocal few. It is no different than basing all muslims on teh actions of jihadists. Oh, by the way, I am a practicing christian, and I have no problems with anyone else's sexuality, no matter what the form. Is that a rarity?

ROFLMFAO! :D:D:D You wouldn't happen to be Mr. Garrison would you? Trying to dress up as a ghost and scare all the black people out of town are we? Having a gay racist hanging around General would be so hilarious. Please?
Well ok, since you asked so nicely.

Can we get rid of all the Mexicans?

Well ok, since you asked so nicely.

Can we get rid of all the Mexicans?

I don't see why not.

Well.... okay... so you aren't a christian I guess, huh? Don't mean to go off on a tangent here, but I don't really think the Bible is the problem at all. the problems are all of the people who try to tell you what it is supposed to mean to you. Don't condemn all people of christian faith due to the loud ramblings of a vocal few. It is no different than basing all muslims on teh actions of jihadists. Oh, by the way, I am a practicing christian, and I have no problems with anyone else's sexuality, no matter what the form.

Is that a rarity?

I really hope not. Awfully hard to tell in this day and age of vocal extremists.

It's wrong because nobody wants to see 'political statements' in public, if you know what I mean. Live that to the privacy of your room. Straight ones are a majority so if gays want their own laws and rules in their favor, let them get their own gay country were the majority wants them to have this special rights.


It's wrong because nobody wants to see 'political statements' in public, if you knwo what I mean. Live that to the privacy of your room. Whites are a majority, so if blacks wants theiir own laws and rules in their favor, let them get their own black country were the majority wants them to have this special rights.

WHAT BS.

Since when were equal rights special rights?

It's wrong because nobody wants to see 'political statements' in public, if you knwo what I mean. Live that to the privacy of your room. Whites are a majority, so if blacks wants theiir own laws and rules in their favor, let them get their own black country were the majority wants them to have this special rights.

WHAT BS.

Since when were equal rights special rights?
Treat it like your penis.






























Hide that small IQ.

It can be difficult to find this type of information online, due to the frequent squelching of any reports which contradict the interests of the gay lobby.
As extensive as Google is, it is not infallible. To be quite honest, I don't much care whether you believe me or not. The evidence exists, you can pretend it doesn't if it suits you, that's your privilege. For genuinely interested, the statistical evidence is out there, if you want to search hard enough.
I've noticed that pro-gay propogandists usually find the tactic of trying to belittle those who disagree with them easier than genuine debate.

So - what you are saying is... the evidence is out there, but it's so well hidden, that even the one person sooo desperate to find it... can't find it?

I don't think it's a matter of "pretending it doesn't exist"... you are the only person claiming to have seen it, and other people would like to see your evidence.

If you can't produce evidence, then all you have is hollow rhetoric, and no argument at all.

But, feel free to keep slinging unfounded hate, and unbased accusations.

So Bottle is a right-wing homophobe because she finds anal sex gross (sorry I'm dragging you into this)? Or are you just saying its an argument used by homophobes. I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here. Honestly, I do find it gross, same as her. But to each his/her own. I was just being a smart ass though. Its probably going to get me in trouble one of these days. :D

No - I assumed you were being tongue-in-cheek, and that yours wasn't a genuine post - hence, my one line reply.

And it is hardly an attack on Bottle either, since I made no comments about the grossness or acceptablity of anal intercourse.

The point was, there really ARE homophobes on these fora, that earnestly believe that homosexuality is wrong, with the 'unnatural use of exits' as their 'big' argument.

I could wait and shoot them down in flames - partly by pointing out that anal sex is roughly as common in the gay male community as it is in the straight male community...

I can also point out that the only REALLY effective way to directly stimulate the prostate is through some kind of anal interaction - making something of a mockery of the 'god-designed-it-for-exit-only' argument.

But, why wait around for someone to make such a ridiculous claim for real? So, I hijacked your comment... posting a quick response that might serve to defuse later homophobic attacks.

People are ignorant and controling thats why they think it's wrong.

Same thing can be said about abortion.

Hey now. You don't want to stereotype right-wingers. I'm sure there are a bunch of gay-bashing, pot-smoking, left-wing, commie-pinko (running out of phrases) hippies out there.

Where I am... they like to throw "panty-waisting" in there, too... although I have yet to work out what it means. Maybe they mean 'panty-wasting'? Although, 'wasting' panties doesn't make much more sense...

Oh, and you are supposed to throw 'liberal' in there, soaked in tones of acid and venom - like supporting equality is only one sin down from broiling babies...

Bottle's right though - the reason she and I have crossed swords so infrequently, is that I am usually fighting against the same narrow-minded rightwing zealots that she is fighting against... so I'm pretty sure she isn't part of the Evil Empire. :)

I agree, and blacks should stay in their own neighborhoods. Whites are the majority. If they want rights, they can go back to Africa. We don't need no rabble rousing from the darkies. Speaking of which, I think there should be laws against blacks and whites marrying. They are recruiting our white daughters with their jungle loving.I hope you two are fuckin kidding, cause that would be segregation all over agian.

I don't see why not.

What about the gay mexicans?

I hope you two are fuckin kidding, cause that would be segregation all over agian.
sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See synonyms at wit1.


You see I drew a parallel between segregation and the argument he attempted to use.

But seriously, I mean every word of that. The darkies are obviously the problem. :rolleyes:

I hope you two are fuckin kidding, cause that would be segregation all over agian.

Yes, they were kidding.

They were making a parody of the homophobe mentality, which seems quite well tolerated... by showing the similarity to the uber-racist mentality which is, thankfully, largely a thing of the past.

You see I drew a parallel between segregation and the argument he attempted to use.

But seriously, I mean every word of that. The darkies are obviously the problem. :rolleyes:

What about the gay darkies?

What about the gay darkies?
They are trying to seduce our sons with their jungle loving. Obviously.

They are trying to seduce our sons with their jungle loving. Obviously.

I think I have discovered a new, unbeatable debate technique...

Simply take one word from the previous post, and paste it into a reply of the formula, "What about the gay.....".

Let me show you...

What about the gay sons?

Genius, no?

Well they can.....eh.....ummm.....

Damn that is good. I think it will work up until you hit something like, "But what about the gay Village People?" though I don't think thats a likely scenario.

Well they can.....eh.....ummm.....

Damn that is good. I think it will work up until you hit something like, "But what about the gay Village People?" though I don't think thats a likely scenario.

:)

Well, maybe some gay village people, are more gay than others... so:

What about the GAY gay Village People...

Okay, it might need a little refinement...

Treat it like your penis.






Hide that small IQ.

Okay, now I realize that I'm not a debater on the level of Grave_n_Idle or Bottle (though I aspire to it) but I think I deserve a more complete response than this.

Oh, and you obviously have me confused with someone else . . . you maybe?

What about the gay darkies?
:eek:
What about the gay African/Mexicans?

Treat it like your penis.

Hide that small IQ.
TRANSLATION: "oops, somebody just pointed out the glaringly obvious hole in my theory, and i am now so embarassed that i am going to distract everybody by insulting the masculinity of the person who drew attention to my poor reasoning."

here's a little friendly advice, Eichen: when you insult another man's penis size, women automatically assume it is because you are aware of your own...shortcomings. you may be trying to posture and aggress as a means of defending yourself and appearing strong, but you only come off as a 10 year old boy throwing a fit because you aren't getting your way.

Plain simple answer : Nothing
Your lifestyle choice, choose what makes you happy. And if your happy then even better, you have nothing to regret.

I direct you to the written work of Lumsden - and with that I say goodnight.
Ian Lumsden, author of "Homosexuality: Society and the State in Mexico" and "Machos, Maricones and Gays: Cuba and Homosexuality"? or Charles J. Lumsden "Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process" or another Lumsden?

I'd like to take this momment to point out to the Conservative Christians, that the translations of the bibles have been changed so many times that many verses have lost their original meanings, SPECIFICALLY the ones on homosexuality that you rant and rave about. May I also point out that there are homosexuals in the bible. Indeed, the great King David was, with his friend Jonathan, if you only look beneath the surface of what you take as absolute at face value. I'd like to quote a particular passage.

2 Samuel 1:26

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Some may argue about their relationship being platonic, but you need only look beneath the surface to realize how wrong taking things at face value are indeed. You see, the argument goes something like this.... In the times of the bible, men and women would never have platonic relationships with one another, especially David. The only experience David could POSSIBLY have had with women, would be sexual in nature. To compare Jonathan's love to that of a woman's would not make sense. Therefor, his reference was indeed to loving Jonathan in that sense, a sexual sense.

Other homosexual couples can be spotted in the bible, if you only look under the surface. Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, as per example. This leads me to believe that the passages supposedly condemning homosexuality indeed never existed, and were mistranslated. If you look back through the ages, the particular passages condemning homosexuality were at one time translated to something else. Indeed, for example, the infamous Corinthians 6:9 passage, was once translated into english as not condemning homosexuality, but condemning masturbation. It seems the religious conservatives alter translations to suit the time as needed by some current dilemma.

And on a final note, please don't attempt to bring up Sodom. That was not destroyed for homosexuality, but for the blatant disregard for dignity and respect shown to the visiting angels, and the overall morally corruptness of the entire city. It is also known that they were BISEXUALS, if anything, not purelyhomosexuals.

____

P.S.: I love how conservatives will probably look at this argument and try to dig and find escape routes by looking for deeper meanings from these particular passages, whereas they'll take EVERYTHING else in the bible at pure face value, rather than reading between the lines and interpreting.

I ask: What's wrong with lesbians? Everyone keeps forgetting about lesbians, it's all GUY-ON-GUY ANAL DISEASE HIV OMG!!!

But lesbians actually have a lower rate of AIDS infection than the general heterosexual public. And they do not engage in that horrid abuse of the rectum, since what the ASS is used for is such an important debating point. And I couldn't find anything in the Bible about "not laying with women as thou lies with man".

So, once someone finds me a reason lesbianism is wrong, we can go back to debating gay men. Or you can just admit that it's not homosexuality that you have a problem with, it's just the fact of guys having sex that weirds you out.

I ask: What's wrong with lesbians? Everyone keeps forgetting about lesbians, it's all GUY-ON-GUY ANAL DISEASE HIV OMG!!!

But lesbians actually have a lower rate of AIDS infection than the general heterosexual public. And they do not engage in that horrid abuse of the rectum, since what the ASS is used for is such an important debating point. And I couldn't find anything in the Bible about "not laying with women as thou lies with man".

So, once someone finds me a reason lesbianism is wrong, we can go back to debating gay men. Or you can just admit that it's not homosexuality that you have a problem with, it's just the fact of guys having sex that weirds you out.
Not to mention that being gay != anal sex … in fact statistics show a same level/lower rate then the hetro crowd

I ask: What's wrong with lesbians? Everyone keeps forgetting about lesbians, it's all GUY-ON-GUY ANAL DISEASE HIV OMG!!!

But lesbians actually have a lower rate of AIDS infection than the general heterosexual public. And they do not engage in that horrid abuse of the rectum, since what the ASS is used for is such an important debating point. And I couldn't find anything in the Bible about "not laying with women as thou lies with man".

So, once someone finds me a reason lesbianism is wrong, we can go back to debating gay men. Or you can just admit that it's not homosexuality that you have a problem with, it's just the fact of guys having sex that weirds you out.
yup, all the key arguments against homosexuality are completely out the window when it comes to lesbians:

1. Gays are diseased!
Not lesbians, who have lower rates of STD infection than straight men, gay men, and straight women.

2. Gays are promiscuous!
Not lesbians, who actually have fewer partners (on average) than straight women, and far far far fewer partners on average than straight men.

3. Think of the children!
Statistically speaking, the safest possibly household for a child would be one with two mommies...straight men are the most likely group to victimize young children, both in terms of physical and sexual abuse, followed by gay men, followed by straight women, and lesbians trailing a distant fourth.

4. The Bible says it's wrong!
I have yet to encounter any reputable translation of the Bible that clearly condemns lesbianism. Of course, there aren't any reputable translations of the Bible that clearly condemn male homosexuality either, but there are a few translations that are at least a little ambiguous about male homosexuality.

5. It's icky!
You almost never hear a straight guy turning down the chance to watch two hot girls make out, though most of those same guys will be the ones to denounce "faggots" at every possible opportunity. Additionally, female-female sexual contact is, objectively, less mess than heterosexual sex...as mentioned before, it is "cleaner," and usually is far less likely to cause tearing of bodily tissues in unmentionable regions.

Not to mention that being gay != anal sex … in fact statistics show a same level/lower rate then the hetro crowd
i am close friends with three gay couples and five straight couples right now; none of the gay couples have anal sex, and only one of the three have even tried it, while two of the five straight couples have anal sex on a fairly regular basis and two of the others have tried it.

(i don't normally ask my friends about the details of their sex life, but i had asked this folks about anal sex during a previous discussion related to homosexual and heterosexual sex practices.)

4. The Bible says it's wrong!
I have yet to encounter any reputable translation of the Bible that clearly condemns lesbianism. Of course, there aren't any reputable translations of the Bible that clearly condemn male homosexuality either, but there are a few translations that are at least a little ambiguous about male homosexuality.


I've talked to several Rabbis who agree that while male homosexuality is out, there's nothing in the rule book against women doing it. So, since there's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't play baseball...


5. It's icky!
You almost never hear a straight guy turning down the chance to watch two hot girls make out, though most of those same guys will be the ones to denounce "faggots" at every possible opportunity. Additionally, female-female sexual contact is, objectively, less mess than heterosexual sex...as mentioned before, it is "cleaner," and usually is far less likely to cause tearing of bodily tissues in unmentionable regions.
[/QUOTE]

Face it, women are better looking than men. I'm only hetero because I was born male. If I had been born a woman, I'd be a lesbian.

The Bible states that it is wrong.

The Bible is the authority for Christians on how to lead a good life. So, it is natural that Christians would look to the Bible for guidance about homosexuality. In looking to that source what do they find?

The Bible says very little about homosexuality. In the Old Testament it is discussed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The sin of Sodom is mentioned in Genesis 19:5, but most biblical scholars claim the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality, but rather threatening the visitors to Sodom with gang rape, which obviously contravens rules of hospitality. In the New Testament homosexuality is discussed in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

So, altogether we have approximately 8 verses that touch on homosexuality. Keep in mind that many Christians claim the Old Testament rules no longer apply and that some of these verses are unclear as to whether it is homosexuality that is being condemned, but no matter.

Eight verses.

The Bible is comprised of 31,101 verses. There are nearly 800,000 words in both the Old and New Testament and we are talking about a few dozen words dealing with homosexuality. The Bible has far more to say about hypocrisy than it does homosexuals. There are three times as many verses about humility and humbleness as homosexuality. Even dancing is dealt with more frequently. The Bible discusses goats and lambs much more frequently than gays and lesbians.

Yet, to hear many Christians talk the most important message to be found in the Bible is the condemnation of homosexuality.

I've talked to several Rabbis who agree that while male homosexuality is out, there's nothing in the rule book against women doing it. So, since there's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't play baseball...




So we should only allow things that the book specificaly allows?

*snip*

And he's being generous and exempting the parts that potentially deal with homosexuality in a positive light, like my argument about David and Jonathan. And he is also exempting mis-translated verses that no longer hold their original meaning, SUCH as the Corinthians verse which was never meant to be about homosexuals, period.

Come on now people, discrimination is wrong.
Racism
Sexism
All of it. Wrong.

People have rights and should be allowed to be as gay as they want, it's just the way they were born. They can't help it and shouldnt have to.

And as for you Bible thumpers, did Jesus not teach you to accept all of God's children? I think he diiiiiiid... And seeing as how they were born this way, might it not be argued that God MADE them this way.

The only problem I have is with a certain faction of gay people, the ones who march and stomp and protest etc. If you want to be accepted like everyone else, making a huge deal out of your sexuality by being loud and obnoxious, not a good way to be accepted

The Bible is the authority for Christians on how to lead a good life. So, it is natural that Christians would look to the Bible for guidance about homosexuality. In looking to that source what do they find?

The Bible says very little about homosexuality. In the Old Testament it is discussed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The sin of Sodom is mentioned in Genesis 19:5, but most biblical scholars claim the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality, but rather threatening the visitors to Sodom with gang rape, which obviously contravens rules of hospitality. In the New Testament homosexuality is discussed in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

So, altogether we have approximately 8 verses that touch on homosexuality. Keep in mind that many Christians claim the Old Testament rules no longer apply and that some of these verses are unclear as to whether it is homosexuality that is being condemned, but no matter.

Eight verses.

The Bible is comprised of 31,101 verses. There are nearly 800,000 words in both the Old and New Testament and we are talking about a few dozen words dealing with homosexuality. The Bible has far more to say about hypocrisy than it does homosexuals. There are three times as many verses about humility and humbleness as homosexuality. Even dancing is dealt with more frequently. The Bible discusses goats and lambs much more frequently than gays and lesbians.

Yet, to hear many Christians talk the most important message to be found in the Bible is the condemnation of homosexuality.


You deserve fluffles.

:fluffle:

The only problem I have is with a certain faction of gay people, the ones who march and stomp and protest etc. If you want to be accepted like everyone else, making a huge deal out of your sexuality by being loud and obnoxious, not a good way to be accepted

Sitting back and accepting the status quo and not making an uproar didn't work either. We did that for years and nothing changing. African Americans did that for years and nothing changed.

A lot has changed for both groups--always after they refused to sit on the back of the bus anymore and stood up and said "I'm who I am, I'm proud of that fact, and I deserve to be fairly treated."

The fastest way to get rid of gay marches, etc. will be to give us equal rights and fair treatment in the countries and states in which we live. We pay our taxes and abide by the laws. It's time for equality.

I find nothing inherently "wrong" about homosexuality, I just dont want it spewed at me in public. Just as I don't want to see a guy making out with his girlfriend/female significant other of some sort, I don't want to see 2 guys making out (would say something about not wanting to see 2 ladies make out, but I won't kid myself, this IS one of the very few subjects I'm hypocritical in). So, here's my point, if it's kept behind doors, or to a minimum in public (holding hands, hugging, etc.) I'm fine with it, other than that, I'm VERY uncomfortable with the whole thing. .

Frankly I am appalled at all the hetero sex spewed at me everyday. With blantant ads for Viagra, or Enzyte all over the place, sex driving most the shows on the tube, it's the main plot in countless movies, articles on great sex in magazines... its disgusting!


Yes, that was sarcasm. Mostly.

Affection in public is absolutely fine with me, regardless of the couples' gender.

Or maybe its because everyone in the world is in fact bisexual and just now people are realizing it.
I'm not. Not that theres anything wrong with that.

In my school, it's the new trend to become "bisexual". It bothers me.
School? It sounds to me like these teenagers are so horny that one sex just cannot satisfy their lust.

Whats wrong with it? Absolutely nothing.

Well, I guess one could say whats wrong with it is it upsets narrow minds and right-wing nuts, but fuck them.