NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is addressed to the homosexuals on NS.

If you were given another chance at life from the beginning, would you prefer to have developed into a hetereosexual person?

Never. I would not be me if I did that.

hell no. I can't imagine being attracted to someone of the opposite sex. I'm fine the way I am. And your poll is going to be notoriously inaccurate because everyone can vote in here.

I thought only the homos were allowed to call themselves queers. Kind of like black people and the word nigga.

hell no. I can't imagine being attracted to someone of the opposite sex. I'm fine the way I am. And your poll is going to be notoriously inaccurate because everyone can vote in here.

Just wait 'til the fundies start skewing it. You know the ones... :rolleyes:

I thought only the homos were allowed to call themselves queers. Kind of like black people and the word nigga.

Queer is slowly being reclaimed, but people don't respect that. The usage here was probably intentionally provocative.

You might wish to remove the word "queers" from the title, as some consider it rather offensive. Anyways, since I'm bi, I figure I might as well answer, and say that no, I'd rather not be straight. When I viewed myself as such, I really wasn't any "better off" than I am now. In fact, I think I'm happier and more well adjusted now, than I was then.

Nope, I'm perfectly happy with the way I am and wouldnt want it any other way, that would be wierd :)

You might wish to remove the word "queers" from the title, as some consider it rather offensive. Anyways, since I'm bi, I figure I might as well answer, and say that no, I'd rather not be straight. When I viewed myself as such, I really wasn't any "better off" than I am now. In fact, I think I'm happier and more well adjusted now, than I was then.

I find it offensive too.. and considering the source, I'm not surprised. The same person who voted that homosexuality was a choice. Not a surprise at all. What else is new?

I thought only the homos were allowed to call themselves queers. Kind of like black people and the word nigga.

They can have the word, I prefer to call them fags.

They can have the word, I prefer to call them fags.

Poor troll attempt, really. :rolleyes:

They can have the word, I prefer to call them fags.

:rolleyes:

Immaturity.

Very poor trolling..

I'm openly bi, and hell no, I wouldn't want to limit myself to either tired option.

I might have once considered changing, if it were possible, but now that I have a really great boyfriend, and since both of us plan on bucking the odds of gay relationships surviving until one partner is dead, I won't even think about it.

Alright, I wasn't intending to flame, but what is the "current" definition of Queer?

Alright, I wasn't intending to flame, but what is the "current" definition of Queer?

Your whole thread is a poor troll attempt I think.

Sigh...why are people so defensive?

Sigh...why are people so defensive?

I'm defensive because I don't there needs to be a thread asking this. It is a poor troll attempt and considering your opinion on gay people, I don't think there is much to say.

Alright, I wasn't intending to flame, but what is the "current" definition of Queer?

It's still the same. A vulgarity used to refer to homosexuals. Much in the way other certain other words are used to offend a select group of people.

They can have the word, I prefer to call them fags.
Meh, fuck PC. I frequently use fag, queer, and other so-called "rude" words all the time. It akes all of the sting out of it.

Queers of the world, embrace your faggotry along with the freedom you have to display it. Trying to curb speech in the name of political correctness is just as bad as trying to curb the gay in the name of fundamentalism.

Or maybe I have a thick skin. I was out and open in high school, and because of my attitude, almost never got any shit about it. Other than "You don't act gay", to which I'd respond, "Probably not. I may have more experience with pussy than you do."

I also found that if you're not ashamed of it, a lot of straight guys will want to blow you. :p

Oh yeah, wouldn't give it up for the world.

They can have the word, I prefer to call them fags.
hehehehe shut the fuck up.

Ignorant fool.

I don't have a strong opinion on gay people actually. I believe that it is a choice to fall in love with a person, whether they're the same sex or different sex.

Sigh...why are people so defensive?

Do you mind if we call you chink or slant, then?

I don't have a strong opinion on gay people actually. I believe that it is a choice to fall in love with a person, whether they're the same sex or different sex.

That's not what is at question. What you are saying is that there is a choice to be gay or not.

Do you mind if we call you chink or slant, then?

Not particularly.

Here in New Zealand, there's a TV show for the homosexual community called "Queer Nation". TVNZ funded.

I might have once considered changing, if it were possible, but now that I have a really great boyfriend, and since both of us plan on bucking the odds of gay relationships surviving until one partner is dead, I won't even think about it.
I second that. If I could have changed before my boyfriend came into my life, I probably would have. Gay people who are not effeminate or promiscuous should form their own community and identify with a different word or something. I went to the marches last June and thought, who would be proud of this, and who wants to be associated with this? Instead of drag queens and all that other stuff, we could have a march we could really be proud of, with a gay war veteran float, and one for gay athletes (no figure-skaters!).

Do you mind if we call you chink or slant, then?

What's that other word, "gook"? I think I heard something like that in a film on the Vietnam war... offensive, no?

Here in New Zealand, there's a TV show for the homosexual community called "Queer Nation". TVNZ funded.

Here in the US, there is a whole channel. It is called Logo.

So what?

I second that. If I could have changed before my boyfriend came into my life, I probably would have. Gay people who are not effeminate or promiscuous should form their own community and identify with a different word or something. I went to the marches last June and thought, who would be proud of this, and who wants to be associated with this? Instead of drag queens and all that other stuff, we could have a march we could really be proud of, with a gay war veteran float, and one for gay athletes (no figure-skaters!).

Nice way of insulting everyone who isn't like you wish them to. :rolleyes:

What's that other word, "gook"? I think I heard something like that in a film on the Vietnam war... offensive, no?

Gook is for Vietnamese, I believe.

Here in the US, there is a whole channel. It is called Logo.

So what?

I think he's talking about the use of the word Queer as opposed to the amount of tv time devoted to the homosexual community

Gook is for Vietnamese, I believe.

Oh, I looked it up. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gook) Apparently, used for Asians.

That's not what is at question. What you are saying is that there is a choice to be gay or not.

Yes and No. I believe that some people are more prone to being gay than others, but it is ultimately their choice whether they come out of the closet.

Here in the US, there is a whole channel. It is called Logo.

So what?

I'm talking about the use of the word "Queer"

I'm not even gay and i'm nearly offended by this....

Someone does not get enough human contact. Theres some things you just don't ask, and this is one of em.

Oh, I looked it up. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gook) Apparently, used for Asians.

Ah. I was using this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality).

Yes and No. I believe that some people are more prone to being gay than others, but it is ultimately their choice whether they come out of the closet.

:rolleyes:

Coming out of the closet does not mean it is a choice being gay. Some people are more prone to being gay then others? You make it sound like some sickness or disease.. dude seriously, get over your insecurities. Homosexuality is no illness or disease. So what if someone is out of the closet or not.. it doesn't change their sexual orientation.

Ah. I was using this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality).

hmmmm i'm an inside out ****** apparently

Gook is for Vietnamese, I believe.

Actually, it was originally for Philipinos during the insurrection of 1899, was extended to Koreans during the Korean War, and then became a general term for all Asians after that.

Yes and No. I believe that some people are more prone to being gay than others, but it is ultimately their choice whether they come out of the closet.
It doesn't matter if you're in the closet or not. If you wish there was a guy in there with you you're still gay. Think about it, did you choose to be straight? If you have to make an effort to like women, maybe you're just in denial about being a homo.

hmmmm i'm an inside out ****** apparently
What ethnicity does that refer to?

hmmmm i'm an inside out ****** apparently

I'm a wop and a guido and a guinea, all of which I've been called before.

What ethnicity does that refer to?

Irish

I've only ever been called Paddy or Mick before. I can handle them ok though

:rolleyes:

Coming out of the closet does not mean it is a choice being gay. Some people are more prone to being gay then others? You make it sound like some sickness or disease.. dude seriously, get over your insecurities. Homosexuality is no illness or disease. So what if someone is out of the closet or not.. it doesn't change their sexual orientation.

Hmmm....I think it's quite natural to have homosexual tendencies, but it is your choice to act out those tendencies.

Ah. I was using this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality).

"Hurri is a Finnish derogatory term for Swedes in general. Finland-Swedes are sometimes derogatorily called bättre folk (Swedish for "better people"). This is intended to mock the perceived feeling of superiority Finland-Swedes are thought to feel towards Finnish speakers."

Hah! I had no idea! I guess primarily because we Swedes never really pay that much attention to Finns. Unfortunately for Finn(s) ("finne (ar)" in Sw.), "finne" means "zit" in Swedish...

Nice way of insulting everyone who isn't like you wish them to. :rolleyes:
I'm not trying to insult anyone. I just think that a man should be a man and that promiscuity is wrong (not for religious reasons, I am an atheist and my morality is from secular philosophy). I am a gay man who wants to be a man and wants to be with other gay men like that. If I do not want to associate with the Nazis, Communists or Republicans, because I don't like their politics, are they right to feel insulted? I can associate with whom I want to, and if the people I don't associate with don't like it, then piss on them! :mp5:

I'm a wop and a guido and a guinea, all of which I've been called before.
I've been called wop and guinea, but not guido. When I was growing up that term was used primarily to describe a certain type of Italian. The kind who liked to dress flashy, wear gold, and drive a Camaro IROC.

queers mean anyone who isnt straight.

including transgender .

Hmmm....I think it's quite natural to have homosexual tendencies, but it is your choice to act out those tendencies.

I never said anything on acting on tendencies. I said it is natural to have attractions... whether it is to one gender or the other, or both.

I've been called wop and guinea, but not guido. When I was growing up that term was used primarily to describe a certain type of Italian. The kind who liked to dress flashy, wear gold, and drive a Camaro IROC.

I know the type. But I've found the kind of people to use wop or guido don't really care about what type of Italian you are.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. I just think that a man should be a man and that promiscuity is wrong (not for religious reasons, I am an atheist and my morality is from secular philosophy). If I do not want to associate with the Nazis, Communists or Republicans, because I don't like their politics, are they right to feel insulted? I can associate with whom I want to, and if the people I don't associate with don't like it, then piss on them!

Well, then, take a sip from that golden shower, like all "straight-acting" (hah, even your moniker reflects poorly on you) supremacists.

If a population was straight, but their environment was encouraging of homosexuality, wouldn't there be a greater chance of homosexuality developing?

(This isn't intentional flaming, I'm not trying to offend anyone)

If a population was straight, but their environment was encouraging of homosexuality, wouldn't there be a greater chance of homosexuality developing?

(This isn't intentional flaming, I'm not trying to offend anyone)

I think this is more flame bait... I hope no one bites it.

If a population was straight, but their environment was encouraging of homosexuality, wouldn't there be a greater chance of homosexuality developing?

(This isn't intentional flaming, I'm not trying to offend anyone)


homosexual acts would be more likely to happen. And I think thats great. We should encouage people to be truthful about their sexuality. I believe they should act upon their true sexuality.

I know the type. But I've found the kind of people to use wop or guido don't really care about what type of Italian you are.
In my middle school and high school years guido was often used, and it refered to that specific type of Italian. Wop was almost never used. I heard it from people outside of school. Once from a cop.

I think this is more flame bait... I hope no one bites it.

I think its a fair question really

In my middle school and high school years guido was often used, and it refered to that specific type of Italian. Wop was almost never used. I heard it from people outside of school. Once from a cop.

Boston must be different than New Jersey. Guinea is the most prevalent, but I hear wop often, too. Guido I've only ever heard once or twice.

homosexual acts would be more likely to happen. And I think thats great. We should encouage people to be truthful about their sexuality. I believe they should act upon their true sexuality.

But won't that encourage heterosexuals to become gay?

Well, then, take a sip from that golden shower, like all "straight-acting" (hah, even your moniker reflects poorly on you) supremacists.
I don't call it "straight acting". I call it being myself. I know the effeminate type. They don't have a self. Their effeminacy is just a front that hides the fact that they are really an empty shell, and do not even have any real feminine (different from effeminate) characteristics, like nurturing, which helps maintain a relationship and avoid promiscous behaviour. I am actually proud to say I have more feminine characteristics than them, like the nurturing qualities that give me the ability to have a good relationship.

Their effeminacy is just a front that hides the fact that they are really an empty shell, and do not even have any real feminine (dfferent from effeminate) characteristics, like nurturing, which helps maintain a relationship and avoid promiscous behaviour.


what a gross generalisation. Its really disgusting when "straight acting" gay men insult "feminine men"
its bullshit and discriminative and hypocrtical.

But won't that encourage heterosexuals to become gay?

It wont encourage striaght people to be gay, it will encourage bi curious people to experiment different sexualities. Sexuality is a spectrum right?

I don't call it "straight acting". I call it being myself. I know the effeminate type. They don't have a self. Their effeminacy is just a front that hides the fact that they are really an empty shell, and do not even have any real feminine (different from effeminate) characteristics, like nurturing, which helps maintain a relationship and avoid promiscous behaviour. I am actually proud to say I have more feminine characteristics than them, like the nurturing qualities that give me the ability to have a good relationship.

This entire paragraph of yours screams "straight-acting supremacist" in your derision of those people who aren't. You have my contempt.

I just think that a man should be a man and that promiscuity is wrong.
No offense, but isn't that an oxymoron? Manly men (high testosterone) tend to be more promiscuous than men with less test.

Just an observation.

what a gross generalisation. Its really disgusting when "straight acting" gay men insult "feminine men"
its bullshit and discriminative and hypocrtical.
Tell me how.

This entire paragraph of yours screams "straight-acting supremacist" in your derision of those people who aren't. You have my contempt.


I agree. I absolutely cannot stand these people.

what a gross generalisation. Its really disgusting when "straight acting" gay men insult "feminine men"
its bullshit and discriminative and hypocrtical.

Yeah, indicative of self-hatred, too. They hate seeing it in others, because they see it in themselves, so they project, and fool no one else but themselves.

Yeah, indicative of self-hatred, too. They hate seeing it in others, because they see it in themselves, so they project, and fool no one else but themselves.

I'm borderline fem.. I don't like being insulted by "straight acting" gay guys. They want to be treated right by heterosexuals, and they turn around and bash fem guys?

How?

As a gay man, you should not discriminate other people based on their gender expression or what not. Your very existence has already violated the idea of what a "man" is supposed to be. Why? Because you like men.

Ooooh too bad. You can keep trying to appease the people who have traditional beliefs, but you will NEVER be accepted because you are a homo-sexual.

By your logic, you are just as bad as a feminine gay man.

No offense, but isn't that an oxymoron? Manly men (high testosterone) tend to be more promiscuous than men with less test.

Just an observation.
Very few of the gay men I hang out with are promiscuous and only a few of them ever were. I look at my uncle and his friends (the men I once promised myelf I would never be like) and they are going to the bath houses, and even public restrooms. They get diseases left and right. What observations do you base your statements on?

I'm borderline fem.. I don't like being insulted by "straight acting" gay guys. They want to be treated right by heterosexuals, and they turn around and bash fem guys?

That's often the gist of it. Often, they recognise the same traits in themselves, and out of insecurity and disliking of themselves, they lash out and talk shit (or worse) about those who they see have these attributs that they loathe so much in themselves.

Very few of the gay men I hang out with are promiscuous and only a few of them ever were. I look at my uncle and his friends (the men I once promised myelf I would never be like) and they are going to the bath houses, and even public restrooms. They get diseases left and right. What observations do you base your statements on?

Yeah so? So do heterosexual men who go to hookers.

But you still haven't answered to other charges. I'm a fem gay guy. What do you have against me? What did I do to you? I happen to be in a monogamous relationship.

Yeah, indicative of self-hatred, too. They hate seeing it in others, because they see it in themselves, so they project, and fool no one else but themselves.
Self-hatred? I'm not the one disgracing myself by acting like a woman (and usually doing a poor job of it), I'm not the one getting diseases (never had a sexual disease in my life). I love my life, and that is the reason I don't do those things.

Self-hatred? I'm not the one disgracing myself by acting like a woman (and usually doing a poor job of it), I'm not the one getting diseases (never had a sexual disease in my life). I love my life, and that is the reason I don't do those things.


why is it a disgrace to act like a woman?

is acting like a woman disgraceful? and if so why?

and what does "acting like a woman" entail?

Self-hatred? I'm not the one disgracing myself by acting like a woman (and usually doing a poor job of it), I'm not the one getting diseases (never had a sexual disease in my life). I love my life, and that is the reason I don't do those things.

Oh really? have you met me? I sometimes wear lip gloss, but who cares? I love my life too. So what if i do those things.. I love my boyfriend... and I have high self esteem. Don't go bashing fem gay guys.

and you know... being gay is pretty disgraceful for a man.. :rolleyes:

poor you. You cant win either way. *shakes head*

How?

As a gay man, you should not discriminate other people based on their gender expression or what not. Your very existence has already violated the idea of what a "man" is supposed to be. Why? Because you like men.

Ooooh too bad. You can keep trying to appease the people who have traditional beliefs, but you will NEVER be accepted because you are a homo-sexual.

By your logic, you are just as bad as a feminine gay man.
I'm not trying to appease anyone. I just said I do not want to associate with them.

Very few of the gay men I hang out with are promiscuous and only a few of them ever were. I look at my uncle and his friends (the men I once promised myelf I would never be like) and they are going to the bath houses, and even public restrooms. They get diseases left and right. What observations do you base your statements on?
Well, obviously you've refuted the scientific evidence concerning the relation between testosterone levels and fidelity, promiscuity and number of sexual partners with an anecdote about your gay uncle.

I think it's you who should clarify exactly what your statement was, in relation to mine.

And I commend you on avoiding disease. Good job. However, I don't see what it has to do with fem vs. butch promiscuity. There's plenty of sluts in both camps, sir. Hell, I prefer manly men, with pretty faces. :D
But that's a preference, not an ignorant statement about their personalities or bedroom habits.

What the fuck are you basing anything you've introduced to the conversation on?

Self-hatred? I'm not the one disgracing myself by acting like a woman (and usually doing a poor job of it),

Madonna has to be quoted:

"But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading
’cause you think that being a girl is degrading
But secretly you’d love to know what it’s like
Wouldn’t you
What it feels like for a girl"

It's obvious. You find "acting gay" degrading.

I'm not the one getting diseases (never had a sexual disease in my life).

Are you seriously trying to depict non straight-acting people as disease-ridden? You disgust me.

I love my life, and that is the reason I don't do those things.

You love your life so much, that you admit that you would want to be straight if but for the sole reason of your boyfriend? Whom do you think you're kidding?

I'm not trying to appease anyone. I just said I do not want to associate with them.

Hmm interesting.. i'm a fem gay guy.. as I said.. and you won't associate with me for that? Why?

its hilarious but sad that Dagnia thinks a man can sleep and have sex with another man , and thats perfectly MANLY but wearing a lipstick is oh , disgraceful.


I love that.

Its like a racist gay guy.

Yeah so? So do heterosexual men who go to hookers.

But you still haven't answered to other charges. I'm a fem gay guy. What do you have against me? What did I do to you? I happen to be in a monogamous relationship.
I don't have anything against you. It is just that I have seen a correlation between promiscuity, low self-image and effeminacy. If you are effeminate, but don't fit into any other catgory, then good for you. If I meet someone like that, I would not have any problems accepting him as a friend, if I got to know him.
As for heterosexual men going to hookers, it does happen, but last time I checked, tere were no heterosexual bath houses, and the police rarely arrest hetersexuals for having sex in public restrooms. There is probably also a smaller proportion of heterosexuals who have over 100 anonymous partners per year.

its hilarious but sad that Dagnia thinks a man can sleep and have sex with another man , and thats perfectly MANLY but wearing a lipstick is oh , disgraceful.

Yeah, they're all so manly when that cock is in their mouth. :rolleyes:

I love that.

Its like a racist gay guy.

You know, even the slaves had house slaves who were "better" than the other ones.

I don't have anything against you. It is just that I have seen a correlation between promiscuity, low self-image and effeminacy. If you are effeminate, but don't fit into any other catgory, then good for you. If I meet someone like that, I would not have any problems accepting him as a friend, if I got to know him.

Your correlations are gross generalizations.

As for heterosexual men going to hookers, it does happen, but last time I checked, tere were no heterosexual bath houses, and the police rarely arrest hetersexuals for having sex in public restrooms. There is probably also a smaller proportion of heterosexuals who have over 100 anonymous partners per year.

There are whore houses, and police arrest heterosexuals for having sex elsewhere. I'm sick of this. You are trying to paint homosexuals as the ones with more partners. I beg to differ. I think heterosexuals are just as bad, and you are full of it.

its hilarious but sad that Dagnia thinks a man can sleep and have sex with another man , and thats perfectly MANLY but wearing a lipstick is oh , disgraceful.


I love that.

Its like a racist gay guy.
But it is. The Greeks, the Samurai and the Celts considered homosexuality very masculine. As for the racist remark, I am of mixed race, and since I have said that I don't hate myself, I can't be racist.

They we're wrong. Sodomy is unbiblical, you're all going to hell! (Although there's hope for the 20-odd percent who know the errors of their ways).

They we're wrong. Sodomy is unbiblical, you're all going to hell!

Troll. A weak attempt.

tere were no heterosexual bath houses, and the police rarely arrest hetersexuals for having sex in public restrooms. There is probably also a smaller proportion of heterosexuals who have over 100 anonymous partners per year.
Ummmm, that's because they call them whorehouses, dumbass. Not bath houses. :rolleyes:

And "probably" doesn't cut it. Back up your statements with a study... anything! But don't randomly invent fantasy "facts" to back up your bias.

I'd love to get back with you all and talk about this at a later date, but my boyfriend says dinner is getting cold. Bye!

But it is. The Greeks, the Samurai and the Celts considered homosexuality very masculine. As for the racist remark, I am of mixed race, and since I have said that I don't hate myself, I can't be racist.

Plato and Aristotle were greeks, they didnt like homosexuality.

I am sorry...but someone who takes it up the ass has no place to tell anyone what a man is supposed to be like.

They we're wrong. Sodomy is unbiblical, you're all going to hell! (Although there's hope for the 20-odd percent who know the errors of their ways).
Good, I'd rather go to hell then be in heaven with a bunch of idiots like yourself.

They we're wrong. Sodomy is unbiblical, you're all going to hell! (Although there's hope for the 20-odd percent who know the errors of their ways).
Cool! Since I never engage in anal intercourse, I guess Jesus gave me a Suck dick and get out of hell, FREE! card.

Awww, yeah! :D

They we're wrong. Sodomy is unbiblical, you're all going to hell! (Although there's hope for the 20-odd percent who know the errors of their ways).
One last thing though: If there is one thing I hate more than a promiscuous, effeminate gay man, it is a religious conservative. Someone should have told you that God has been dead for over twohundred years, asshole!

But it is. The Greeks, the Samurai and the Celts considered homosexuality very masculine.

No, they didn't. They found pederasty masculine, and only the one performing it. The boy, because it was usually a boy, wasn't very high on the social ladder. In fact, those who subjected themselves to the "degrading" behaviour of being a "bottom" to their pederast were seen just as you are trying to depict non-straight-acting people here. One of the worst shames, in fact, was seen as being a grown man fucked by another man.

So, you see, history is full of people like you who are "better" than the rest of the fags. Back then it was "better" to be the fucker, you feel it's "better" to act like a straight man. It's still the same sort of bullshit that lets you be a "straight gay man" to yourself.

As for the racist remark, I am of mixed race, and since I have said that I don't hate myself, I can't be racist.

That fact is but apparent.

No, they didn't. They found pederasty masculine, and only the one performing it. The boy, because it was usually a boy, wasn't very high on the social ladder. In fact, those who subjected themselves to the "degrading" behaviour of being a "bottom" to their pederast were seen just as you are trying you depict non-straight-acting people here.



so true. Its incredible how people can pick and choose which act is considered masculine and which is not according to their own prejudices.

One last thing though: If there is one thing I hate more than a promiscuous, effeminate gay man, it is a religious conservative. Someone should have told you that God has been dead for over twohundred years, asshole!

Sodomy is wrong, but incestual heterosexual three-ways are perfectly acceptable. Always remember that.

Cool! Since I never engage in anal intercourse, I guess Jesus gave me a Suck dick and get out of hell, FREE! card.

Awww, yeah! :D
I don't think so, you abomination.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Hmm. It's too bad that Dag, Agnostic and Fass are all so blindly prejudice against each other.

I'm straight. I know about five gay men that I would consider acquaintances, and one I consider friend. So I am not very big on knowledge of the gay scene. But I know this.

1. Dagnia. You don't like effeminate gays because you've experienced a pattern of qualities you dislike about them. You like to "act like a man", and would like to hang around other people who do too.

I've met a lot of black people that treat me like shit because I'm Jewish. However, if I turn around and start equating their assholishness with their skin color, then I'm stooping to their level. Fickleness in relationships is not an effeminate quality anymore than it is a gay, or a straight quality. Don't call it like it is. People are all individuals and deserve the chance to be judged on their own merits, not some label.

2. Fass. You rag on Dagnia for being a straight-acting gay. What the hell? How is it any less 'gay' to drink beer and play pool in a bar, than to run around in drag? You are being a hypocrite with your use of titles. You are disgusted with Dagnia for not accepting your (or maybe others) effeminate ways, and yet you slap him with the obviously derrisive label of "straight acting", inferring he is not a real gay, nor a proud gay, because he would fit in with "normal guys".

Can't straight guys dress drag? Can't anyone dress however the fuck they want to without having their orientation brought into question or concern? Can't gay guys act like regular members of society? Can't straight men dress in garish women's clothing and parade around in heels?

Basically, I am curious as to how you guys can be so hypocritical with each other. And so critical of each other. Does being gay mean one has to listen to a certain type of music, or talk a certain way, or act a certain way? I don't think it does. Being Jewish doesn't mean any of that about me. Being black doesn't mean that about many of my friends, who continually prove to me that giving people a chance on an individual basis is the right thing to do. If a black man can listen to country music (against stereotype), and a white man can bust rhymes (against stereotype), then why can't a gay man act as he pleases, without being considered a freak or a sell-out?

You guys should be acting as friends toward each other. Not because you're both gay, but because you are both human.

I don't think so, you abomination.

who gives a damn? I'm not a christian. prove your religion.

This is an 'interesting' thread for me.

Yes, I would change. Because that would mean I wouldn't be transgendered, which is more trouble than it's worth really. But this is who I am, so I have to make the best of it.







er.....STFU :mad:


Or something.

This really isn't meant to be a discussion thread on metrosexual gays vs straight gays.

But keep the voting up.

That fact is but apparent.[/QUOTE]
Did you just insult mixed race people?

This really isn't meant to be a discussion thread on metrosexual gays vs straight gays.

But keep the voting up.

Your poll is BS.

Anyone can vote in this...

(Probably should have made it public)

2. Fass. You rag on Dagnia for being a straight-acting gay. What the hell? How is it any less 'gay' to drink beer and play pool in a bar, than to run around in drag? You are being a hypocrite with your use of titles. You are disgusted with Dagnia for not accepting your (or maybe others) effeminate ways, and yet you slap him with the obviously derrisive label of "straight acting", inferring he is not a real gay, nor a proud gay, because he would fit in with "normal guys".

What a bunch of ignorant BS! "Straight-acting" is a term used by themselves - you'll see it everywhere on gay contact websites. Usually going somthing like "looking for other straight-acting men, queens need not apply". It is they who define "drinking beer and playing pool" as non-gay, and you seem to have completely missed that it is exactly this distancing themselves of the "gay" things that people, myself included, have been railing against.

Also, if you actually read what I write, you'll see that I'm not ragging on him acting like a straight man (I don't care how people act), but his vitriol against those who don't.

So, to summerise: Learn a bit more about the jargon and situation in the gay community, and actually read what people have written before you open your yap and accuse anyone of hypocrisy.

Your poll is BS.

Anyone can vote in this...
With the wording of the question, you'd have to be queer to vote.

I don't think so, you abomination.

What kind of women are you hanging around if you can do that with them :eek:

Sodomy is wrong, but incestual heterosexual three-ways are perfectly acceptable. Always remember that.

You dont need to tell me twice

So, to summerise: Learn a bit more about the jargon and situation in the gay community
Why would any normal man want to?

Why would any normal man want to?

Define normal man

Why would any normal man want to?

Fass was talking about the free minded, non-fascist people. :) Not the fundamentalists as yourself.

Define normal man

Well, judging by the name of the poster: WASP.

Define normal man
Normal is generally defined as the opposite of abnormal, odd, or queer.

Well, judging by the name of the poster: WASP.
And who's to say a WASP can't be Gay? :)

Normal is generally define as the opposite of abnormal, odd, or queer.
And what do you define to be "abnormal", and on what scientific basis?

Normal is generally defined as the opposite of abnormal, odd, or queer.

But you would have to define one of those first

Hmm. It's too bad that Dag, Agnostic and Fass are all so blindly prejudice against each other.

I'm straight. I know about five gay men that I would consider acquaintances, and one I consider friend. So I am not very big on knowledge of the gay scene. But I know this.

1. Dagnia. You don't like effeminate gays because you've experienced a pattern of qualities you dislike about them. You like to "act like a man", and would like to hang around other people who do too.

I've met a lot of black people that treat me like shit because I'm Jewish. However, if I turn around and start equating their assholishness with their skin color, then I'm stooping to their level. Fickleness in relationships is not an effeminate quality anymore than it is a gay, or a straight quality. Don't call it like it is. People are all individuals and deserve the chance to be judged on their own merits, not some label.

2. Fass. You rag on Dagnia for being a straight-acting gay. What the hell? How is it any less 'gay' to drink beer and play pool in a bar, than to run around in drag? You are being a hypocrite with your use of titles. You are disgusted with Dagnia for not accepting your (or maybe others) effeminate ways, and yet you slap him with the obviously derrisive label of "straight acting", inferring he is not a real gay, nor a proud gay, because he would fit in with "normal guys".

Can't straight guys dress drag? Can't anyone dress however the fuck they want to without having their orientation brought into question or concern? Can't gay guys act like regular members of society? Can't straight men dress in garish women's clothing and parade around in heels?

Basically, I am curious as to how you guys can be so hypocritical with each other. And so critical of each other. Does being gay mean one has to listen to a certain type of music, or talk a certain way, or act a certain way? I don't think it does. Being Jewish doesn't mean any of that about me. Being black doesn't mean that about many of my friends, who continually prove to me that giving people a chance on an individual basis is the right thing to do. If a black man can listen to country music (against stereotype), and a white man can bust rhymes (against stereotype), then why can't a gay man act as he pleases, without being considered a freak or a sell-out?

You guys should be acting as friends toward each other. Not because you're both gay, but because you are both human.
You are probably right. I may be a little too hard on those that fit that pattern of behaviour. And you hit the nail on the head, saying all people are individuals to be judged on their own merits, something I often say, but just as often forget. But I choose my friendships based on shared interests, and those who are effeminate most likely will not have the same interests, and maybe I should not jump to conclusions if someone has a slight lisp or hasn't cleaned off all of his makeup before comming to the pool table.

Well, judging by the name of the poster: WASP.
Who are you calling Anglo-Saxon? My blood is pure Norse!

And who's to say a WASP can't be Gay? :)

Oh, I forgot a letter: WASSP. There, and maybe throw in an "F" for Fundamentalist. No need to knock all Protestants. ;)

Did you just insult mixed race people?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment.

I don't have anything against you. It is just that I have seen a correlation between promiscuity, low self-image and effeminacy. If you are effeminate, but don't fit into any other catgory, then good for you. If I meet someone like that, I would not have any problems accepting him as a friend, if I got to know him.
As for heterosexual men going to hookers, it does happen, but last time I checked, tere were no heterosexual bath houses, and the police rarely arrest hetersexuals for having sex in public restrooms. There is probably also a smaller proportion of heterosexuals who have over 100 anonymous partners per year.

One last thing though: If there is one thing I hate more than a promiscuous, effeminate gay man, it is a religious conservative.

You don't have anything against effemiate gay men but you hate them? Is it just me or does this deserve a big wtf?

Who are you calling Anglo-Saxon? My blood is pure Norse!

You are aware the Saxons are Germanic like the Norse? They're all related.

And who's to say a WASP can't be Gay? :)
No true protestant could go against the scriptures: it's papists who make their own rules up.

You are aware the Saxons are Germanic like the Norse? They're all related.
Scandinavian.

No true protestant could go against the scriptures: it's papists who make their own rules up.

Yes, the ideas of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are both fully supported by the Bible.

Oh, I forgot a letter: WASSP. There, and maybe throw in an "F" for Fundamentalist. No need to knock all Protestants. ;)
WASSFP?

No, they didn't. They found pederasty masculine, and only the one performing it. The boy, because it was usually a boy, wasn't very high on the social ladder. In fact, those who subjected themselves to the "degrading" behaviour of being a "bottom" to their pederast were seen just as you are trying to depict non-straight-acting people here. One of the worst shames, in fact, was seen as being a grown man fucked by another man.
Not true. The Greeks and Celts (am not sure about the Samurai) never penetrated each other, and did not have a top/bottom relationship.
This website explains- (this site contains some erotic, but not pornographic images. be cautious)
http://www.heroichomosex.com/hero/greeksintro.html

WASSFP?

Something like that...too bad it doesn't sound the same. :(

WASSFP?
Drop the AS and you're nearly there.

Something like that...too bad it doesn't sound the same. :(
Yea, but it's much more accurate.

Drop the AS and you're nearly there.
White Straight Fundimentalist Protestant?

Actually, it was originally for Philipinos during the insurrection of 1899, was extended to Koreans during the Korean War, and then became a general term for all Asians after that.

Odd, that. I rather thought that the term gook came from the Koreans' own word wae gook, meaning "foreigner"

Not true. The Greeks and Celts (am not sure about the Samurai) never penetrated each other, and did not have a top/bottom relationship.
This website explains- (this site contains some erotic, but not pornographic images. be cautious)
http://www.heroichomosex.com/hero/greeksintro.html

http://www.johntunger.com/display/eroscatalog/eros_09.html

That is anything but intercrural. Erastes/Eromenos relationships weren't equal. That site is biased, wishful thinking.

"Some of my views are mainstream, and some of them, while not necessarily radical, push the envelope in terms of how most contemporary scholars see the Greeks."

Hah!

Odd, that. I rather thought that the term gook came from the Koreans' own word wae gook, meaning "foreigner"

It originated with the Tagalog word Gugus and gained more common usage during the Korean war because the word for foreigner is, as you said, wae gook.

It originated with the Tagalog word Gugus and gained more common usage during the Korean war because the word for foreigner is, as you said, wae gook.

Is that right? Gee, learn a new thing every day...
Now...to expand upon that: 1) Who/what are/is Tagalog?
2) What exactly does "gugus" mean in Tagalog?

One more thing. A lot of people on this thread have been equating gay bathhouses to heterosexual whorehouses and saying that heterosexual promiscuity is at the same rate as gay promiscuity. Once I heard of the bathhouse being described as once the centre of the community before the 1980's. When has anyone ever described a heterosexual whorehouse as the centre of the heterosexual community? And most importantly- when AIDS became an epidemic in Europe and America, why was it only in the Gay community, and even when it spread to heterosexuals, it never became the epidemic it is. Except in really poor countries, AIDS has only very recently become a more heterosexual problem, and still, when 50% of all cases of a certain disease have a tendeny to affect less than 10% of a population, something is wrong with that 10%.

One more thing. A lot of people on this thread have been equating gay bathhouses to heterosexual whorehouses and saying that heterosexual promiscuity is at the same rate as gay promiscuity. Once I heard of the bathhouse being described as once the centre of the community before the 1980's. When has anyone ever described a heterosexual whorehouse as the centre of the heterosexual community? And most importantly- when AIDS became an epidemic in Europe and America, why was it only in the Gay community, and even when it spread to heterosexuals, it never became the epidemic it is. Except in really poor countries, AIDS has only very recently become a more heterosexual problem, and still, when 50% of all cases of a certain disease have a tendeny to affect less than 10% of a population, something is wrong with that 10%.

AIDS originated from heterosexuals in Africa from people either having sex or eating monkeys. AIDS has always been a heterosexual problem if you look worldwide. Again get beyond your narrow-mindset.

I've been called wop and guinea, but not guido. When I was growing up that term was used primarily to describe a certain type of Italian. The kind who liked to dress flashy, wear gold, and drive a Camaro IROC.

Queer....

I never thought about that, but that jives with my experience too. I'm 1/2 Sicilian via Baltimore, & the pejorative "Guido" could judiciously be applied to many of my tight-polyester-fabric wearing, gold-chain sporting, IROC driving relatives.

My favorite Italo-Americano pejorative term of all-time though is "Yoba"-

A "Yoba" embodies all of the above, with the addition of a mullet. And maybe a "wife-beater" T-shirt, depending on the season ;)

Back to the Threadled Topic, from a straight non religious guy's perspective - who cares? I don't think gays have much more choice about being gay than I do about being Italian. That being said, science ain't got a lock on all that shit yet either, methinks. Who knows, maybe there will turn out to be a "Gay Gene" (other than Simmons).

Either way though - who cares? Obviously a few folks other than me..

Basta, basta!

Salud, & Peace Out.

http://www.johntunger.com/display/eroscatalog/eros_09.html

That is anything but intercrural. Erastes/Eromenos relationships weren't equal. That site is biased, wishful thinking.

"Some of my views are mainstream, and some of them, while not necessarily radical, push the envelope in terms of how most contemporary scholars see the Greeks."

Hah!
How do you know that what that site features is authentic, and what makes you trust what is on there any more than I trust Mr. Weintraub?

AIDS originated from heterosexuals in Africa from people either having sex or eating monkeys. AIDS has always been a heterosexual problem if you look worldwide. Again get beyond your narrow-mindset.

Apparently you arent allowed to give blood in the UK if you have ever given oral sex to another man. I dont know what the rules are like in other countries but it just seems like an interesting fact to go along with that

AIDS originated from heterosexuals in Africa from people either having sex or eating monkeys. AIDS has always been a heterosexual problem if you look worldwide. Again get beyond your narrow-mindset.
Straight people don't have sex with monkeys, perverts do.

Is that right? Gee, learn a new thing every day...
Now...to expand upon that:

1) Who/what are/is Tagalog?
2) What exactly does "gugus" mean in Tagalog?

1. Tagalog is a major and official language of the Philipines, and is related to Indonesian.

2. It's the word for "guardian spirit"; how it evolved in to gook and an ethnic slur has something to do with the Anglicanization of the word during the post-insurrection period

Apparently you arent allowed to give blood in the UK if you have ever given oral sex to another man. I dont know what the rules are like in other countries but it just seems like an interesting fact to go along with that

Dang. How discriminatory. What if a female gave oral sex to another man?

I'm not a virgin. I'm also healthy too. So that should not disqualify me.

AIDS originated from heterosexuals in Africa from people either having sex or eating monkeys. AIDS has always been a heterosexual problem if you look worldwide. Again get beyond your narrow-mindset.
I have heard that theory, and consider it one of the more believable ones, but you dodged the question, why in the industrialised world has it been a disproportionally gay problem and why don't heterosexuals in industrialised countries get it at the same rate as as gays in those countries?

Dang. How discriminatory. What if a female gave oral sex to another man?

I'm not a virgin. I'm also healthy too. So that should not disqualify me.

Nope females are allowed to do it all they want. The nurses on hand dont appreciate it if you argue with them about the discrimination and they have needles so i decided not to argue the point

Straight people don't have sex with monkeys, perverts do.
Straight people are perverts.

I have heard that theory, and consider it one of the more believable ones, but you dodged the question, why in the industrialised world has it been a disproportionally gay problem and why don't heterosexuals in industrialised countries get it at the same rate as as gays in those countries?

Awful neglect by the government to address issues. Again I'm not from that generation. I'm from a new generation. Also increasingly heterosexual women are the ones being at risk the most.

I have heard that theory, and consider it one of the more believable ones, but you dodged the question, why in the industrialised world has it been a disproportionally gay problem and why don't heterosexuals in industrialised countries get it at the same rate as as gays in those countries?
Haven't looked at the numbers recently, have you? Heterosexuals that are infected with HIV far outstrip homosexuals infected with HIV.

Nope females are allowed to do it all they want. The nurses on hand dont appreciate it if you argue with them about the discrimination and they have needles so i decided not to argue the point
Just out of interest, because I genuinely don't know, are you gay? If you would rather not say that's perfectly fine of course.

I have heard that theory, and consider it one of the more believable ones, but you dodged the question, why in the industrialised world has it been a disproportionally gay problem and why don't heterosexuals in industrialised countries get it at the same rate as as gays in those countries?

Well, the heterosexuals are catching up. The AIDS epidemic was extremely mismanaged during the 1980's; attempts to encourage safe sex and educate people were either underfunded, unimplemented, or actively opposed. It was a failiure on all levels of the government to combat the epidemic. We are now seeing it affect heterosexual women more rapidly, and new strains are developing.

One more thing. A lot of people on this thread have been equating gay bathhouses to heterosexual whorehouses and saying that heterosexual promiscuity is at the same rate as gay promiscuity. Once I heard of the bathhouse being described as once the centre of the community before the 1980's. When has anyone ever described a heterosexual whorehouse as the centre of the heterosexual community?

When has anyone shown that gay people had a choice of anything else in a repressive society?

And most importantly- when AIDS became an epidemic in Europe and America, why was it only in the Gay community, and even when it spread to heterosexuals, it never became the epidemic it is. Except in really poor countries, AIDS has only very recently become a more heterosexual problem, and still, when 50% of all cases of a certain disease have a tendeny to affect less than 10% of a population, something is wrong with that 10%.'

So now gay men are disease-ridden?!? Wow, you really have issues....

But, thank you for that obvious display in lack of knowledge about basic epidemiology and sociology. A disease with such a spread will always, in its first stages, spread faster through a relatively isolated and small population than through a larger one, and it's because of simple math: One gay man is a bigger fraction of gay men than one straight man is of straight men and women. Because of the size of the population, the spread of infection is a lot more efficient in the beginning of an outbreak. That's why gay men have always been "canaries in mines" for sexual diseases about to strike the rest of the larger population - gay men are more susceptable to transmission because of the small population they are part of. Add to that a societal secretive pressure enacted on them precluding stable, monogamous relationships, and a strong societal pressure to the contrary on straight people, and voilà: a typical epidemiological imbalance.

That imbalance is erased, as we have seen in Africa, when a certain point in the population at large is passed, and transmission is spread exponentially through the rest of the population.

So spare us your simplistic and uneducated "the fags are diseased whores" crap, please.

Just out of interest, because I genuinely don't know, are you gay? If you would rather not say that's perfectly fine of course.

Nope not gay just stumbled into this thread somehow :confused:

Nope. Even if it were possible I wouldn't change my sexuality for the world.

How do you know that what that site features is authentic, and what makes you trust what is on there any more than I trust Mr. Weintraub?

Open an accepted history book, or a peer reviewed historical journal. Your websites are no match.

Nope not gay just stumbled into this thread somehow :confused:
Oh, ok. This post just confused me:

The nurses on hand dont appreciate it if you argue with them about the discrimination and they have needles so i decided not to argue the point

Sounded like you were arguing with nurses who wouldn't let you give blood becuse you had performed oral sex on another man.

Awful neglect by the government to address issues. Again I'm not from that generation. I'm from a new generation. Also increasingly heterosexual women are the ones being at risk the most.
What do you mean by that? If the government did not address the issues, then it does not explain the heterosexuals not getting AIDS. Furthermore, I do not see what generation has to do with it. The main ways to get AIDS are by not keeping your pants up, being a junkie, or being the unfortunate person to get the wrong blood in the transfusion. Last I heard, it was the same way with the last generation, and all the government addressing will not change that.

Oh, ok. This post just confused me:



Sounded like you were arguing with nurses who wouldn't let you give blood becuse you had performed oral sex on another man.

No just argued with them anyway because it kind of pissed me off. It seemed like an unneccesary discrimination if it doesnt apply to all who perform oral sex

Open an accepted history book, or a peer reviewed historical journal. Your websites are no match.
Suggest one please.

What a bunch of ignorant BS! "Straight-acting" is a term used by themselves - you'll see it everywhere on gay contact websites. Usually going somthing like "looking for other straight-acting men, queens need not apply". It is they who define "drinking beer and playing pool" as non-gay, and you seem to have completely missed that it is exactly this distancing themselves of the "gay" things that people, myself included, have been railing against.

Also, if you actually read what I write, you'll see that I'm not ragging on him acting like a straight man (I don't care how people act), but his vitriol against those who don't.

So, to summerise: Learn a bit more about the jargon and situation in the gay community, and actually read what people have written before you open your yap and accuse anyone of hypocrisy.


Hold the fuck up. I stated right at the begining that I am not into the gay lingo, and personally, since I don't know enough as people, I don't need to. I don't need to speak ebonics or spanglish, or any other dialect/jargon. Don't throw "ignorant" at me like some insult, because I clearly informed you all that I am ignorant in the specifics of gay-community.

I have read what you wrote. You wrote several times, "you disgust me" and other words to that effect. Please explain to me how that is in any way constructive or edifying to him, you, or your position. Please let this poor ignorant straight male understand how that is any way different than a "gangsta" black male calling a nongangsta black male an "Uncle Tom", or an Orthadox Jew telling Reformed that they have spit in the LORD's face.

My point is this. Gay and straight refer to one's preference in bed. Not whether or not they enjoy heels or beers. Not whether they wear dresses or suits. Not whether they act loaded with testosterone or speak with a lisp. You deriding him for being a "straight acting" is just as hypocritical as him doing it to you for being effeminate. Why is it that I don't see any acceptance of his ways and actions (the so called manly thing) in your posts if you don't mind gay people acting the way he does? (Sans the derision of effeminates of course)

I might not know everything there is to know about gays. And likely as not, I never will. But I do know that antagonism within a community is not beneficial to it...ever. That's humanity, not anything as petty as sexual orientation.

Oh and as for Mr. Presbyt....since you like quoting from my Jewish Scriptures so much, how bout you try some of your Christian New Testement on for size?

John 8:6-8: "Let the man without sin throw the first stone"

Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Matthew 22: 36-40 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Explain to me how your hatred shows Jesus' love in any way shape or form? Explain to me how you justify your judgement of a "sinner" when A) you are a sinner, and B) Jesus told you not to judge?

No just argued with them anyway because it kind of pissed me off. It seemed like an unneccesary discrimination if it doesnt apply to all who perform oral sex
Ah ok, I was just mildly confused :)

My son can't ever give blood because he's received a blood tranfusion, a man can't ever give blood if he's had oral or anal sex with another man, a woman can't ever give blood if she's had sex with a man who's ever had oral or anal sex with another man; but a year after having sex with a prostitute I was allowed to start donating blood again.

That's the difference between straights and queers: God punishes sodomists.

When has anyone shown that gay people had a choice of anything else in a repressive society?

'

So now gay men are disease-ridden?!? Wow, you really have issues....

But, thank you for that obvious display in lack of knowledge about basic epidemiology and sociology. A disease with such a spread will always, in its first stages, spread faster through a relatively isolated and small population than through a larger one, and it's because of simple math: One gay man is a bigger fraction of gay men than one straight man is of straight men and women. Because of the size of the population, the spread of infection is a lot more efficient in the beginning of an outbreak. That's why gay men have always been "canaries in mines" for sexual diseases about to strike the rest of the larger population - gay men are more susceptable to transmission because of the small population they are part of. Add to that a societal secretive pressure enacted on them precluding stable, monogamous relationships, and a strong societal pressure to the contrary on straight people, and voilà: a typical epidemiological imbalance.

That imbalance is erased, as we have seen in Africa, when a certain point in the population at large is passed, and transmission is spread exponentially through the rest of the population.

So spare us your simplistic and uneducated "the fags are diseased whores" crap, please.
Does that mean that Jews are also more likely to get diseases than gentiles? Why don't the Ainu have an AIDS problem? They're a minority. Furthermore, I never said that gay men are disease ridden. There is a disprportionally large number of promiscuous gay men who spread the disease among each other. Monogomous gays are probably less likely to have diseases, but I don't know if we represent the majority or a minority of gay people.

My son can't ever give blood because he's received a blood tranfusion, a man can't ever give blood if he's had oral or anal sex with another man, a woman can't ever give blood if she's had sex with a man who's ever had oral or anal sex with another man; but a year after having sex with a prostitute I was allowed to start donating blood again.

That's the difference between straights and queers: God punishes sodomists.
Really? I thought it was the NHS who ran blood donations.

My son can't ever give blood because he's received a blood tranfusion, a man can't ever give blood if he's had oral or anal sex with another man, a woman can't ever give blood if she's had sex with a man who's ever had oral or anal sex with another man; but a year after having sex with a prostitute I was allowed to start donating blood again.

That's the difference between straights and queers: God punishes sodomists.

You're a stupid fool.. I'm sorry I just had to say that. YOu shouldn't even posting here. There is no god.

Hold the fuck up. I stated right at the begining that I am not into the gay lingo, and personally, since I don't know enough as people, I don't need to. I don't need to speak ebonics or spanglish, or any other dialect/jargon. Don't throw "ignorant" at me like some insult, because I clearly informed you all that I am ignorant in the specifics of gay-community.

Then, you really should recognise your ignorance and not speak about things you profess to know very little, if anything, about?

My point is this. Gay and straight refer to one's preference in bed. Not whether or not they enjoy heels or beers. Not whether they wear dresses or suits. Not whether they act loaded with testosterone or speak with a lisp. You deriding him for being a "straight acting" is just as hypocritical as him doing it to you for being effeminate.

Again, this failure of yours to understand what is being written. No one is railing against him for acting straight - I am railing against him for attacking those who don't (as an example, like on the previous page, depicting most other gay men as disease-ridden whores). Please, learn to see the difference.

That's the difference between straights and queers: God punishes sodomists.

By your logic he doesnt punish me if i have anal sex with a woman

i don't feel like reading all the way through this, but i'm going to opine nonetheless.

unlike some of the other queers here, i don't really think that my sexuality is an important part of my identity. sexuality and gender identity don't have to be linked. i'm a flaming androgyne not because i'm bisexual, but because it's who i am. there's probably some psychological correlation, but i feel you can definitely have one without the other. my point is, in any case, that if i was somehow straightened out i would still be me.

the reason that i voted against changing is that it DOESNT FUCKING MATTER. neither is inherently superior, so i'm fine letting it be.

My son can't ever give blood because he's received a blood tranfusion, a man can't ever give blood if he's had oral or anal sex with another man, a woman can't ever give blood if she's had sex with a man who's ever had oral or anal sex with another man; but a year after having sex with a prostitute I was allowed to start donating blood again.

Wow. Apparently, you only read the parts of the Bible you want and ignore the rest. I guess you forgot about going to Hell for sexual immorality,

Gay people are wrong. They should all move to Canada where the Socialists will accept them.

Gay people are wrong. They should all move to Canada where the Socialists will accept them.

Theres some amazing debating skills i have to say :rolleyes:

I thought so too

Wow. Apparently, you only read the parts of the Bible you want and ignore the rest. I guess you forgot about going to Hell for sexual immorality,
I wasn't born a minister you know

I'd never give up my sexuality. I'm proud to be Sapphic. I can't imagine myself being attracted to the opposite sex. I know I'd never be attracted to a guy unless I were one—I know that even if I were born a boy, I'd be gay, the same way straight people assume that if they were born the opposite sex, they'd still be straight.

Gay people are wrong. They should all move to Canada where the Socialists will accept them.
Well done, with those two sentences you have managed to reverse my views on my own sexuality.

Now, how can you help me move to Canada?

I wont need to help you. The Socialists in Canada will provide you with free housing from the government along with free everything else

I'm still stunned by the comment near the beginning of this thread that a gay friendly society will make straight people gay.

Buddy, you must have problems with your own sexuality if you think that the neighbourhood can change your preferences! I'm 100% straight, and I would be even if heterosexuals were in the minority. You can't help who you're attracted to- you just are. There's a difference between noticing that a same gendered person is attractive, and being attracted to that person.

Then, you really should recognise your ignorance and not speak about things you profess to know very little, if anything, about?



Again, this failure of yours to understand what is being written. No one is railing against him for acting straight - I am railing against him for attacking those who don't (as an example, like on the previous page, depicting most other gay men as disease-ridden whores). Please, learn to see the difference.


Well then, Fass, I somehow misunderstood all your comments to the effect of "you disgust me". See, I fail to understand how this helps your case, his enlightenment, or any of that. Please, explain it to me.

In anycase, not knowing gay lingo or such doesn't prevent me from recognizing antagonism and hate (which your remarks of "you disgust me" were, like it or not) aren't helping your cause. They aren't gaining effeminate or manly gays the right to marry. They aren't building either of you into better people. I don't need to know a thing about gays to know that strife builds nothing.

Gay people are wrong. They should all move to Canada where the Socialists will accept them.
I have friends in America who won't want to move to Canada and hate socialists. Screw you.

I wont need to help you. The Socialists in Canada will provide you with free housing from the government along with free everything else
So why hasn't everyone in the U.S. moved to Canada?

I'm openly bi, and I'm 3 steps away from COMPLETELY over the rainbow. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

So why hasn't everyone in the U.S. moved to Canada?

Because that guy is a moron and has no effing clue what he's talking about.

Because the majority of them are straight so that comment doesn't apply to them? Or just because they're too inward looking and ignorant to consider it.

Does that mean that Jews are also more likely to get diseases than gentiles? Why don't the Ainu have an AIDS problem? They're a minority.

Neither Jews, nor the Ainu, are isolated, but, indeed, there have often been outbreaks of sexual diseases in isolated, straight populations. Syphilis, for instance, struck nobility (as well as the poor) pretty hard initially since they were effective isolated populations that preferred to/could only have sex with other nobles or people of higher class, or other poor people, but has in recent times found a peculiar nieche amongs African-Americans, who are more likely to only pick other African-Americans as mates:

[...]many aristocrats suffered similarly from syphilis, and the inability of these aristocratic families to give birth to healthy children may have made more room at the top of society that would have been otherwise unavailable, thus accelerating social mobility. (http://cpol.tamu.edu/History%20of%20the%20Disease.htm) Lower down the social order, syphilis may have had less devastating effects, for the fact seems to be that European populations continued to increase throughout the sixteenth century when the disease was at its peak (McNeill, 1976:194). Thus, an historical argument can be made that syphilis, in the early phases of its spread was distributed in both upper and lower rungs of society (at least in Europe, where the evidence is available in the form of historical records), compared with the distribution today, when it is mostly found or reported in impoverished neighborhoods.

[...]

The distribution and trends of syphilis are influenced by biologic factors, sexual behaviors, biomedical technology, availability of and access to health care, public health efforts, changes in population dynamics, and sociocultural factors

[...]

Koopman and Longini (1994) have suggested that since syphilis is a communicable disease and sexual partnerships are much more common within than across race and ethnic lines, relatively small differences in behavior, sociologic factors, or access to care may translate into large differences in the prevalence of infection by race. Laumann and Youm (1999) using data from The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) conducted in 1992 try to identify the effects of sexual network patterns within and between racial/ethnic groups in order to explain the higher rates of selected sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among African-Americans as compared to other groups. First, the authors divide the entire sample into three groups according to levels of sexual activity: peripherals – those who had only one sexual partner in the past 12 months and are therefore considered safe from infection; adjacents – those who had two to three sexual partners in the same period; and core group members – those with at least four partners in the 12 month period and considered primarily responsible for the existence of STDs in the population over time. Then, they explore two kinds of network effects using a log-linear analysis for intra-racial and a simulation for inter-racial network effect respectively. Some explanation for the higher infection rate for bacterial STDs among African Americans is provided by their sexual partner choices. Intra-racial sexual partner choices are highly dissortative in this group – meaning that peripheral African Americans are five times more likely to choose core group members of the same race than peripheral whites are to choose core whites. At the same time, African Americans are somewhat distant from other racial/ethnic groups (assortative mating), which means that their partner choices are from within the same race group. Therefore, infections are more likely to stay inside the African American population, and the likelihood of African Americans having a STD is 1.3 times greater than it is for whites because of this factor alone

[...]

Thus, syphilis provides a clear illustration of a transition of a disease from one that may have affected both the nobility and the poor in 15th century Europe, and all races in 19th century USA to a disease that is now solely clustered in impoverished populations and neighborhoods, and is racially segregated in the United States.

So why hasn't everyone in the U.S. moved to Canada?

Beacuse not everyone in Americas gay????!!! what kind of question was that??

I'd never give up my sexuality. I'm proud to be Sapphic. I can't imagine myself being attracted to the opposite sex. I know I'd never be attracted to a guy unless I were one—I know that even if I were born a boy, I'd be gay, the same way straight people assume that if they were born the opposite sex, they'd still be straight.

Actually, I don't think I'd be straight if I was female...I probably would be, but I find men boorish and unappealing, so I can't ever imagine being attracted to one.

Also, I don't know if this has been discussed, but I have a pretty good idea of why the term "fag" is offensive. I don't know about queer, I think that can be used in a nonoffensive manner to a degree, although I don't use it personally. I'm pretty sure that a "faggot" used to be a word for a measure of wood, generally used for burning. In some periods of history, homosexuality has not been looked kindly upon, and you can see what the wood was used for...

Then again, that might all be bollocks, I don't even remember where I heard it. Sorry.

I have friends in America who won't want to move to Canada and hate socialists. Screw you.

Yeah I'm sure you do, are they gay?

Then, you really should recognise your ignorance and not speak about things you profess to know very little, if anything, about?
Again, this failure of yours to understand what is being written. No one is railing against him for acting straight - I am railing against him for attacking those who don't (as an example, like on the previous page, depicting most other gay men as disease-ridden whores). Please, learn to see the difference.


Again, this failure of yours to understand what is being written. No one is railing against him for acting straight - I am railing against him for attacking those who don't (as an example, like on the previous page, depicting most other gay men as disease-ridden whores). Please, learn to see the difference.

Well then, Fass, I somehow misunderstood all your comments to the effect of "you disgust me". See, I fail to understand how this helps your case, his enlightenment, or any of that. Please, explain it to me.

In anycase, not knowing gay lingo or such doesn't prevent me from recognizing antagonism and hate (which your remarks of "you disgust me" were, like it or not) aren't helping your cause. They aren't gaining effeminate or manly gays the right to marry. They aren't building either of you into better people. I don't need to know a thing about gays to know that strife builds nothing.
Fass, you seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never "attacked" anyone, I simply said I want to be associated with my particular type of gay person. Furthermore, I never said that all gay men or even all effeminate ones were disease-bags. I said there is a correlation between effeminacy and promiscuity, and of course, with promiscuity, disease. Although AIDS is very slowly becoming a more heterosexual problem in the industrialised world (I know, in the third world, it was always a heterosexual problem), it is still very disproportionally a gay problem. I have already admitted in a previous post (thanks to Kain_Darkwind, who pointed out my hypocrisy) that I do need to be more accepting of effeminate people who may not fit the other categories.
Kain_Darkwind, I think we (Fass and I) are both starting to forget what started this, as I have had to go back a few times to see where we began, and that is where the name-calling and "you disgust me" usually begins.

Well then, Fass, I somehow misunderstood all your comments to the effect of "you disgust me". See, I fail to understand how this helps your case, his enlightenment, or any of that. Please, explain it to me.

A large part of reading is made up of context. Let's see the context here.

I'm not the one getting diseases (never had a sexual disease in my life).

Are you seriously trying to depict non straight-acting people as disease-ridden? You disgust me.

See what context can do? How it shows it wasn't him acting straight, but instead him implying that other gay men are diseased whores that made me say "you disgust me"?

Please, oh, please, read the things I've written, and thus also the things I've replied to, before trying to construct this silly version of what I am to have said?

In anycase, not knowing gay lingo or such doesn't prevent me from recognizing antagonism and hate (which your remarks of "you disgust me" were, like it or not) aren't helping your cause. They aren't gaining effeminate or manly gays the right to marry. They aren't building either of you into better people. I don't need to know a thing about gays to know that strife builds nothing.

Oh, please. (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/blissninny.htm)

As for isolated populations, it may be true, but how isolated are gay people? And one of the articles you posted mentioned the Aristocracy's problem with syphilis. In England and, to a lesser degree, Japan, aristocrats tend to imbreed, which probably weakens the immune system and making themselves extremely isolated.

Fass, you seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never "attacked" anyone, I simply said I want to be associated with my particular type of gay person. Furthermore, I never said that all gay men or even all effeminate ones were disease-bags. I said there is a correlation between effeminacy and promiscuity, and of course, with promiscuity, disease.

Of course something which is just your own prejudice.

Although AIDS is very slowly becoming a more heterosexual problem in the industrialised world (I know, in the third world, it was always a heterosexual problem), it is still very disproportionally a gay problem. I have already admitted in a previous post (thanks to Kain_Darkwind, who pointed out my hypocrisy) that I do need to be more accepting of effeminate people who may not fit the other categories.
Kain_Darkwind, I think we (Fass and I) are both starting to forget what started this, as I have had to go back a few times to see where we began, and that is where the name-calling and "you disgust me" usually begins.

I suggest you do that, and see what sparked this. It most certainly wasn't anything nice you wrote about "effeminate" gay men.

Beacuse not everyone in Americas gay????!!! what kind of question was that??
Would you move somewhere if you got loads of free shit? I thought so. People are greedy.

As for isolated populations, it may be true, but how isolated are gay people?

The mode of transmission is what makes gay men isolated. Gay men in general have sex with, you guessed it, gay men. That's what isolates the small population of gay men, from the rest of the population when it comes to a sexually transmitted disease.

(I know, in the third world, it was always a heterosexual problem), it is still very disproportionally a gay problem. I have already admitted in a previous post (thanks to Kain_Darkwind, who pointed out my hypocrisy) that I do need to be more accepting of effeminate people who may not fit the other categories.
Bullshit, very slowly. Unprotected sex is unprotected sex, and it carries a high risk of contracting aids, regardless of your sexual orientation. That said, lesbians have the lowest rate of AIDS due to sexual activity, so should we all be becoming lesbians to protect ourselves from AIDS?

Yeah I'm sure you do, are they gay?
Yes, they are gay.

The mode of transmission is what makes gay men isolated. Gay men in general have sex with, you guessed it, gay men. That's what isolates the small population of gay men, from the rest of the population when it comes to a sexually transmitted disease.
Bisexuals infect both sexes, allowing it to get into the heterosexual population. Heterosexuals once got blood transfusions from gays. It only took one man to make AIDS an epidemic among gays (that flight attendant in 1980 who had partners in several different cities). Do you think that if heterosexuals were nearly as promiscuous as gay men, AIDS would have become an epidemic with heterosexuals a lot quicker, once the bisexual man gave it to the one promiscuous heterosexual woman, or the one promiscuous heterosexual of either sex got a transfusion from the AIDS infected person?

Bullshit, very slowly. Unprotected sex is unprotected sex, and it carries a high risk of contracting aids, regardless of your sexual orientation. That said, lesbians have the lowest rate of AIDS due to sexual activity, so should we all be becoming lesbians to protect ourselves from AIDS?
Huh?

You might wish to remove the word "queers" from the title, as some consider it rather offensive. Anyways, since I'm bi, I figure I might as well answer, and say that no, I'd rather not be straight. When I viewed myself as such, I really wasn't any "better off" than I am now. In fact, I think I'm happier and more well adjusted now, than I was then.
Seconded

Bisexuals infect both sexes, allowing it to get into the heterosexual population. Heterosexuals once got blood transfusions from gays. It only took one man to make AIDS an epidemic among gays (that flight attendant in 1980 who had partners in several different cities). Do you think that if heterosexuals were nearly as promiscuous as gay men, AIDS would have become an epidemic with heterosexuals a lot quicker, once the bisexual man gave it to the one promiscuous heterosexual woman, or the one promiscuous heterosexual of either sex got a transfusion from the AIDS infected person?

You haven't read a thing about population dynamics and population fractions I've written at all, have you?

And, please "that flight attendant" was one patient X in an outbreak. He did not solely make it an epidemic, no matter what "and the band played on," or whatever that movie was called, told you. Outbreaks do, however, play a significantly larger part in a small population than in a large one in the initial stage, where HIV/AIDS has been (ever more poorly) contained in the West.

I'll pray for you, but from what I've seen here 69.44% of you are beyond saving.

Yours in Christ,
Rev J Tetley

You might wish to remove the word "queers" from the title, as some consider it rather offensive. Anyways, since I'm bi, I figure I might as well answer, and say that no, I'd rather not be straight. When I viewed myself as such, I really wasn't any "better off" than I am now. In fact, I think I'm happier and more well adjusted now, than I was then.
I am in total 100% agreement with this quote. I also seem more well off and better adjusted than when I tried to hide it. I just see something sexy in both sexes... I think they both have something great to offer.

I'll pray for you, but from what I've seen here 69.44% of you are beyond saving.

Yours in Christ,
Rev J Tetley
Would you please just go away? We are trying to have a reasonably intelligent discussion here any you are taking up forum space.

I'll go, but without my pastoral guidance you're all doomed to short, sinful, mortal, disease ridden lives of self loathing.

Goodnight and God bless.

I'll pray for you, but from what I've seen here 69.44% of you are beyond saving.

Yours in Christ,
Rev J Tetley
That's alright. I'm a Reverend as well.

You haven't read a thing about population dynamics and population fractions I've written at all, have you?

And, please "that flight attendant" was one patient X in an outbreak. He did not solely make it an epidemic, no matter what "and the band played on," or whatever that movie was called, told you. Outbreaks do, however, play a significantly larger part in a small population than in a large one in the initial stage, where HIV/AIDS has been (ever more poorly) contained in the West.
Yes, I read them. But for it to be true that heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gays, you would have to accept the premise that there are no bisexuals or blood transfusions and that no single gay man ever tried to do a little experimenting with heterosexuality (which would most likely take place with a promiscuous woman who would infect heterosexual men). Even the Amish in America are not totally isolated. Even if the flight attendant wasn't the very first person with AIDS, if he had partners in several different cities, he might as well have been.

Yes, I read them. But for it to be true that heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gays, you would have to accept the premise that there are no bisexuals or blood transfusions and that no single gay man ever tried to do a little experimenting with heterosexuality (which would most likely take place with a promiscuous woman who would infect heterosexual men).

Are you trying to suggest that African-Americans are more promiscuous and that's why they have more cases of syphilis? Say it with me: even small changes in behaviour between a large population and a smaller, isolated one, will lead to drastic differences between the two populations, because one concentrates the disease more easily than the other. And African-Americans are sexually isolated to a much, much lower degree than gay people are with respect to STD's, and still there is a significant difference between whites and blacks in the US, which socio-economics only partially explains. Clearly your "jump over" gay people or bisexuals are nothing compared to "jump over" black straight people, and yet, black people have more cases of syphilis. The small difference in this smaller population is enough to have a relatively high impact in it. Why? Because the "jump overs" in this stage of spread do not affect the bigger population in nearly the same extent, because it is bigger. The same thing with bisexuals and the homosexual population - here the "jump overs" are even fewer.

It is not a matter of promiscuity as much as it is a matter of population dynamics. Also, you haven't shown that comparable straight people are less promiscuous than comparable gay people. Where I live, it's quite the opposite - we have a huge epidemic of gonnorhea amongst young straight people who show very promiscuous tendencies. Promiscuity is a larger part of the problem in a larger population, while in a small population, other factors can be, and often are, more important than promiscuity itself - these other factors being the ability to more quickly concentrate the disease.

Even the Amish in America are not totally isolated. Even if the flight attendant wasn't the very first person with AIDS, if he had partners in several different cities, he might as well have been.

And there you have sailors and syphilis all over again. It's nothing new that those on the move, be it cities or continents, have more sexual partners. And his promiscuity was more detrimental to the gay population because it was smaller - it had a bigger impact fraction wise on the population than a promiscuous straight person would have in the beginning stage of disease-spread. A higher concentration is more quickly attained in smaller populations, and also the higher concentration is maintained more easily because every infected person is such a larger part of the smaller population than a similar person is in a larger one.

(Shit! It's 4.20 am here! I'm logging off now to get some sleep...)

Presbyterian Yorkshire
They we're wrong. Sodomy is unbiblical, you're all going to hell! (Although there's hope for the 20-odd percent who know the errors of their ways).
I don't think so, you abomination.
I'll pray for you, but from what I've seen here 69.44% of you are beyond saving.
I'll go, but without my pastoral guidance you're all doomed to short, sinful, mortal, disease ridden lives of self loathing.

Goodnight and God bless.

Presbyterian Yorkshire, you've gone above and beyond the very definition of trolling. Not only that, you've been warned before with past reincarnations for breaking the rules. You don't seem to get it, so take a break from the forums for a bit.

Presbyterian Yorkshire: 5-day Forum ban for excessive Trolling

Agnostic Deeishpeople
I am sorry...but someone who takes it up the ass has no place to tell anyone what a man is supposed to be like.
I'd suggest that you knock it off NOW. There is absolutely no need to post something like that. Anything else like that from you, and you will receive an official warning.

CSW
Good, I'd rather go to hell then be in heaven with a bunch of idiots like yourself.
Watch your temper CSW, and don't even bother responding to such remarks. It isn't worth it.

Dagnia
One last thing though: If there is one thing I hate more than a promiscuous, effeminate gay man, it is a religious conservative. Someone should have told you that God has been dead for over twohundred years, asshole!
I have friends in America who won't want to move to Canada and hate socialists. Screw you.
One more thing. A lot of people on this thread have been equating gay bathhouses to heterosexual whorehouses and saying that heterosexual promiscuity is at the same rate as gay promiscuity. Once I heard of the bathhouse being described as once the centre of the community before the 1980's. When has anyone ever described a heterosexual whorehouse as the centre of the heterosexual community? And most importantly- when AIDS became an epidemic in Europe and America, why was it only in the Gay community, and even when it spread to heterosexuals, it never became the epidemic it is. Except in really poor countries, AIDS has only very recently become a more heterosexual problem, and still, when 50% of all cases of a certain disease have a tendeny to affect less than 10% of a population, something is wrong with that 10%.
Bisexuals infect both sexes, allowing it to get into the heterosexual population. Heterosexuals once got blood transfusions from gays. It only took one man to make AIDS an epidemic among gays (that flight attendant in 1980 who had partners in several different cities). Do you think that if heterosexuals were nearly as promiscuous as gay men, AIDS would have become an epidemic with heterosexuals a lot quicker, once the bisexual man gave it to the one promiscuous heterosexual woman, or the one promiscuous heterosexual of either sex got a transfusion from the AIDS infected person?

Posting a bunch of 'facts' without actual proof of it is considered trolling. You're very close to receiving a warning as well, along with the two first posts of flaming, so knock it off. I suggest you get a breath of fresh air.

Mesatecala
You're a stupid fool.. I'm sorry I just had to say that. YOu shouldn't even posting here. There is no god.
Saying "I'm sorry, but I had to say it" doesn't redeem you from directly criticizing somebody. It's best not to even bother responding to trollish remarks.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Ok, you are right. It doesn't. I took a two mile walk to get off my computer (hence me leaving before some of the flaming ensued). Others should try it. I feel great.

very happy thank you very much ...