NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm gay. (please no flames) What are you?

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?

Back ... and to the left.

I'm gay. (please no flames)
Quality.







Sorry...

Sorry...
Nah don't worry :)

Back ... and to the left.
:p
way to tie the threads together.

wow, that was a horrible pun.

Hey! You left out Asexual!:upyours:

Anyways, I am a breeder.

Hey! You left out Asexual!:upyours:

Anyways, I am a breeder.
No need to get rude...

Hallo, this is (IC name, though these opinions are OOC) John Joakim Skillman II

I personally am straight, either that or I am bisexual and just haven't ever found a man I am attracted to (don't think this is the case) I personally define marriage as between a man and a women, so I do not support gay marriage. However, I recognize the right for all human beings to share that most beautiful aspect of life that is love with someone, and I think therefore there should be a "marriage" under a different name, state recognized. My girlfriend was Bisexual, and I totally respect that. I am proud to fight for gay rights, I just don't think a couple of the same sex should be able to have a marriage (between a man and a woman.)

No need to get rude...
There are plenty of reasons. For example, this is the internet. The internet was designed to allow you to be rude to total strangers and knife people in the face from afar.

i'm bi. i don't really beleive in marriage at all. i beleive any attempt at marriage is just a promise to be only with each other for as long as possible. As such, i would support any person's right to marry. i would hope, eventually, that the far-right would relax enough to allow homosexual civil unions, if not marriage.

There are plenty of reasons. For example, this is the internet. The internet was designed to allow you to be rude to total strangers and knife people in the face from afar.
Oh yeah... Totally forgot that. Bring on the rudeness!

it realy saddens me when peaple are rude to those of different sexual orientation, i presonaly am straight, but i dont go round discriminating gays and lasbeins, hell some of my best friends are lesbeins,

but... my veiw on same-sex marages,
i dont think it should be limited to straight peaple, but!
i dont aprove of sperm-donaton children in same-sex marages,
i feel it would be unfair on the child, and in there early years at school....

Teacher: Jhonny, what does your daddy do?
Jhonny reply 1:which one miss? i have 2 daddys
Jhoney reply 2:i dont have a daddy, i have 2 mommey instead

and in there later years at school, 13-18 the sexual abusement they will get, with parents being Gay/Lesbein, they will automaticly be identified as a quere, missfit and will atract loads of abuse from bullys left, right, and center :(

so thats my veiw on the subject

There are plenty of reasons. For example, this is the internet. The internet was designed to allow you to be rude to total strangers and knife people in the face from afar.
Excuses are not reasons.

Anyways, I'm bi-leaning gay so gay.

Hallo, this is (IC name, though these opinions are OOC) John Joakim Skillman II

Everything in General is OOC. This is not an RP forum.

I personally am straight, either that or I am bisexual and just haven't ever found a man I am attracted to (don't think this is the case) I personally define marriage as between a man and a women, so I do not support gay marriage. However, I recognize the right for all human beings to share that most beautiful aspect of life that is love with someone, and I think therefore there should be a "marriage" under a different name, state recognized. My girlfriend was Bisexual, and I totally respect that. I am proud to fight for gay rights, I just don't think a couple of the same sex should be able to have a marriage (between a man and a woman.)

Yeah, I support rights for negros, but they should not be able to drink from the same fountains as whites. They should have special drinking fountains under a different name, perhaps called "water dispensers," and separate schools and busses and such. I'm so proud to fight for negro rights, I just don't think black people should be able to do what white people can.

:rolleyes:

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?
Why the fuck should I care if you want the same set of legal protections as heterosexual couples, and why should I give a fuck if you call it the same thing because it is? Why should I get a say in how other people express thier love and commitment? Objection to gay marriage is fucking stupid and a waste of public discourse.

Why the fuck should I care if you want the same set of legal protections as heterosexual couples, and why should I give a fuck if you call it the same thing because it is? Why should I get a say in how other people express thier love and commitment? Objection to gay marriage is fucking stupid and a waste of public discourse.
Here here.

Or is it 'Hear Hear? Or Hear Here?' I hate the English language...

Anyways, I agree completely. The legal establishment shouldn't care. The religious establishments shouldn't even have a say due to the seperation of church and state. And yes, I am religious.

Yeah, I support rights for negros, but they should not be able to drink from the same fountains as whites. They should have special drinking fountains under a different name, perhaps called "water dispensers," and separate schools and busses and such. I'm so proud to fight for negro rights, I just don't think black people should be able to do what white people can.
Brilliant! :p

I must say, I am an imperialist democratic socialist, believing in militarization, and am a radical. I believe in unification of church and state. Despite my extremeist views, no way should any people ever be prevented from loving each other.

[QUOTE=Fass]



Yeah, I support rights for negros, but they should not be able to drink from the same fountains as whites. They should have special drinking fountains under a different name, perhaps called "water dispensers," and separate schools and busses and such. I'm so proud to fight for negro rights, I just don't think black people should be able to do what white people can.

But the definition of drinking fountain, school, and bus in no way state anything about race. Marriage, on the other hand, states the sex of the members of the union, by definition.

But the definition of drinking fountain, school, and bus in no way state anything about race. Marriage, on the other hand, states the sex of the members of the union, by definition.
actually, the term marriage in the sociological/anthropological sense, makes no references to gender, sex, or number.

I don't see this situation the same as a racist remark...

The concept of marriage it is from the origin and the concept of raising a family.. Father, mother and children..

If some guys and gals want to go over their own sex.. well that's their problem.. in the end.. no one is limiting their capacity to love each other.. after all marriage would be just a "title"

If it is for the possibility of adopting children.. I am strongly against it.. I believe in balance.. man/woman to teach a child.. not 2 guys not 2 women..

I'm sorry if my position might offend homos... But I don't see what is the big ruckus about it...

The concept of marriage it is from the origin and the concept of raising a family.. Father, mother and children.. Who taught you that? Marriage was about alliances between families from the origin on. The offspring bit was a necessary evil.

Methinks marriage is a state of mind.

I'm bi, and I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. Despite the fact that organized religion has laid claim to the institution of marriage, it's still first and foremost a legal institution. Whether a religion weds gay couples or recognizes gay marriage is really their own business, but the state must give a gay couple precisely the same legal status as it does to a straight one.

But the definition of drinking fountain, school, and bus in no way state anything about race. Marriage, on the other hand, states the sex of the members of the union, by definition.

No, it doesn't.

I don't see this situation the same as a racist remark...

The concept of marriage it is from the origin and the concept of raising a family.. Father, mother and children.. That is one concept of a family, it is not all families.

If some guys and gals want to go over their own sex.. well that's their problem.. in the end.. no one is limiting their capacity to love each other.. after all marriage would be just a "title" No, marriage is a set of legal rights and protection.

If it is for the possibility of adopting children.. I am strongly against it.. I believe in balance.. man/woman to teach a child.. not 2 guys not 2 women.. Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you want, but the facts are that "balance" as you put it, is unnecessary.

I'm sorry if my position might offend homos... But I don't see what is the big ruckus about it...Because there is a set of legal rights and protections that some people have and others don't.

I'm gay. (please no flames) What are you?

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?

Im bisexual. My opinion on same sex marriage is that it should be restricted to civil unions, because you are calling for equality and acceptance and it would be unfair and hypocritical to force churches to accept you.



Or is it 'Hear Hear? Or Hear Here?' I hate the English language...

its hear hear.


Question:

On a scale on one to 10, 1 being straight and 10 being gay, where do you rate your selves?

I rate my self at 6-7

Gay, though I'm not saying there's not a woman on earth who could turn me on, just sayin I ain't seen one yet.

As for marriage, it's an archaic church tradition, as such I think they can keep it. However I think anyone who wants to be married should be allowed to. Frankly I don't see how it's anyone's business other than those involved. It's not exactly difficult to find a church that will marry a same sex couple. They're not common, but not really that hard to find either.

While the republicans like to spout their love of religion, what they mean to say is they love religious voters they can manipulate. Just don't look too close to their positions or you'll notice they're completely anti-religion on anything but us queers.

Im bisexual. My opinion on same sex marriage is that it should be restricted to civil unions, because you are calling for equality and acceptance and it would be unfair and hypocritical to force churches to accept you.
1)Marriage isn't limited to churches, it's a government issue.
2)Some churches will hold gay marriages.
3)Other religions will also have marriages.

Im bisexual. My opinion on same sex marriage is that it should be restricted to civil unions, because you are calling for equality and acceptance and it would be unfair and hypocritical to force churches to accept you.

What does marriage have to do with churches? My parents got married without any sort of church involvement. As did Britney Spears.

Actually Brit's first marriage was in the Little White Chapel in Vegas. Marriage was co-opted by the church, they came up with the modern version of the rites we use. As with many things they've swiped they like to claim they have sole dominion over it. It's not a point worth arguing.

What does marriage have to do with churches? My parents got married without any sort of church involvement. As did Britney Spears.Your parents are married to Britney Spears? :eek:

Actually Brit's first marriage was in the Little White Chapel in Vegas.

Which is as much a religious chapel as my garage, only they have Elvis impersonators, and my garage actually has Elvis.

Marriage was co-opted by the church, they came up with the modern version of the rites we use. As with many things they've swiped they like to claim they have sole dominion over it. It's not a point worth arguing.

It is in the sense that you have to show them that marriage has nothing to do with religion in a secular society. It is a legal construct, not a religious one. The ceremony that some couples choose to have is irrelevant, since the type of ceremony has no effect on the marriage, and your "church" can declare you married all it wants, until you sign that marriage contract and get it on paper, it doesn't mean jack.

Threesome, kinky.

It is in the sense that you have to show them that marriage has nothing to do with religion in a secular society. It is a legal construct, not a religious one. The ceremony that some couples choose to have is irrelevant, since the type of ceremony has no effect on the marriage, and your "church" can declare you married all it wants, until you sign that marriage contract and get it on paper, it doesn't mean jack.

The secular marriage is far younger than religious marriage, in that respect the Church does have a semi-valid point. Of course couples have been getting together for eons, so they really don't have much of one.

Your parents are married to Britney Spears? :eek:

You know the old saying about the ride at the fairground. Britney's kind of like that. Everyone has had a go.

I'm gay. (please no flames) What are you?

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?
Straight and yes, allow it.

I am proud to fight for gay rights, I just don't think a couple of the same sex should be able to have a marriage (between a man and a woman.)
Then you're not really fighting for gay rights. You don't appear to have any more reason than your "personal definition" of marriage which is probably based on tradition.

Mantaray9992000']
and in there later years at school, 13-18 the sexual abusement they will get, with parents being Gay/Lesbein, they will automaticly be identified as a quere, missfit and will atract loads of abuse from bullys left, right, and center :(

so thats my veiw on the subject
That just perpetuates homophobia in society. Children aren't born believing that it's wrong to be gay, they are told so.

I must say, I am an imperialist democratic socialist, believing in militarization, and am a radical. I believe in unification of church and state.
I'm also a pro-military democratic socialist, but I don't see the reason for imperialism and even less so for unification of church and state. Point out a few examples of countries with a unified church and state that didn't end in civil war, will you?

But the definition of drinking fountain, school, and bus in no way state anything about race. Marriage, on the other hand, states the sex of the members of the union, by definition.
By whose definition?

If some guys and gals want to go over their own sex.. well that's their problem.. in the end.. no one is limiting their capacity to love each other.. after all marriage would be just a "title"
It's not just a title. It comes with loads of legal rights and benefits.

Methinks marriage is a state of mind.
It's also a legal contract.

Im bisexual. My opinion on same sex marriage is that it should be restricted to civil unions, because you are calling for equality and acceptance and it would be unfair and hypocritical to force churches to accept you.
Misunderstanding! Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't force churches to start wedding gay couples that request it. The only institution that would be legally required to do so would be the registry office.

When I was younger I was bisexual. As I got older, I drifted further toward the heterosexual end of the spectrum. Now I'm happily married. So I'm heterosexual by default. :)

I consider marriage to be a first amendment issue. The government has no authority to tell churches who they can and can't marry. As for non-religious marriage, the government has even less authority to decide who can enter into a legal contract with whom if they are both consenting adults.

The secular marriage is far younger than religious marriage, in that respect the Church does have a semi-valid point.

No, it isn't.

Of course couples have been getting together for eons, so they really don't have much of one.

You got that part right - a legal construct to define ownership and rights against eachother has been around in different forms throughout the ages. In fact, the Christian Church opposed marriages during its early history, as Paul's writings had several of the hoipoloi thinking virginity was the ideal. Then, when they saw what sort of political power could be wielded through marriage, as in those times marriage was a way for people to consolidate wealth and form alliances, they had to change their minds. That, and they couldn't stop people from shagging, so they had to have some reason to have it be evil and sinful, but still be done so they wouldn't run out of sheep.

Im bisexual. My opinion on same sex marriage is that it should be restricted to civil unions, because you are calling for equality and acceptance and it would be unfair and hypocritical to force churches to accept you.

Babe, no one is forcing a church to marry you.

Marriage as ALWAYS been a civil issue - hell, at a marriage serimony, you sign a register AT THE CHURCH, which is a government record!

Marriage is the contract of two people, whether you sign the document after an orgy, after eating 12 pancakes with syrup, after a church service or in a registry, a marriage is still a marriage irrespective of where it took place.

As for the issue of marriage and entitlements, my opinion is pretty well known; stop the bias in legislation; why should a couple get a tax benefit over a single person? why should they receive special discounts because they were stupid enough to have more children than they could afford.

Take the bias out of the system, give and accross the board tax cut, and let the individuals decide what to do with the money - it would also make auditing the tax system alot cheaper and easier in the long run as well.

I am bisexual. (Not just one of those poor mainstream trendy cases where most women say that and have never even did anything sexual with someone of the same sex!) However, for something speaking in terms of relationship wise, I'd rather be with a male. To my opinion, being with a woman for me is just more of a fun thing on the side I enjoy doing every once in awhile when I'm in the mood.

I am very liberal though and I do not feel that anyone has the right to be coerced into having to be with someone of the opposite sex regardless of what religious myths we are fed and etc. We all love different and cannot help who we love and nothing will ever change that cycle.

btw hi all it's my first post lol ;)

We had this thread what... 2 days ago?

btw hi all it's my first post lol ;)


Welcome to the forums! Try not to take any of this stuff too serious, we got enough of those folks around.

As for the repetition of these threads it's an interesting topic, though a very personal one. It's the internet, personal is amusing. Besides it's an election year in the US, and I have zero doubt the republicans will march out the threat of the horrible horrible queers.

We had this thread what... 2 days ago?
It was still around Yesterday...

I am bisexual. (Not just one of those poor mainstream trendy cases where most women say that and have never even did anything sexual with someone of the same sex!)
Why does anyone pretend to be bisexual if they're not? Do they think it makes them more urbane, cosmopolitan or sophisticated?

Why does anyone pretend to be bisexual if they're not? Do they think it makes them more urbane, cosmopolitan or sophisticated?
It one of thoses things that everyone is doing and they think It'll attract members of the oppsite sex if they said they were with the same sex. (actually I don't know)

I'm straight but I Don't have anything against any other sexual orientation. I do also beleive the term marriage should be changed to be between two adults. However the are extrem gay activist that I don't like, e.g. putting a gay float in a childrens parade and telling them it's okay to be gay, or going to ELEMENTRY schools and telling kids it okay to be gay or that your born gay. Kids shouldn't be introduce to that concept untill around grade 5 or 6 when they have that "class disscussion." and even then...

It one of thoses things that everyone is doing and they think It'll attract members of the oppsite sex if they said they were with the same sex. (actually I don't know)

I'm straight but I Don't have anything against any other sexual orientation. I do also beleive the term marriage should be changed to be between two adults. However the are extrem gay activist that I don't like, e.g. putting a gay float in a childrens parade and telling them it's okay to be gay, or going to ELEMENTRY schools and telling kids it okay to be gay or that your born gay. Kids shouldn't be introduce to that concept untill around grade 5 or 6 when they have that "class disscussion." and even then...Why should kids be "introduced" to the issue? Shouldn't it be more like when they ask, they get told?

Why should kids be "introduced" to the issue? Shouldn't it be more like when they ask, they get told?
even better idea.

Edit: I proably should of said I like that idea better.

Why should kids be "introduced" to the issue? Shouldn't it be more like when they ask, they get told?

Well, they get introduced to heterosexuality all the time. It's only fair they get the other side of the story.

Asexual.

I think that everybody should be able to marry everybody, all parties consenting.

Well, they get introduced to heterosexuality all the time. It's only fair they get the other side of the story.Not until I got to watch "Where did I come from?" :p

However the are extrem gay activist that I don't like, e.g. putting a gay float in a childrens parade and telling them it's okay to be gay, or going to ELEMENTRY schools and telling kids it okay to be gay or that your born gay.

Yeah, how dare they tell kids the truth?

Kids shouldn't be introduce to that concept untill around grade 5 or 6 when they have that "class disscussion." and even then...

But reading stories about how every prince wants a princess is fine. Because it's OK to be straight, and it's okay to tell them you're born straight. But not the other way round. Because it's apparently not OK to be gay.

Though if you give it some thought kids are constantly exposed to the idea of heterosexual relationships, even if they don't yet process what it means. If there's even a hint of the same thing leaning in the gay direction the religious right is in an uproar.

even better idea.

Edit: I proably should of said I like that idea better.

Should have. Should have! *falls over and foams at the mouth*

Okay, sorry. I'm not usually a grammar-nazi but that's one of my pet peeves.

Not until I got to watch "Where did I come from?" :p

I'm guessing the prince never kisses the princess in German fairytales?

I'm guessing the prince never kisses the princess in German fairytales?Well, bestiality is condoned, as long as the animal is turned into a human afterwards...

This is a copycat thread....

Although, I'm Straight.

Thank you for the welcome Khadgar.
And yes, it is sad but true...I'm from the US and right now over here it's like an everyday thing people saying they're "bisexual" just so guys will get turned on or whatever. It's pretty pathetic. And whoever said about election thingy, have no fear...I'm not a republican so don't worry...you know I'd have nothing in it. hehe ;) :p

Thank you for the welcome Khadgar.
And yes, it is sad but true...I'm from the US and right now over here it's like an everyday thing people saying they're "bisexual" just so guys will get turned on or whatever. It's pretty pathetic. And whoever said about election thingy, have no fear...I'm not a republican so don't worry...you know I'd have nothing in it. hehe ;) :p

Using a different font and size from the default is bad etiquette. Please stop.

They already do have equal rights.

Noone is stopping them getting married to a person of the opposite gender. Noone is stopping them having children naturally with the opposite gender. Not our fault they don't choose to use these existing rights and then complain.

Kids should not be introduced to the concept of homosexuality because they are impressionable, and easily confused, and let's face it, we don't want any more social blemishes than there already are.

Greater Pacific States']They already do have equal rights.

Noone is stopping them getting married to a person of the opposite gender. Except for some state laws...
Noone is stopping them having children naturally with the opposite gender. Not our fault they don't choose to use these existing rights and then complain.

Kids should not be introduced to the concept of homosexuality because they are impressionable, and easily confused, and let's face it, we don't want any more social blemishes than there already are.Urm, I know we have too many Nazis around, but what does this have to do with sexual preferences?

Greater Pacific States']They already do have equal rights.

Noone is stopping them getting married to a person of the opposite gender. Noone is stopping them having children naturally with the opposite gender. Not our fault they don't choose to use these existing rights and then complain.

They are stopped from marrying those they want. That doesn't happen to heterosexuals.

Kids should not be introduced to the concept of homosexuality because they are impressionable, and easily confused, and let's face it, we don't want any more social blemishes than there already are.

Yeah, we've already enough of your kind.

What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?


I'm straight. I have quite a number of gay friends and it doesn't disturb me any. Everyone has the right to be happy and if getting married is part of that let them go ahead. Here in Belgium they can, for that matter.

take the textbar out of the system and I'll stop...besides I never said I had good etiquette ;)

take the textbar out of the system and I'll stop...besides I never said I had good etiquette ;)

It is annoying, and not to mention n00bish and, well, quite rude after you've been asked to stop. People around here have been ostracised before for being this inconsiderate.

Greater Pacific States']They already do have equal rights.

Noone is stopping them getting married to a person of the opposite gender. Noone is stopping them having children naturally with the opposite gender. Not our fault they don't choose to use these existing rights and then complain.

Kids should not be introduced to the concept of homosexuality because they are impressionable, and easily confused, and let's face it, we don't want any more social blemishes than there already are.

Honey, you can't catch gay. You either are, or you aren't, so teaching kids about homosexuality won't 'make' kids gay, anymore than learning about hetersexuality has kept all kids straight. The most it would do is make people more accepting (shock! horror!) of different people, and possibly make more people 'bisexual'.

You left wing libertarian hacks are what's wrong with society.

It is annoying, and not to mention n00bish and, well, quite rude after you've been asked to stop. People around here have been ostracised before for being this inconsiderate.Fass... it sounds rather ironic...
Just let her...

It was still around Yesterday...
It is a subtle ploy on the part of the Gay Mafia to see if they'd managed to turn anybody gay between now and yesterday.

Well, they get introduced to heterosexuality all the time. It's only fair they get the other side of the story.
They get "exposed" to heterosexuality all the time. Introduction is formal, seeing your next door 60 year old neighbours fucking in thier backyard and being emotionally scarred from 5 year-old on is informal.
There is no need to introduce people to homosexuality as they'll probably discover it on their own when they are sent to a sex seggregated boarding school. Or at least, that is what porn has taught me.

It one of thoses things that everyone is doing and they think It'll attract members of the oppsite sex if they said they were with the same sex. (actually I don't know)

Thank you for the welcome Khadgar.
And yes, it is sad but true...I'm from the US and right now over here it's like an everyday thing people saying they're "bisexual" just so guys will get turned on or whatever. It's pretty pathetic.
I agree. How is a woman who is also attracted to men and women more attractive than a women who is attracted to men? That just means that there's most pointless competition.

Impressionable kids, become confused easily, they don't know how the feel, they don't know what to think. They start to contemplate if they could be gay, their mindset becomes altered. No, they're not mature enough for the disturbing truth, let them have their innocence.

Greater Pacific States']Impressionable kids, become confused easily, they don't know how the feel, they don't know what to think. They start to contemplate if they could be gay, their mindset becomes altered. No, they're not mature enough for the disturbing truth, let them have their innocence.Tell me, when did you decide to be straight?

Greater Pacific States']They already do have equal rights.

Noone is stopping them getting married to a person of the opposite gender.
Hey, in the 1950s black people had the same rights as everyone else: to marry someone of the same race.

What was the problem?

Tell me, when did you decide to be straight?
1972. It was a sunny morning. I remember there was a bird singing in a tree, and a slight mist in the air. I was eating my breakfast at the time (two croissants with butter and jam, a slice of toast (white, of course), a bowl of delicious cereal and a pot of tea (white, no sugar)), and I looked up from my morning paper. "Darling," I said to my wife. "I think I might be straight." "That's good," she replied. "I believe I am too."

We had a happy afternoon and walked to the park.

Yeah, what was the problem?
Now we have little half casts now without any racial identity being segregated by both sides.

Greater Pacific States']Impressionable kids, become confused easily, they don't know how the feel, they don't know what to think. They start to contemplate if they could be gay, their mindset becomes altered. No, they're not mature enough for the disturbing truth, let them have their innocence.

Once again: Honey, you can't catch gay.

If the kids contemplate being gay if they're gay they'll realize it and if they aren't they'll realize they aren't. The most this will do is make people more tolerant of eachother as they might realize, 'Well hey, that could've been me.'

Greater Pacific States']Yeah, what was the problem?
Now we have little half casts now without any racial identity being segregated by both sides.
You're worse than I thought.

You're worse than I thought.Should have read his reply to my post on what was wrong with society. It spelled it out quite clearly what he is.

Re-itterating your point doesn't make it anymore valid. Until you can conclusively prove to me it has no effect on the mindset of the younger generation, then you can come back and state your point, and evidence, current research finds in favour of my claims.

And what? Do you people find the truth too daunting to face? Hide from the real world by saying "omg, let's give out rights like lollypops, it'll make things better."

Greater Pacific States']Impressionable kids, become confused easily, they don't know how the feel, they don't know what to think. They start to contemplate if they could be gay, their mindset becomes altered. No, they're not mature enough for the disturbing truth, let them have their innocence.
See, Fass, this is what happens when you "introduce" people to homosexuality.
"Look, this is a gh3y. He is different then you, and so we brought him in as an exhibit."
"Oooh . . ."
"Homosexuals are unusual in society because they like to stick their penises in men. This makes them rare, like the bubonic plague or a copy of the first Amazing Spiderman comic book."
"Ahw . . ."
"Indeed. Now don't treat him like a freak or anything because he is the same as anyone else. Even though he is different and you need to be made aware of the difference."

Greater Pacific States']Re-itterating your point doesn't make it anymore valid. Until you can conclusively prove to me it has no effect on the mindset of the younger generation, then you can come back and state your point, and evidence, current research finds in favour of my claims.And why, pray tell, is the burden of evidence not on your side?
And what? Do you people find the truth too daunting to face? Hide from the real world by saying "omg, let's give out rights like lollypops, it'll make things better."As long as everyone gets one...

It strikes me as odd that no-one voted lesbian yet. I mean, there's bound to be a few drag queens in here, and in any other case a lot of men seem to enjoy lesbian sex too.

Greater Pacific States']Re-itterating your point doesn't make it anymore valid. Until you can conclusively prove to me it has no effect on the mindset of the younger generation, then you can come back and state your point, and evidence, current research finds in favour of my claims.

And what? Do you people find the truth too daunting to face? Hide from the real world by saying "omg, let's give out rights like lollypops, it'll make things better."

Isn't there something along the lines of 'You make the original statement then the burden of proof is with you'...?

Also, I'm not saying it won't effect the mindset of the younger generation. Quite the opposite, really. I'm saying that it might make people more tolerant of other people. However, this still will not make straight kids gay anymore than current teachings turn gay kids straight.

The bottom line is, studies are beginning to show that sexual orientation is determined by the amount of testosterone you're exposed to when you're developing in your mother's womb. The more brothers a boy has, the greater his chances are of being gay because the mother's body recognizes testosterone as a foreign substance and begins to build up antibodies to fight it.

The same is not true of Lesbians however, nor is it true for left-handed males, which is odd, but research is continuing. Remember, we all start out as females when we are conceived, it is not until later in the development that hormone levels determine what sex the baby will be.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out with something so delicate as chemical levels in the body, nowadays, there's a pretty big margin of error. Something's bound to eventually get screwed up a little here or there. Some wires crossed, etc. Especially when pregnant mothers are exposed to so many variables like cigarette smoke, car exhaust, harmful chemicals founds in packaged foods, tap water, cancer-causing sweeteners, etc, etc... And that's just what the responsible ones are inadvertantly exposed to on a daily basis!

Let's face it, sexual orientation is NOT a choice. No one DECIDES to be gay. Deciding to ACT on those feelings is another matter, depending on what religion you adhere to.

The only reason Western culture has a problem with it is because it's adhering to a 4,000 year old mythology, which has been corrupted over the years, and most of it's followers are truly ignorant about what it really taught.

That's why I don't respond to "the Bible says..." Because I've researched it. The Bible says nothing explicitly about it. Anymore than it prohibits a man from sleeping with his wife while she's on her period. But we don't hear of a culture war being stirred up by Christian fundamentalists over that particular "edict from God." Nor are married men who sleep in the same bed with their wives during mensturation descrimnated against by the government. But why not? After all... "The Bible says..."

I absolutely feel that gay marriage should be allowed. People say gays are not being descriminated against, but they absolutely are. Monetarily, if nothing else. Married people get tax breaks, remember. If gays can't get married, yet they've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for many years, just imagine, to be fair, how much money in tax breaks the government owes them.

People should be able to marry who they love with no stigma or guilt attached. Period.

All this arguing and bickering and frothing at the mouth and gnashing of the teeth over where someone can stick their willie .... but where are the lesbians?

There's only one?!

Come on!

*chants*
We love lesbians!
We love lesbians!

All this arguing and bickering and frothing at the mouth and gnashing of the teeth over where someone can stick their willie .... but where are the lesbians?

There's only one?!

Come on!

*chants*
We love lesbians!
We love lesbians!Well, there are 15 in the bi category...

Well, there are 15 in the bi category...
Without me reading the OP couldn't they all be guys?

Without me reading the OP couldn't they all be guys?Yes, but in theory, they could all be girls too!!! :D

Yes, but in theory, they could all be girls too!!! :D

*crosses fingers and hopes*

Asexual. But, yeah another poll without this option.


Yes.

BDSM-crazed fanatic sadist!

I don't mind dominating a male (intercourse is a big no though, not my cup of tea), though I prefer submissive females.

I guess this could qualify me as "sort of bi".

I can't imagine a person being "asexual."

I can imagine a person choosing not to act on their sexual feelings. But the proper definition of asexual would imply you have no sexual inclinations toward either sex or any other creatures, objects, etc...

Forgive me if it sounds insensitive, but since the Human body is created for the sole purpose of reproduction, I find this a hard concept to...ehem...swallow.

I can't imagine a person being "asexual."

I can imagine a person choosing not to act on their sexual feelings. But the proper definition of asexual would imply you have no sexual inclinations toward either sex or any other creatures, objects, etc...

Forgive me if it sounds insensitive, but since the Human body is created for the sole purpose of reproduction, I find this a hard concept to...ehem...swallow.

I suppose if you lacked the appropriate hormones, you would be asexual. It's not like we make a conscious decision to be attracted to people, it just... happens.

As for me... none of your darned business!

Yes, but in theory, they could all be girls too!!! :D
It isn't worth the risk.

It isn't worth the risk.Why? What are you risking?

I suppose if you lacked the appropriate hormones, you would be asexual. It's not like we make a conscious decision to be attracted to people, it just... happens.

I suppose you're right. I just wonder how many REAL cases of this are out there.

I can't imagine a person being "asexual."

I can imagine a person choosing not to act on their sexual feelings. But the proper definition of asexual would imply you have no sexual inclinations toward either sex or any other creatures, objects, etc...

Forgive me if it sounds insensitive, but since the Human body is created for the sole purpose of reproduction, I find this a hard concept to...ehem...swallow.


Go ahead and think that.

Fact is, the mere thought of having sex with someone makes me somewhat sick, and the idea of "falling in love" is just something I've read in stories.

And it's not that uncommon. There are animals that show the same thing, much like being gay or lesbian.

Well, I am straight. I have a girlfriend who used to be bi, but is now straight as well.

I think that everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. Republicans do not like homosexual people because they think that it's gross. Whatever they don't like, they demonize. There was never a part of the bible that lists "Things that God hates:" but they know that religious people are easy to control. And I am not against religion either, I am Russian Orthodox, but I do not allow myself to be manipulated like that.

Personally, marriage goes against biology. Humans are animals, whether we like it or not, we are organisms and not higher beings. When we first meet a person, we love them and cannot stand being without them. Such as with marriage, for the first five years, they are loyal and love each other. After that, they lose the fire they once had, cheating starts at this stage later on in life because it is in our nature to move around. We evolved from nomadic peoples, and this still exists in us subconsciously. Notheless, I am getting married after 35 with my girlfriend.

I suppose you're right. I just wonder how many REAL cases of this are out there.

Well you can see it to certain extremes in most people. There are those people who just can't get enough of sex as though they're addicted to it, surrounded by porn, constantly 'on the pull', glaring at everybody they find remotely attractive... and then there are those people who aren't really bothered by sex all that much.

I suppose sex could also be like a very unfortunate phobia for some people. I'll have to look that one up.

Go ahead and think that.

Fact is, the mere thought of having sex with someone makes me somewhat sick, and the idea of "falling in love" is just something I've read in stories.

And it's not that uncommon. There are animals that show the same thing, much like being gay or lesbian.

Of course, I meant no disrespect, Wizard Glass. I am aware there are animals who have this quality. But they also have non-sexual methods of reproduction. So, for them...it makes sense.

I'm just interested to know... The idea of sex and falling in love may make you sick, that could be a psychological factor. My question is: Is this something which is physiological that you can't control? Or is it a choice that you make to ignore the sexual urges you have?

Not prodding, just interested. :)

Sorry about the long delay to reply to this, I had to do some research.

"That's why I don't respond to "the Bible says..." Because I've researched it. The Bible says nothing explicitly about it..." "People should be able to marry who they love with no stigma or guilt attached. Period."

The bible part is true I know, unless you get one of thoses edit bible by those morons and I agree with the rest of the post however at the start of your post:


The bottom line is, studies are beginning to show that sexual orientation is determined by the amount of testosterone you're exposed to when you're developing in your mother's womb. The more brothers a boy has, the greater his chances are of being gay because the mother's body recognizes testosterone as a foreign substance and begins to build up antibodies to fight it.
Studies show a correlation with gayness and family so there proabliy is a heraditary link. (Bailey et al., 1999- enviromental and gentic issues on sexual orintaion) and There is some other reasearch to show there is a patteren on the X chz to influce gayness. (Saifi & Chandra, 1999 - An apparent excess of sex- and reproduction-related genes on the human X chromosome.) however even in these reports it says they are correlations not causetions and there is a graph and explaintions in Phillip L. Hammack study of The Life Course Development of Human Sexual Orientation: An Integrative Paradigm (2005) that shows many other factors that influence sexual orientation.


Remember, we all start out as females when we are conceived, it is not until later in the development that hormone levels determine what sex the baby will be...
Basic gentics will tell you this is not true. Easly researchable, and toxins can't affect your DNA that much, just your development.


Let's face it, sexual orientation is NOT a choice. No one DECIDES to be gay. Deciding to ACT on those feelings is another matter, depending on what religion you adhere to.

Sometimes even with a hugh predispostion your just not gay. Enviroment plays a hugh role in Sexual orientation too. (Phillip L. Hammack, The Life Course Development of Human Sexual Orientation: An Integrative Paradigm,2005)

well, i'm straight. I have no problem with gays, lesbians, gays in the military, and gays in the thearter:D

Of course, I meant no disrespect, Wizard Glass. I am aware there are animals who have this quality. But they also have non-sexual methods of reproduction. So, for them...it makes sense.

I'm just interested to know... The idea of sex and falling in love may make you sick, that could be a psychological factor. My question is: Is this something which is phisiological that you can't control? Or is it a choice that you make to ignore the sexual urges you have?

Not prodding, just interested. :)

You can just call me Wizard... I'll probably space and not remember there's a "Glass" after it here ;)

And it's been noted in rams that some just don't have a drive for either sex. Now, i got that from wiki and there doesn't seem to be a site to back it up, so it could be wrong, though it refs. a study I don't have time to look up right now.

Falling in love doesn't make me sick. it's just.... foriegn. I can't imagine what it'd be like, and have only the vaguest idea of what crushing on someone might feel like. It's just no there.

As for sexual urges, I have none. So I'd say it's physiological, yeah.

http://www.moviebadgirls.com/iamtroubleimage2/rebel13.jpg

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?

Absolutely. The state shouldn't even have any part in marriage, it's between the two people and god (or what ever creator they believe in).

Absolutely. The state shouldn't even have any part in marriage, it's between the two people and god (or what ever creator they believe in).

Or even just the two people

Zylonom, thanks for the response. :)

The problem with scientific research is that as soon as its released, there can immediately arise different research with a different opinion. I've found that laregly depends on who is FINANCING the research.

I'm aware of many studies which have been done on the genetic "cause" of Homosexuality. Not a lot of it has been sufficiently proved, and probably won't be. It's mostly theory.

But the "hormone levels in the mother's womb" research is fairly recent and it's the explanation that sounds most probable to me. It makes the most sense in regard to many of the development factors, especially the feminine aspects which are inherent to varying degrees in most gay men.

Your information about sex being determined by the DNA is contrary to what I have studied, so I'm not sure how accurate that statement is, but I'll look into it.

As to your statement about toxins not being able to affect your genetics, only your development... I thought it's development we're talking about here. Not genetics.

As to your statement about toxins not being able to affect your genetics, only your development... I thought it's development we're talking about here. Not genetics.

No problem and yes development is what we are talking about, My bad.

Little side track: If your looking up how sex is determined then it my understanding that sex is determined by the ratio of autosomal alleles (AA) that favor maleness to the X chz (favor femaleness)
and if X:AA > 1.00 then female, if X:AA < 0.5 male and inbetween is and intersex organism. In humans XX and Xo is female and XY and XXY is male. This might not make sense (I made it more complicated I think) but it should help you find something that helps understand it.

Well, thank you. That's interesting.

I hope someday the answer (the cause of Homosexuality) is discovered.

But then, of course, if a cause IS found... It opens up the possibility of someone who will want to find "a cure".

Now, that's an interesting debate. That might deserve a new thread. If they could cure homosexuality by correcting some culprit gene or by controlling hormone levels during development... What would that mean? The end of an entire culture of people? Would it be moral to cure it? Would it be moral to NOT cure it?

I'm gay. (please no flames) What are you?

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?
Gay too, and I am for civil unions. Marriages are the prerogative of the religious institution offering them.

I can't imagine a person being "asexual."

I can imagine a person choosing not to act on their sexual feelings. But the proper definition of asexual would imply you have no sexual inclinations toward either sex or any other creatures, objects, etc...

Forgive me if it sounds insensitive, but since the Human body is created for the sole purpose of reproduction, I find this a hard concept to...ehem...swallow.

Your lack of imagination doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

And I don't know if I'd agree that the human body is created for the sole purpose of reproduction. Or created at all, actually.

I simply don't experience sexual attraction, and as well I'm the of asexual that has a pretty much non-existant sex drive. I do however experience romantic attraction, and do desire non-sexual companionship.

Same-sex marriage IS allowed. Welcome to Canada 2006! Yay for us.

Gay too, and I am for civil unions. Marriages are the prerogative of the religious institution offering them.
Then you're for legalized gay marriage, since banning it entirely revokes some religious institution's right to partake in it.

My sexual preference?
Often.
But seriously, I chose other. I am attracted to some women (like, two) as well as most men, and I like boobs. I don't seem to fit into any of the categories in the poll...

I simply don't experience sexual attraction, and as well I'm the of asexual that has a pretty much non-existant sex drive. I do however experience romantic attraction, and do desire non-sexual companionship.
I have an asexual friend, and I always get angered by how many people seem to just carelessly dismiss that and say she's just confused. I find it extremely arrogant and belittling for her for someone to claim they know better about her sexuality than she does.

My sexual preference?
Often.
But seriously, I chose other. I am attracted to some women (like, two) as well as most men, and I like boobs. I don't seem to fit into any of the categories in the poll...

Hey! How've you been? I havent seen you in a while.

Then you're for legalized gay marriage, since banning it entirely revokes some religious institution's right to partake in it.
Depending on where you live, of course.

Depending on where you live, of course.
I don't see how where you live applies to this.

If gay marriage is legal but not mandatory, as it is in Canada, any Church that wants to marry gays can, and any Church that doesn't want to doesn't have to. Everybody's happy.

If gay marriage is illegal, then some organisations lose the right to conduct marriage ceremonies as they see fit according to their beliefs. That's when religious rights are trampled.

And, of course, there should be union contracts, be they called civil unions or civil marriage handed out by the government, devoid of any religious aspects, that should be open to everyone.

I don't see how where you live applies to this.

If gay marriage is legal but not mandatory, as it is in Canada, any Church that wants to marry gays can, and any Church that doesn't want to doesn't have to. Everybody's happy.

If gay marriage is illegal, then some organisations lose the right to conduct marriage ceremonies as they see fit according to their beliefs. That's when religious rights are trampled.

And, of course, there should be union contracts, be they called civil unions or civil marriage handed out by the government, devoid of any religious aspects, that should be open to everyone.
Ah yes, I get what you mean now. What I had thought you meant is forcing religious organisations to marry whether they like it or not.

Your lack of imagination doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

And I don't know if I'd agree that the human body is created for the sole purpose of reproduction. Or created at all, actually.

I simply don't experience sexual attraction, and as well I'm the of asexual that has a pretty much non-existant sex drive. I do however experience romantic attraction, and do desire non-sexual companionship.

That's intriguing. If this is, in fact, a legitimate orientation, and not due to psychological circumstances, then it needs to be studied and brought into greater public awareness.

I mistyped when I included the word "created" in that sentence. Blame it on my Christian brainwashing, er...I mean upbringing. :)

What I meant to say is that the most prominent biological function of the Human body (much like a virus) seems to be its reproductive ability, and seems to be first and foremost what most people's brain activity is geared toward. It sub-conciously influences a great deal about who we are and the choices we make in life. Whether we know it or not. Whether we accept it or not.

I was pointing out to Wizard that asexual animals and insects do have alternate means of reproduction, but Humans do not. So, I would logically assume that a so-called "asexual" Human would not actually be biologically asexual, just psychologically opposed to the idea of sex because of environmental variables, religious stigma, and/or other factors, and would therefore feel the need to refer to themselves as "asexual", when really that's not an accurate term to describe it.

And no, I don't have a "lack of imagination" at all actually. I could also easily see some people using that classification as a crutch, and "using their imagination" when describing themselves.

Ah yes, I get what you mean now. What I had thought you meant is forcing religious organisations to marry whether they like it or not.
No.

I know most people equate gay marriage and forcing churches to perform those marriages. Frankly, that notion always was bullshit spread by the most adamantly opposed Churches in order to block gay marriage.

Because everybody would realise they have nothing to say about it as long as their autonomy isn't affected by it.

Again, how Canada went about it is the way to go. I know of at least two religious denominations who perform and bless homosexual unions happily. The Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, and I'm glad they were told to shut up about it as long as they're not forced to do anything against their doctrine.

No.

I know most people equate gay marriage and forcing churches to perform those marriages. Frankly, that notion always was bullshit spread by the most adamantly opposed Churches in order to block gay marriage.

Because everybody would realise they have nothing to say about it as long as their autonomy isn't affected by it.

Again, how Canada went about it is the way to go. I know of at least two religious denominations who perform and bless homosexual unions happily. The Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, and I'm glad they were told to shut up about it as long as they're not forced to do anything against their doctrine.
Hopefully most other countries will follow suit.

Hopefully most other countries will follow suit.
Except the United States and Iran, of course.

Okay, I may not be the most liked person in this forum, but I do disagree with those of you who champion gay rights. As people they may not be bad, but their deeds sicken me.

Back to your point about gender determination, I must say this, both of you are partially right.

Firstly:Humans have 23 chromosomal pairs. 22 of these are autosomes, 1 of these determines gender.

If the 23th pair (in a healthy, normal human) is XX, they will be of female genotype, if they are XY they are of male genotype. Basically, one chromosome in the pair comes from the egg, and the other from the sperm. The egg only contains X sex chromosomes, and the sperm either Y or X -thus it is the father that determines gender.

However, this being said, cells have receptors for certain horemones. A steroid horemone, like testosterone can pass through cellular membranes and enter the nucleus and cause the DNA to unwind from its histones so that transcription of mRNA can begin, and this can be translated into relevant proteins. The expression levels of these proteins will determine gender. As we all have the same protein encoding DNA regions, excess testosterone will be sufficient to alter the expression of protein levels such that a female genotype will become a male phenotype, and with testosterone, vice-versa.

I hope that covers everything. By the way, I am a student of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, so I know the bioscience behind this.

That's intriguing. If this is, in fact, a legitimate orientation, and not due to psychological circumstances, then it needs to be studied and brought into greater public awareness.

There are people working to do just that. See AVEN. (http://www.asexuality.org/home/)

I mistyped when I included the word "created" in that sentence. Blame it on my Christian brainwashing, er...I mean upbringing. :)

What I meant to say is that the most prominent biological function of the Human body (much like a virus) seems to be its reproductive ability, and seems to be first and foremost what most people's brain activity is geared toward. It sub-conciously influences a great deal about who we are and the choices we make in life. Whether we know it or not. Whether we accept it or not.

I don't really understand the process by which one would choose one biological function that humans do as being more prominent than others. I'd say that the process of keeping our bodies powered (eating/drinking) effects our lives for longer and in a greater fashion than the process of reproduction does.

I was pointing out to Wizard that asexual animals and insects do have alternate means of reproduction, but Humans do not. So, I would logically assume that a so-called "asexual" Human would not actually be biologically asexual, just psychologically opposed to the idea of sex because of environmental variables, religious stigma, and/or other factors, and would therefore feel the need to refer to themselves as "asexual", when really that's not an accurate term to describe it.

Asexuality isn't about psychological opposition to sex, it's about not feeling sexual attraction. Though some people who are asexual may also be psychologically opposed to sex. Similarly, some people who are sexual may be psychologically opposed to sex, and so do not participate in it by choice. These people are celibate.

And no, I don't have a "lack of imagination" at all actually. I could also easily see some people using that classification as a crutch, and "using their imagination" when describing themselves.

Knee-jerk reaction. So many people follow through thought patterns along the lines of "I can't understand this, so it doesn't exist", so I get a bit annoyed when people start off in a similar fashion.

And... how exactly would asexuality be used as a crutch...?

Sorry For Sidetracking of the main point.

However, this being said, cells have receptors for certain horemones. A steroid horemone, like testosterone can pass through cellular membranes and enter the nucleus and cause the DNA to unwind from its histones so that transcription of mRNA can begin, and this can be translated into relevant proteins. The expression levels of these proteins will determine gender. As we all have the same protein encoding DNA regions, excess testosterone will be sufficient to alter the expression of protein levels such that a female genotype will become a male phenotype, and with testosterone, vice-versa.


Yes and there are many things that can happen. My point is that (according to scientist) sex is determined when the sperm meets the egg. btw I'm studing Biochemistry and Child development (and other bio/pysc courses).

Straight, and i support same-sex marriages.

Gay, and in favour of gay marriage (obviously.)

Greater Pacific States']Okay, I may not be the most liked person in this forum, but I do disagree with those of you who champion gay rights. As people they may not be bad, but their deeds sicken me.

Back to your point about gender determination, I must say this, both of you are partially right.

Firstly:Humans have 23 chromosomal pairs. 22 of these are autosomes, 1 of these determines gender.

If the 23th pair (in a healthy, normal human) is XX, they will be of female genotype, if they are XY they are of male genotype. Basically, one chromosome in the pair comes from the egg, and the other from the sperm. The egg only contains X sex chromosomes, and the sperm either Y or X -thus it is the father that determines gender.

However, this being said, cells have receptors for certain horemones. A steroid horemone, like testosterone can pass through cellular membranes and enter the nucleus and cause the DNA to unwind from its histones so that transcription of mRNA can begin, and this can be translated into relevant proteins. The expression levels of these proteins will determine gender. As we all have the same protein encoding DNA regions, excess testosterone will be sufficient to alter the expression of protein levels such that a female genotype will become a male phenotype, and with testosterone, vice-versa.

I hope that covers everything. By the way, I am a student of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, so I know the bioscience behind this.

It actually doesn't cover everything. It leaves out CAIS, for instance, in which normal hormone levels are present, but the cells cannot respond to them. Thus, even though the chromosomes are XY, the person develops completely as female.

It also leaves out Turner's syndrome, in most or all of a person's cells can be XO. They will develop basically as female, although they will not menstruate or demonstrate all of the female sex characteristics without hormones, especially after puberty. This could be from an embryo that began as XY, but had an improper division, meaning that many of the cells in the body could be male, although the person would be considered female. She may even have undescended testicles that need to be removed, for fear that she may develop cancer.

It leaves out Klinefelter's, in which a person can have XXY or XXXY and so on. Such persons often develop secondary sex characteristics of both sexes. Trisomy of the sex chromosomes is much more common and less disastrous than most trisomy in autosomal chromosomes. XYY is also possible, and may result in particularly violent males.

Then there are chimeras. It is possible for a male embryo to envelop a female one or vice versa, such that parts of the body are male and parts are female.


You try to oversimplify by stating "healthy and normal", which makes it sound as if these things simply don't happen, but they do, and probably occur more often than most people think.



Yes and there are many things that can happen. My point is that (according to scientist) sex is determined when the sperm meets the egg. btw I'm studing Biochemistry and Child development (and other bio/pysc courses).

Not really. A woman with Turner's who developed from an XY zygote is not said to be male. She is female. Her sex was determined by the genotype of the majority of her cells, not by that at fertilization.

Greater Pacific States']Okay, I may not be the most liked person in this forum, but I do disagree with those of you who champion gay rights. As people they may not be bad, but their deeds sicken me.

You know what sickens me? Eating really rare steaks. I simply can't imagine why anyone would want to eat a piece of meat that's still practically raw. The whole idea of it makes me feel sick to my stomach, so I think it should be outlawed. People who eat rare steaks should not have the same rights as those of us who have the more natural impulse to make sure our meat is thoroughly cooked. I mean, people who eat rare steaks may not be bad, but their deeds sicken me.

Makes perfect sense, right?

(Oh, and in answer to the OP's question - I'm 100% straight and 100% in favor of equal rights for all.)

-snip- XYY is also possible, and may result in particularly violent males. -snip-

Apparently that isn't necessarily true.

Hey! How've you been? I havent seen you in a while.I've been good.
Busy, is all.
I managed to work almost 70 hours during my march break, so now I'm at home the evenings like a normal teenager... I didn't know what to do with myself, but then I remembered the internet and this funny thing they call tele-vision.
Posting on NationStates is like coming home, I do say.
How have you been?

Admittedly I haven't covered every single thing that could go wrong, for a start it was 2 in the morning, and I don't know who does what, so it's probably best not to overdo things. But yes, your teisomy genotype (XYY) does result in particularly violent males, in fact, there's quite a large majority of prisoners in jail for violent -really violent- crimes exhibit this.

I'm gay. (please no flames) What are you?

Oh and now we're at it. What's your opinion on same-sex marriage? Should it be allowed?

Same sex marriage IS allowed, and I'm fine with that. Equal rights are good.
That said, I'm straight as an arrow. I just know people who are homosexuals, and I wouldn't want to deny them a special day. Afterall, why should straight people have a monopoly on a single day of declaring love for each other? :)

personally I'm bi, and I do beleve in same sex marages although I personally would never ever get married. I do think its easier though for a woman such as my self to be bisexual then a guy

I'm straight, and absolutely in favour of gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about gay rights, it's about human rights. Why the hell should it bother me or anyone else, including governments, what someone's sexual orientation is if they want to get married? They're people just like everyone else and should be afforded the same rights and privileges.

Greater Pacific States']Okay, I may not be the most liked person in this forum, but I do disagree with those of you who champion gay rights. As people they may not be bad, but their deeds sicken me.And? Is that supposed to mean anything? Cheese sickens me, but I'm not against anyone else eating it.

It leaves out Klinefelter's, in which a person can have XXY or XXXY and so on. Such persons often develop secondary sex characteristics of both sexes. Trisomy of the sex chromosomes is much more common and less disastrous than most trisomy in autosomal chromosomes. XYY is also possible, and may result in particularly violent males.

I dated a guy with Klinefelter's (XXY). We're still firends. He didn't find out he had it until last year (when he was 59). He is obviously physically male. Nothing ambiguous other that a lack of facial hair and small testies. Until he was diagnosed he was basicly asexual. Sex with anyone simply didn't intrest him. But he got married and raised a family (step children obviously) as was expected of him. Upon his diagnosis, he started testosterone therapy. Within a couple of weeks, he developed a sex drive and discoverd he was gay. Needless to say, it was quite a suprise to him being a fundementalist christian and all.

.

lol hahaha thats is one awesome story, you should tell it at partys

lol hahaha thats is one awesome story, you should tell it at partys

I feel sorry for the guy. It's hard enough to go through puberty and figure out your sexuality at 13. But to have to go through it at 60 after a lifetime lived in a certan way is just horrible.

.

Marriage.... why bother anyway? does your relation with your partner get better because you tell someone else you'll always be together? Does it get better because you sign an official state paper that says so? Does it get better because you have a big party with loads of family and friends (ok, that I can believe, but why does it have to be in a temple?)

But if you think it'll improve your relationship, go ahead.
And if you want to marry your dog, fine, just as long as the dog has the ability to agree or disagree;)

I'm straight, and absolutely in favour of gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, it's not about gay rights, it's about human rights. Why the hell should it bother me or anyone else, including governments, what someone's sexual orientation is if they want to get married? They're people just like everyone else and should be afforded the same rights and privileges.

Give that man (or woman) a cookie! This is completely how I feel over the matter. They are gay, so what? They are human arn't they? True equality is not about the same rights for homos as for hetros (although that is a result), it is about breaking down the barrier between them. Or that is my opinion anyway.

Greater Pacific States']Impressionable kids, become confused easily, they don't know how the feel, they don't know what to think. They start to contemplate if they could be gay, their mindset becomes altered. No, they're not mature enough for the disturbing truth, let them have their innocence.

And what is so bad/'uninnocent' about homosexual attractions?

Sorry, I knew I was 'gay' before I knew what label was to describe my feelings - same goes for being heterosexual; you knew you liked the opposit sex, even before you new what name it was.

Same goes for kids; hell, I knew I liked being around and close to guys when I was 9 years old - and I was being bought up in a house hold and community where the word homosexuality, poofter, gay or what ever label you wish to use, was never used.

So please, lets stick to the facts rather than Republican driven, emotional clap trap drawn from your lack there of, of understanding of human sexuality.

I'm straight and I believe just as long either groups (straight vs homosexuals) don't step on each other's toes, then we can get along. Also, it takes time for a society to change its attitude towards certain issues (for the best most of the time).

It strikes me as odd that no-one voted lesbian yet. I mean, there's bound to be a few drag queens in here, and in any other case a lot of men seem to enjoy lesbian sex too.
How can men enjoy lesbian sex? It's a contradiction.

My sexual preference?
Often.
But seriously, I chose other. I am attracted to some women (like, two) as well as most men, and I like boobs. I don't seem to fit into any of the categories in the poll...
Bisexual.

I do think its easier though for a woman such as my self to be bisexual then a guy
Why? I agree that it's more socially acceptable, but why do you think that is?

Needless to say, it was quite a suprise to him being a fundementalist christian and all.

You have many great stories.

Greater Pacific States']Admittedly I haven't covered every single thing that could go wrong, for a start it was 2 in the morning, and I don't know who does what, so it's probably best not to overdo things. But yes, your teisomy genotype (XYY) does result in particularly violent males, in fact, there's quite a large majority of prisoners in jail for violent -really violent- crimes exhibit this.

I'm pretty sure that's not actually (or not entirely) true. I did a research project on sex chromosome disorders and the whole violent XYY thing is just a stereotype for the most part.

However, I could be wrong.

[QUOTE=The Half-Hidden]Why? I agree that it's more socially acceptable, but why do you think that is?QUOTE]

Because what is considered 'socially acceptable' seems to get decided by white heterosexual males with a christian superiority complex and a thought process that thinks they have a monopoly on morality.

Straight until further notice.

(seriously, every time I "liked" a girl I was really trying)

Gay marriages should be allowed.

:)

I wouldn't want to deny them a special day. Afterall, why should straight people have a monopoly on a single day of declaring love for each other? :)

There's not just the "single day" issue to consider, you know. Think of the legal implications.

Oriented towards one person, it seems.... :(

Oriented towards one person, it seems.... :(
Cabra's back! :)

Cabra's back! :)

*lol
Cabra found out that real life sucks even worse than the internet.... so yeah, I'm back

*lol
Cabra found out that real life sucks even worse than the internet.... so yeah, I'm backI can think of worse things (though I am sorry about the RL issue)

What I find irritating is the claim that marriage is a religious institution. Marriage is bigger than religion; many, indeed perhaps most, marriage ceremonies are religious in some context or hue, but many are not.

Consequently, a religious definition of marriage is inaccurate. It's akin to defining a generic animal as 'having a tail' or 'having eyes'.

Given that the larger part of the objection to same-sex marriage is founded upon religious concerns (the rest of it being just straight-forward homophobia), it's hard to see how such institutional inequality can be justified.