NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn Soviestan is being pwn3d.

Unfortunately he's not smart enough to realize it.

Unfortunately he's not smart enough to realize it.

I think it's that religion, wrapped around his brain, preventing clear thought.

Sounds like you are more of a Libertarian.

Sounds like you are more of a Libertarian.

Who you talking to?

Who you talking to?Can't be me. I'm an evil socialist.

Can't be me. I'm an evil socialist.

I was curious, because I self-identify as a libertarian socialist. Libertarian with regards to civil rights, until money touches things. Once you cross that line, I'm a socialist. (Although I don't believe in gun ownership. Never have, never will.)

I was curious, because I self-identify as a libertarian socialist. Libertarian with regards to civil rights, until money touches things. Once you cross that line, I'm a socialist. (Although I don't believe in gun ownership. Never have, never will.)I'm pretty much in the same boat, except on the gun ownership. Must be the Texan in me. Just because some people use something irresponsibly doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, except on the gun ownership. Must be the Texan in me. Just because some people use something irresponsibly doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.

Eh, I've never had any problem with guns and I've been in tons of risky situations before. I might just be lucky, but then again, the number of school shootings between the USA and Canada is, per capita, lower, here. Could be that we don't allow gun ownership. Could be cultural. I'm thinking it's probably the former.

Eh, I've never had any problem with guns and I've been in tons of risky situations before. I might just be lucky, but then again, the number of school shootings between the USA and Canada is, per capita, lower, here. Could be that we don't allow gun ownership. Could be cultural. I'm thinking it's probably the former.Killing people is a Texas institution. Just look at the number of executions.
And I've always believed that the reason for American violence (US) is more cultural than gun ownership related.

Sorry, but I am going to quote the Qur'an as it is the word of the one who created us all and has laid down his laws.

So you think your religion should be enforced by the law? Does the Qur'an itself not state that a conversion must be voluntary, and not forced? And would that 1st Amendment that you keep bringing up allow you to put the Qur'an into law?

Killing people is a Texas institution. Just look at the number of executions.
And I've always believed that the reason for American violence (US) is more cultural than gun ownership related.

Without trying to be offensive, I think it might have something to do with the fact that most Americans that I've met seem to have a short attention span and need their demands satisfied five minutes ago, otherwise they're pissed - that and the fact that quite a few people, in general, are selfish enough to harm others to get what they want. It's promoted in both money-making lines of work: big business, as well as crime.

Without trying to be offensive, I think it might have something to do with the fact that most Americans that I've met seem to have a short attention span and need their demands satisfied five minutes ago, otherwise they're pissed - that and the fact that quite a few people, in general, are selfish enough to harm others to get what they want. It's promoted in both money-making lines of work: big business, as well as crime.
No offence. I have a short attention span and prefer instant gratification. And I have a fairly short temper. But as much as I'd like to, I've never killed anyone.

Without trying to be offensive, I think it might have something to do with the fact that most Americans that I've met seem to have a short attention span and need their demands satisfied five minutes ago, otherwise they're pissed -
You jackass! I'm deeply offended by that, and I demand that you apologize to me immediately for...wait, what were we talking about?

No offence. I have a short attention span and prefer instant gratification. And I have a fairly short temper. But as much as I'd like to, I've never killed anyone.

You jackass! I'm deeply offended by that, and I demand that you apologize to me immediately for...wait, what were we talking about?

Without having met either of you, I can say with certainty that I'd be delighted to do so. And I'm fairly sure that you aren't the poor excuses for humans that go around shooting people. So I'm not too concerned. <3

Flattered- even more so to be considered in the illustrious company of Bottle.

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, and I haven't bothered to read it through... I just saw an opportunity to post this:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8376/quiz16gbg3.th.gif (http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=quiz16gbg3.gif)

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, and I haven't bothered to read it through... I just saw an opportunity to post this:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8376/quiz16gbg3.th.gif (http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=quiz16gbg3.gif)

I assume they were crucified shortly afterward. :D

My problem with homosexuality arises with, for lack of a better term, the “flamers” or “queens” of the group. Now before you jump down my throat with flames and the like, hear me out. In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be accepted are no better than people with two teeth and overalls saying “I hate faggots” in southern accents. Extremes on either end are rather ridiculous, and acceptance is far different than going out of your way to put up with nonsense.

I love "queens" and "flamers". I find that kind of personality to be fun and it puts me at complete ease and makes me giggle (not at them, but with them).

I agree with Steel Butterfly. I'm not a homophobe (I don't hate gay people, I just don't like them), I have a friend who's a fag, but I would go even further; I find any open public displays of homosexuality fairly repulsive. Want to kiss your boyfriend? Don't do it in my face.

I agree with Steel Butterfly. I'm not a homophobe (I don't hate gay people, I just don't like them), I have a friend who's a fag, but I would go even further; I find any open public displays of homosexuality fairly repulsive. Want to kiss your boyfriend? Don't do it in my face.
Are you sure you're a leftie? :p

Are you sure you're a leftie? :p

Me? Nah, I just have those political compass results in my sig. to confuse people ;)

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”
I don't think the queeny gays act like that for us. They act like that to let other gay men know that they are gay and available.

Me? Nah, I just have those political compass results in my sig. to confuse people ;)
Well you have to be the first one who actually shares my opinion on the matter - but I find public displays of affection distasteful in general, not just with gay individuals exclusively (which would be odd).

I don't think the queeny gays act like that for us. They act like that to let other gay men know that they are gay and available.
They often end up achieving just the opposite though. It's most unappealing.

I agree with Steel Butterfly. I'm not a homophobe (I don't hate gay people, I just don't like them), I have a friend who's a fag, but I would go even further; I find any open public displays of homosexuality fairly repulsive. Want to kiss your boyfriend? Don't do it in my face.
Serious Part:
Do you find open public displays of heterosexuality repulsive?

Less than serious part:
And do you get off on watching girls grind with each other? I bet you do, you hypocrite.

And do you get off on watching girls grind with each other? I bet you do, you hypocrite.
Check her sig...

Sounds like you are more of a Libertarian.
I didn't even realise you were still on these forums. Nice to see you on though. :)

Serious Part:
Do you find open public displays of heterosexuality repulsive?

No, because its perfectly natural

Less than serious part:
And do you get off on watching girls grind with each other? I bet you do, you hypocrite.

Why do you ask?

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay.

Awesome.

There are impressionable children who see this

While being inundated with societal messages that make it seem as if "it is cool or ok to be straight."

and could pick up on this leading to problems down the road

I don't see any "problems."

I agree with same-sex marriage. There's no point in banning it at all.

Sorry, but I am going to quote the Qur'an as it is the word of the one who created us all and has laid down his laws.

"And lot, (and recall) when he said to his people, 'Do you commit such abomination (of sodomy) as is unprecedant and unsurpassed in the whole world? 'You indeed approach men rather than (your) women to satisfy your lust. The fact is that are a people who trangress all limits.' " (7:80-81)
That doesn't mean that homosexuality is a choice. It simply means that homosexual sexual acts are a sinful choice.

God's enemies are more honest than his friends -Sam Harris
Who on earth are God's enemies???

I was curious, because I self-identify as a libertarian socialist. Libertarian with regards to civil rights, until money touches things. Once you cross that line, I'm a socialist. (Although I don't believe in gun ownership. Never have, never will.)
Libertarian socialists are the original libertarians.

No, because its perfectly natural

So is homosexuality. It does, after all, occur in nature. Isn't that the definition of natural?

That doesn't mean that homosexuality is a choice. It simply means that homosexual sexual acts are a sinful choice.

What exactly makes them sinful?

So is homosexuality. It does, after all, occur in nature. Isn't that the definition of natural?

What is natural in the context of human society is defined by two things:
- what God has said to be right
- what the society in question has deemed natural.

Either one on their own can work as a good definition, but homosexuality has both against it. Heterosexuality has both going for it.

What exactly makes them sinful?

The word of God.

What is natural in the context of human society is defined by two things:
- what God has said to be right
- what the society in question has deemed natural.
The first being the dictum of an entity whose existence is unproven, the second constituting an argumentum ad populum. :confused:

That doesn't mean that homosexuality is a choice. It simply means that homosexual sexual acts are a sinful choice.

Oh, please, don't repeat the "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit.

Maybe it's noble when you're talking about murder, but as far as same-sex attraction, it's just self-righteous, patronizing, and dishonest.

The word of God.

Does God's word say they're sinful because they're sinful, or are they sinful because God's word says they're sinful?

The first being the dictum of a being whose existence is unproven, the second constituting an argumentum ad populum. :confused:

The first being based upon the word of the supreme being, He who created the universe, and He who is infallible.

Argumentum ad populum is not a problem at all. If the majority of a society accepts something then it becomes natural to that society.

Does God's word say they're sinful because they're sinful, or are they sinful because God's word says they're sinful?

God's word is what defines what is sinful, so they are sinful under either way.

The first being based upon the word of the supreme being, He who created the universe, and He who is infallible.
Can you prove His existence to the faithless though?

Argumentum ad populum is not a problem at all. If the majority of a society accepts something then it becomes natural to that society.
Even if the majority decides that certain individuals should be enslaved to serve its needs?

What is natural in the context of human society is defined by two things:
- what God has said to be right
- what the society in question has deemed natural.

Either one on their own can work as a good definition, but homosexuality has both against it. Heterosexuality has both going for it.

Human society "decides" what is natural?

I think human society decides what is normal.

God's word is what defines what is sinful, so they are sinful under either way.

Answer the question, please.

Can you prove His existence to the faithless though?

There is no need; the faithless are lost, and have abandoned the word of God. All I need to know that God's word is the word is my faith

Even if the majority decides that certain individuals should be enslaved to serve its needs?

I said what the majority of society accepts is what determines what is natural to society, not whether or not it is right.

Human society "decides" what is natural?

I think human society decides what is normal.

Human society decides what is natural to that society.

What is natural in the context of human society is defined by two things:
- what God has said to be right
- what the society in question has deemed natural.

Either one on their own can work as a good definition, but homosexuality has both against it. Heterosexuality has both going for it.

The words "society" and "natural" are necessarily counter inductive. One can not define what is natural through societal constructs as society by definition is anatural. That which is natural is, by definition, what exists in a state of nature.

The subject of god not withstanding, which is equally spurious in my opinion.

Human society decides what is natural to that society.

once again, "natural" and "society" are opposing constructs.

There is no need; the faithless are lost, and have abandoned the word of God. All I need to know that God's word is the word is my faith
Those who have rejected Faith cannot be conquered by it, eh? :D

I said what the majority of society accepts is what determines what is natural to society, not whether or not it is right.
I never asked if it's right or not. My question was would slavery then be considered natural?

Answer the question, please.

You're expecting a devout christian to answer a question about God's view on sin straight?

Answer the question, please.

I have.

There is no need; the faithless are lost, and have abandoned the word of God. All I need to know that God's word is the word is my faith


I'm repulsed. Do not say such things in public.

There is no need; the faithless are lost, and have abandoned the word of God. All I need to know that God's word is the word is my faith

My holy book says the right thing to say in this case is "Fuck you, asshat"

The words "society" and "natural" are necessarily counter inductive. One can not define what is natural through societal constructs as society by definition is anatural. That which is natural is, by definition, what exists in a state of nature.

It defines what or, or seems, natural to that society. If you wish, I can use the word "normal" instead of "natural", notwithstanding the fact that they can have the same meaning, where I'm from, anyway.

Those who have rejected Faith cannot be conquered by it, eh? :D

Something like that.

I never asked if it's right or not. My question was would slavery then be considered natural?

By that society, yes.

I have.

You've said the answer is irrelevant. You haven't actually provided an answer.

It defines what or, or seems, natural to that society. If you wish, I can use the word "normal" instead of "natural", notwithstanding the fact that they can have the same meaning, where I'm from, anyway.

They don't. Rape and Incest occur in nature, and are therefore "natural". Would you describe these things as normal for humans?

You've said the answer is irrelevant. You haven't actually provided an answer.

I said the answer was irrelevant? Nope, I said that the two positions you outlined are the same.

They don't. Rape and Incest occur in nature, and are therefore "natural". Would you describe these things as normal for humans?

They don't what?

Nope, I said that the two positions you outlined are the same.

Then you don't understand them.

In one case, God saying that something is right or wrong MAKES it right or wrong. So, if God says that raping and murdering infants is right, it's right, and the desire to avoid doing it is sinful and perverse.

In the other case, God saying that something is right or wrong is merely an acknowledgement of the morality or immorality of an action, something that is determined by a standard independent of His whim.

So, either morality is a matter of divine whimsy - in which case the only reason that, say, genocide is wrong is that some guy in the sky says it is, and if God had felt a little different the day He created the universe's moral framework, it would instead be up there with loving Him with all your heart, soul, and might - or it is determined by something independent of God's will, in which case there must be a justification beyond "God says so."

They don't what?

They don't mean the same thing.

Then you don't understand them.

In one case, God saying that something is right or wrong MAKES it right or wrong. So, if God says that raping and murdering infants is right, it's right, and the desire to avoid doing it is sinful and perverse.

In the other case, God saying that something is right or wrong is merely an acknowledgement of the morality or immorality of an action, something that is determined by a standard independent of His whim.

So, either morality is a matter of divine whimsy - in which case the only reason that, say, genocide is wrong is that some guy in the sky says it is, and if God had felt a little different the day He created the universe's moral framework, it would instead be up there with loving Him with all your heart, soul, and might - or it is determined by something independent of God's will, in which case there must be a justification beyond "God says so."

God's will decrees what is and what is not sinful. Because morality is decided by God, his pronouncements are both acknowledgement of his wishes and the measure by which we are delivered his word, and how we come to know what is sinful and what is not.

They don't mean the same thing.

Did you read the whole sentence? If you wish, I can use the word "normal" instead of "natural", notwithstanding the fact that they can have the same meaning, where I'm from, anyway.

Because morality is decided by God

So the reason that genocide is wrong is because God says so?

If God had decided differently, would it be okay to brutally torture and murder people because they're of a different ethnicity than you?

So the reason that genocide is wrong is because God says so?

If God had decided differently, would it be okay to brutally torture and murder people because they're of a different ethnicity than you?

It would be okay in the eyes of God, and not a sin, but whether or not an individual who does not follow God's path believes it to be right is, unfortunately, up to them.

It would be okay in the eyes of God, and not a sin

Hah, and we are the ones who are supposed to be morally depraved.

It would be okay in the eyes of God, and not a sin, but whether or not an individual who does not follow God's path believes it to be right is, unfortunately, up to them.

Did you just say unfortunitly people might think brutally torturing and murdering people because they're of a different ethnicity than you is not right.
(I understand that you don't think this but if God said you should murder and torture you would be FOR it)

God's word is what defines what is sinful, so they are sinful under either way.

absolutely right.

Did you just say unfortunitly people might think brutally torturing and murdering people because they're of a different ethnicity than you is not right.
(I understand that you don't think this but if God said you should murder and torture you would be FOR it)

No, I said that unfortunately people who have dismissed God feel free to decide what is right and wrong.

No, I said that unfortunately people who have dismissed God feel free to decide what is right and wrong.
Yes, free thinking will be man's downfall in the end, for sure.

Nevermind the fact that reason is one of the few things that distinguishes man from the other animals...

What exactly makes them sinful?
In the context of what I am talking to Soviestan about, the answer is obvious.

Yes, free thinking will be man's downfall in the end, for sure.

So-called "free thinking" will not be man's downfall, it will be the downfall of those who reject God. When you stand at the gates of heaven and are judged for your sins you will wish you had followed the path God set for you.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/obviousot5.jpg

In the context of what I am talking to Soviestan about, the answer is obvious.
The Lord's dictum?

When you stand at the gates of heaven and are judged for your sins you will wish you had followed the path God set for you.

Me, I'll laugh in His face and delight in my correct choice to defy a bloodthirsty and tyrannical deity depraved enough to oppose same-sex love.

So-called "free thinking" will not be man's downfall, it will be the downfall of those who reject God. When you stand at the gates of heaven and are judged for your sins you will wish you had followed the path God set for you.
I just have to ask, are you being serious?

Hah, and we are the ones who are supposed to be morally depraved.

How can something be immoral or wrong if it is allowed by Allah? That doesnt make sense.

How can something be immoral or wrong if it is allowed by Allah? That doesnt make sense.

Makes perfect sense if morality isn't defined by Allah.

How can something be immoral or wrong if it is allowed by Allah?

Because, as surprising as it may be, OTHER PEOPLE MATTER in and of themselves. They don't need God to give them moral value.

To help others for the sake of serving God is no better than to help others for selfish profit.

How can something be immoral or wrong if it is allowed by Allah? That doesnt make sense.

Because morals are actually not morals they are uncommon sense.

I just have to ask, are you being serious?

Of course, the word of God is no laughing matter.

Because morals are actually not morals they are uncommon sense.

:confused:

Makes perfect sense if morality isn't defined by Allah.

The problem with that is that morality is in fact define by Allah.

The problem with that is that morality is in fact define by Allah.

In your opinion.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm
Have fun Sovie.

that site is good fun. I enjoyed laughing at there supposed refutations of Islam.

The problem with that is that morality is in fact define by Allah.

I'll say what I say always when you or anyone else pulls something like this.

Prove it.

Of course, the word of God is no laughing matter.

I typically laugh at what people claim to be the word of god. If it's true that god is one sick fucking bastard.

I'll say what I say always when you or anyone else pulls something like this.

Prove it.

Why prove something when you can just say the same thing over and over?:rolleyes:

If it's true that god is one sick fucking bastard.

Yeah... why the hell should we listen to a homophobic sexist asshole who intends to sentence the majority of humanity to eternal torment because they don't worship Him?

Yeah... why the hell should we listen to a homophobic sexist asshole who intends to sentence the majority of humanity to eternal torment because they don't worship Him?

Because we owe existence to him, and he is the only entity who can give you eternal happiness.

Because we owe existence to him, and he is the only entity who can give you eternal happiness.

prove it. I note also that you haven't denied the homophobic sexist asshole bit.

Because we owe existence to him, and he is the only entity who can give you eternal happiness.

In your opinion.

Because we owe existence to him,

That's his problem. I didn't ask him to create me.

and he is the only entity who can give you eternal happiness.

So I should be a selfish bastard and sell my moral principles for a paradisical existence?

prove it. I note also that you haven't denied the homophobic sexist asshole bit.

His creation is all around you.

That's his problem. I didn't ask him to create me.

How very ungrateful.

So I should be a selfish bastard and sell my moral principles for a paradisical existence?

If you wish to enter paradise and live at one with the Lord then His word and His path should be followed.

How very ungrateful.



If you wish to enter paradise and live at one with the Lord then His word and His path should be followed.

Prove it.

His creation is all around you.

prove he created it.

How very ungrateful.

I can be grateful without being servile. I'm not a slave to my parents either.

If you wish to enter paradise and live at one with the Lord then His word and His path should be followed.

Whatever my desire to live in paradise, it can never justify abandoning my obligations to other human beings.

Prove it.



prove he created it.

His word and my faith are all the evidence I need. Nothing can be proven, but it can be put beyond personal doubt.

His word and my faith are all the evidence I need. Nothing can be proven, but it can be put beyond personal doubt.

so you can't prove it? Then why should I believe you? And you will, of course, forgive me if your faith is not all the evidence I need.

Whatever my desire to live in paradise, it can never justify abandoning my obligations to other human beings.

Who said anything about abandoning your obligations?

so you can't prove it? Then why should I believe you? And you will, of course, forgive me if your faith is not all the evidence I need.

Name me something one can prove, beyond doubt, and you will ahave managed something nobody has achieved in history.

Name me something one can prove, beyond doubt, and you will ahave managed something nobody has achieved in history.

beyond all doubt? Nothing. Beyond reasonable doubt, a great deal.

Can you even meet even a reasonable doubt?

Who said anything about abandoning your obligations?

When you say that I should worship a being who insists that other human beings who have done nothing wrong (except according to various worthless, depraved "moralities") deserve to be tortured for eternity, you are saying that I should abandon my obligations to others.

When you say that I should worship a being who insists that other human beings who have done nothing wrong (except according to various worthless, depraved "moralities") deserve to be tortured for eternity, you are saying that I should abandon my obligations to others.

You've basing that upon a misconception; the Lord does not say that you are tortured for eternity, only that you don't get into paradise.

In your opinion.

You guys are all barking up the wrong tree if you think Nadkor is being anything but sarcastic.

Unless there has been a very recent, very life-changing conversion? Nah, I prefer to retain my faith in humanity, and in particular, in people who aren't crazy. Yes Nad, you fall into that good category :D

the Lord does not say that you are tortured for eternity, only that you don't get into paradise.

So? It is still wrong to worship homophobic, sexist, and exclusivist deities.

You guys are all barking up the wrong tree if you think Nadkor is being anything but sarcastic.

Unless there has been a very recent, very life-changing conversion? Nah, I prefer to retain my faith in humanity, and in particular, in people who aren't crazy. Yes Nad, you fall into that good category :D

yeah, from what I knew of Nadkor this didn't seem right at all, but I suck at names so I was willing to believe that I had the wrong person. Or Nad pulled a conversion to assholeism a la sovietstan.

yeah, from what I knew of Nadkor this didn't seem right at all, but I suck at names so I was willing to believe that I had the wrong person. Or Nad pulled a conversion to assholeism a la sovietstan.

I'm thinking she's being whimsical, and playing devil's advocate.

Except they're not preaching pointless hatred. (Ridiculously over-the-top campness does annoy me, though. (And, I feel, project an unfair stereotype for other gay men; the protrayal in the media being a large part of this problem.) I'm not going to do anything about it, of course. You're free to act the way you like as long as you doesn't impinge on my freedom. I just find it annoying.)

I find campy personas just as annoying as the woman who wears very inappropriately tight, short clothes to the office (as in, can't help but flash people just in standing and sitting) and then complains that she's not taken seriously, or people who are having a VERY public and VERY heated PDA and get upset if someone comments.

Harmless? Probably. But if you're going to make a spectacle of yourself, expect that people will notice, possibly with negative comments.

You guys are all barking up the wrong tree if you think Nadkor is being anything but sarcastic.

Unless there has been a very recent, very life-changing conversion? Nah, I prefer to retain my faith in humanity, and in particular, in people who aren't crazy. Yes Nad, you fall into that good category :D

Haha, you know me too well :D

yeah, from what I knew of Nadkor this didn't seem right at all, but I suck at names so I was willing to believe that I had the wrong person. Or Nad pulled a conversion to assholeism a la sovietstan.

Actually, when Sovietstan agreed with something I said I was about to come clean....

Actually, when Sovietstan agreed with something I said I was about to come clean....

you must have felt dirty.

The problem is, as I said, while something seemed...off, I admit to not knowing names too well, and the arguments were pretty par for the course, so I considered it possibly valid.

Actually, when Sovietstan agreed with something I said I was about to come clean....
Hence I inquired whether you were being serious. ;) It was completely out of context for you to muster such arguments.

you must have felt dirty.

The problem is, as I said, while something seemed...off, I admit to not knowing names too well, and the arguments were pretty par for the course, so I considered it possibly valid.

Well, you've only been about for 6 months or so (unless you had a previous nation), and considering that I rarely get into debates these days, it's not unlikely that you'd never seen me talking about the issues before...

Hence I inquired whether you were being serious. ;) It was completely out of context for you to muster such arguments.

Yeah, but that was too early to admit I was just messing around :p

Well, you've only been about for 6 months or so (unless you had a previous nation), and considering that I rarely get into debates these days, it's not unlikely that you'd never seen me talking about the issues before...

6 months is about right. Your name was familiar enough for me, if I had to, to lable as you of at least left of center and not too religious, but I wasn't sure enough to be taken aback.

I generally agree with you, and quite often I do find myself irritated with people who, upon greeting you, immediately state that they're gay. I mean, it's like they define themselves by their sexuality, something that really does kind of throw me off. It's more than slightly odd in my opinion, I mean, after all, I'm pretty sure I've never walked up to someone and said "Hi, I'm Andy. In case you're wondering, I'm straight."

You're assumed to be heterosexual because that is the norm. I don't announce that I'm gay when I meet someone, but that person will immediately be corrected if he/she makes any comments that presume that I am heterosexual (or Christian). Society (at least here in the US) is designed for flaunted heterosexuality. What do think a wedding ring is? Just a visual screams to the world "I'm a heterosexual".

My position:

"You want to be (insert group here)? That's awesome. I don't give a damn, go have fun, watch me treat you exactly the same as I would have normally."

Okay, I apologize in advance if someone already posted this, but after page nine I just couldn't read any more without responding.

What of bisexuals? Those lobbying for "gay rights" annoy the hell out of me because they use bisexuals as allies ONLY when it is convenient to do so, then turn around and slander us as "fence-sitters" & the like in private lives. Why? Because we can "pass"? It's ridiculous. We are completely overlooked in this entire movement & included in name only. Beyond that, female bisexuals (like myself) have been relegated to a heterosexual man's fantasy. News flash, straight guys - Penthouse isn't reality. :headbang:

*off rant now*

I take the middle road on this too. While I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, and I hate pride parades, at the same time I don't think we should kill them or round them up or anything. So basically, If someone wants to choose to be gay, fine. Just don't push it down my throat or encourage it in the media or public.

you do know that being gay isn't a choice? the only "choice" is wether you want to live your own life the way you want, or if you prefer to be "respectable" (given a really outdated value of "respectable"), and marry a woman you'll never love...

but it's really kind of you not to want to round them up and hang them... still, I don't agree that they should hide in any way (or, as you put it, "not pushing it into people's throat"), or that it should be taboo in the media. as a small exercise in open-mindedness, you could try to replace "gay" in things you say by "black", "women", "jews", or any other categories you'd care to mention, and see how it feels...

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

So the reason that genocide is wrong is because God says so?

If God had decided differently, would it be okay to brutally torture and murder people because they're of a different ethnicity than you?
Before you criticise, just consider that secular morals are not actually built on anything stronger, and are equally, if not more limited by culture.

The Lord's dictum?
Yes. I'm pretty sure that's what Soviestan was talking about.

Me, I'll laugh in His face and delight in my correct choice to defy a bloodthirsty and tyrannical deity depraved enough to oppose same-sex love.
God doesn't oppose same-sex love.

I typically laugh at what people claim to be the word of god. If it's true that god is one sick fucking bastard.
Because, as surprising as it may be, OTHER PEOPLE MATTER in and of themselves. They don't need God to give them moral value.

To help others for the sake of serving God is no better than to help others for selfish profit.
Your judgements on what you think God is like are based upon nothing more than your own parochial cultural customs.

Whatever my desire to live in paradise, it can never justify abandoning my obligations to other human beings.
Who is asking you to? Islam and Christianity are pro-altruism religions, I don't see why you're foaming at the mouth against them.

So?
Since your entire argument was based on this I think that point should matter to your views.

It is still wrong to worship homophobic, sexist, and exclusivist deities.
If your worship affects nobody else, what bearing does it have on your obligations to other human beings?

(why throw in sexist there? that's new)

There is no need; the faithless are lost, and have abandoned the word of God. All I need to know that God's word is the word is my faith

well, as a faithless I say unto you : stuff your religious bs :) and let lost people get on with their lives. after all, it's their only opportunity to be happy before going to hell, don't spoil it for them.

I said what the majority of society accepts is what determines what is natural to society, not whether or not it is right.

well then, slavery was natural after all, just as royalty... why don't we bring them back?

damn I got caught by a caricature... maybe soviestan lowered my warning standards... but what if he's one too?

What is natural in the context of human society is defined by two things:
- what God has said to be right
- what the society in question has deemed natural.

Either one on their own can work as a good definition, but homosexuality has both against it. Heterosexuality has both going for it.I am so disappointed in you. I thought you were one of the voices of reason on the forum.

Yeah, but that was too early to admit I was just messing around :pWhew! You really scared me.:eek:

what pisses me off is the way these bible -bashers lie and twist and manipulate the bible to proclaim and incite what is basically homophobia...

The bible doesn't condemn homosexuality

It merely condemns homosexual acts - and it does it for a very specific reason - it's not what they do in the sack, it's what they are doing with their sperm!!!

Ancient judaism saw spilling your seed anywhere but inside a woman was denying your heritage and insulting your ancestors as well as denying God the opportunity to bless you with a child and thus thousands of memebers in future generations...

That's all

it's not the ins and outs and where the male and female bits go - it's just to do with denying yourself a family!!!!

Yet these evangelical fundie neo-cons just accept that it's ok to hate, and I mean HATE homosexuals, to accuse them of paedophilia and being cursed by God through A.I.D.S . Not only that, despite what all the clinical psychologists have said, they deny that at least a third of all homosexuals were gay from early childhood and possibly birth and it had nothing to do with the way they were brought up or socio-culturally indoctrinated - and so what do they do ?? They try and Pray out the Gay and psychologically torture and humiliate these poor people who need acceptance from those around them but just become classified as evil because they don't find the opposite sex sexually attractive!!!!

It's this homophobia which is the antithesis of all that christianity stands for regarding love and acceptance of their neighbour...

Whether you like or disapprove or get your rocks off or are revulsed by homosexual acts - that's not the point...we're talking about human beings here...people who should never be condemned for who they are . you don't have to be pleased or condone what they do, but you have a moral obligation and responsibility as a human being to treat them with dignity and a modicum of respect. If you want to talk about loving them without going all hallmark channel on me then sure that's cool too.

So when some loony biblical nut says homosexuality is a sin - just call him the liar that he is.
Sure the bible may not exactly promote the act, but it sure as hell never condemned anyone for who they are, only what they did.

And this jesus guy they all claim to know and have his healing power work through them...

he only gave them one commandment...To LOVE!!!???
so why the bloody hell do they so quickly forget it when it comes to people they feel embarassed or edgy around - and so quickly this ignorant fear turns into beliigerent anti-christian hate and persecution.

These Homophobes who claim to have Jesus' support just make me want to vomit!!!!!

The problem with that is that morality is in fact define by Allah.

Prove it.

Use math or the scientific method.

Okay, I apologize in advance if someone already posted this, but after page nine I just couldn't read any more without responding.

What of bisexuals? Those lobbying for "gay rights" annoy the hell out of me because they use bisexuals as allies ONLY when it is convenient to do so, then turn around and slander us as "fence-sitters" & the like in private lives. Why? Because we can "pass"? It's ridiculous. We are completely overlooked in this entire movement & included in name only. Beyond that, female bisexuals (like myself) have been relegated to a heterosexual man's fantasy. News flash, straight guys - Penthouse isn't reality. :headbang:

*off rant now*

For whatever it's worth, I'm also a female bisexual, and I share your annoyance. However, there are plenty of ways that you can fight heterosexism in all its forms, and plenty of groups that are dedicated to addressing the silliness of the binary gender system and its assorted cultural fallout. If nothing else, there are several of us on NS who you can bond with over such things. :D

Thirded. I'm a male bisexual, but share your frustration. Granted, I seriously doubt I'm the poster boy for male hetero fantasies, but otherwise it's the same damn thing. Gays scorn us male bisexuals for a variety of reasons, and while the straight girls are usually nicer about it, there's no real difference. And of course, everyone else views us as insatiable nymphomaniacs.
It means double the competition. ;) Still, I am not one of those gay individuals who denies the existence of bisexuals, or even dislikes them. That's idiotic in my opinion.

For whatever it's worth, I'm also a female bisexual, and I share your annoyance.Thirded. I'm a male bisexual, but share your frustration. Granted, I seriously doubt I'm the poster boy for male hetero fantasies, but otherwise it's the same damn thing. Gays scorn us male bisexuals for a variety of reasons, and while the straight girls are usually nicer about it, there's no real difference. And of course, everyone else views us as insatiable nymphomaniacs.

Small wonder most bi guys start claiming they're something else, when they settle down. Doubly so with all the fucking distrust it breeds in relationships. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't considering just that these days.

Thirded. I'm a male bisexual, but share your frustration. Granted, I seriously doubt I'm the poster boy for male hetero fantasies, but otherwise it's the same damn thing. Gays scorn us male bisexuals for a variety of reasons, and while the straight girls are usually nicer about it, there's no real difference. And of course, everyone else views us as insatiable nymphomaniacs.

Small wonder most bi guys start claiming they're something else, when they settle down. Doubly so with all the fucking distrust it breeds in relationships. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't considering just that these days.It doesn't help that at least some bisexuals believe that having sex with someone that isn't the same gender as the person they're in the relationship with isn't cheating.

It doesn't help that at least some bisexuals believe that having sex with someone that isn't the same gender as the person they're in the relationship with isn't cheating.
Yeah, and at least some heterosexuals believe that having sex with somebody in a different zip code doesn't count as cheating. So what? That kind of behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with being a general d-bag. There are d-bags of every sexual orientation.

It doesn't help that at least some bisexuals believe that having sex with someone that isn't the same gender as the person they're in the relationship with isn't cheating.I did have a couple of friends who agreed that neither of them would see other women but they could both see guys. One of them had a boyfriend who lived with both of the girls. If they were all okay with it, who cares.

For whatever it's worth, I'm also a female bisexual, and I share your annoyance. However, there are plenty of ways that you can fight heterosexism in all its forms, and plenty of groups that are dedicated to addressing the silliness of the binary gender system and its assorted cultural fallout. If nothing else, there are several of us on NS who you can bond with over such things. :D

I'd like to know where these groups are. I've yet to encounter one, but bonding sounds good. :D

It doesn't help that at least some bisexuals believe that having sex with someone that isn't the same gender as the person they're in the relationship with isn't cheating.

That all depends on the arrangement between the people in the relationship. I've had open relationships & "poly" relationships that worked just fine for me, but we all need to be open & honest with our partners, regardless of sexual orientation.

Thirded. I'm a male bisexual, but share your frustration. Granted, I seriously doubt I'm the poster boy for male hetero fantasies, but otherwise it's the same damn thing. Gays scorn us male bisexuals for a variety of reasons, and while the straight girls are usually nicer about it, there's no real difference. And of course, everyone else views us as insatiable nymphomaniacs.

Small wonder most bi guys start claiming they're something else, when they settle down. Doubly so with all the fucking distrust it breeds in relationships. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't considering just that these days.

Well, I guess it doesn't help that I AM an insatiable nymphomaniac (no, really, I've been called that by numerous exes), but I'm a damn loyal one. Actually, I've always been perfectly honest about my sexuality (at least once I realized why I had erotic dreams about both genders). That didn't make my father too happy. Strangely enough, though, whenever I'm in a relationship with a guy, it seems my father conveniently forgets that I'm not "straight" Go figure.... The current man in my life, however, seems more interested in finding me a girl to play with on the side than I am. I seem straight more often than not because I'm so darn picky about which women I like. Okay... now I'm rambling. I'll shut up.

Yeah, and at least some heterosexuals believe that having sex with somebody in a different zip code doesn't count as cheating. So what? That kind of behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with being a general d-bag. There are d-bags of every sexual orientation.Certainly. However, many people are afraid to get into a relationship with a bisexual for this reason, no matter how unjust the stereotype is.

I did have a couple of friends who agreed that neither of them would see other women but they could both see guys. One of them had a boyfriend who lived with both of the girls. If they were all okay with it, who cares.What I'm saying, though, is that they aren't all okay with it. I agree if they're all okay with it, it's fine.

That all depends on the arrangement between the people in the relationship. I've had open relationships & "poly" relationships that worked just fine for me, but we all need to be open & honest with our partners, regardless of sexual orientation.I agree.

I'd like to know where these groups are. I've yet to encounter one, but bonding sounds good. :DTypically feminist & anarchist groups, in my experience. The interwebs are a good place to start looking. Alternatively the NSG LGBTers have a (mostly dead) board. If you need help finding allies, I'm sure one of us can help you out.That all depends on the arrangement between the people in the relationship. I've had open relationships & "poly" relationships that worked just fine for me, but we all need to be open & honest with our partners, regardless of sexual orientation.And to that, I can only say that several of my past relationships have died because of distrust & lack of understanding, spawned by my sexual orientation. Still, I agree. People eventually find out you're bisexual, so trying to hide the fact is just a recipe for disaster.Well, I guess it doesn't help that I AM an insatiable nymphomaniac (no, really, I've been called that by numerous exes), but I'm a damn loyal one.If you were a nympho, there's no way in hell you'd be faithful. It'd be beyond your control. You just have a healthy appetite - like the rest of us. The current man in my life, however, seems more interested in finding me a girl to play with on the side than I am.Hah, my girl's like that too. Certainly. However, many people are afraid to get into a relationship with a bisexual for this reason, no matter how unjust the stereotype is.Yups. And those same people poison our relationships, when we finally do manage to have them. They also popularise the myth - and the resulting social pressure - that bisexuals are all poly's, so even though most of us really, really aren't, we spend a couple of years making ourselves miserable chasing that idea. It's all very nice. Some stereotypes really need a brutal fucking killing, as do the idiotic cunts perpetuating them for no reason.

It's like those fucked up TV portrayals of gays, indoctrinating entire generations of gays to act a certain way, just because they like cock. Makes me fucking angry.

It's all just urban myths. Straights, bi's & homos. We're all our own damn individuals. There's no reason to expect or demand that we behave in certain ways & exhibit certain mannerisms, just because of who we'd like to fuck. It's beyond fucking absurd.

Prove it.

Use math or the scientific method.

prove that it doesn't using math or the scientific method.

just consider that secular morals are not actually built on anything stronger

Yes, they are. They tend to get WHY certain things are right and other things are wrong a whole lot better than the mindless repetition of "God says so."

God doesn't oppose same-sex love.

Just its expression? Sorry, I don't think much of repression.

Your judgements on what you think God is like are based upon nothing more than your own parochial cultural customs.

When did I say anything about what I think God is like? I don't even think God exists.

I was talking about Soviestan's and not-serious-Nadkor's version of God.

Islam and Christianity are pro-altruism religions

Not if they believe that innocent people deserve to be tortured for eternity.

Since your entire argument was based on this

Justifiably, since that is the typical position.

I think that point should matter to your views.

It only makes the force of my argument a little weaker; it doesn't delegitimize its conclusion.

If your worship affects nobody else, what bearing does it have on your obligations to other human beings?

Because in order to sincerely worship a being, I must conceive of it as something great - meaning that I must regard its behavior as being good. If its behavior includes immense atrocities that make Hitler and Stalin look like Romero and MLK, then I must see those atrocities as something other than atrocities (thus denying the moral worth of other human beings).

(why throw in sexist there?

Because of the support of right-wing organized religion for sexist gender roles.

that's new)

Um, no, it isn't.

If nothing else, there are several of us on NS who you can bond with over such things. :D
That vaguely sounds like a pick up line!:eek:

It doesn't help that at least some bisexuals believe that having sex with someone that isn't the same gender as the person they're in the relationship with isn't cheating.

Oh please...I can't even believe you would say that. Sexuality does not define how loosely one defines 'cheating'. I can bring up plenty of examples of hets engaging in activities that they refuse to define as cheating that the reasonable person would label as such. But what the hell would that prove? Some people are cheating bastards, regardless of who they want to fuck.

Certainly. However, many people are afraid to get into a relationship with a bisexual for this reason, no matter how unjust the stereotype is.

Well shitty for them if they let a stereotype limit them in that way. Giving that attitude any credence is counter-productive.

...silliness of the binary gender system...

God damnit, Bottle. All I can see now is some geek saying "I want to put my 1 in your 0". :(

prove that it doesn't using math or the scientific method.

Burden of proof is on you. Don't try to deflect the argument. In doing so, I have to assume you can't actually prove God does exist.

Burden of proof is on you. Don't try to deflect the argument. In doing so, I have to assume you can't actually prove God does exist.

you can't prove he doesn't

you can't prove he doesn't

In absence of proof the default is negative. If we can't prove what god did or did not say, or if there is or is not one, the default is there is no god who didn't say anything.

So thank you for admitting you have no proof, I will continue to ignore you religious beliefs.

you can't prove he doesn't
Sorry, you're the one who says Allah exists.

You not only have to prove the existence of a God, but you have to prove the specific instance of Allah, which is even harder.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what the hell does religion have to do with other peoples' lifestyles?

In absence of proof the default is negative. If we can't prove what god did or did not say, or if there is or is not one, the default is there is no god who didn't say anything.

So thank you for admitting you have no proof, I will continue to ignore you religious beliefs.

Well, here's a big problem: What exactly constitutes proof? I mean, there is nothing that I could show you that would convince you that God exists, so taking a default position of atheism is not really valid.

And, of course, if we really wanted to get in to it you could argue that the people who do not believe in God have the burden of proof on them, for the simple reason that nontheism is the new idea challenging the previously accepted one of theism.

Well, here's a big problem: What exactly constitutes proof? I mean, there is nothing that I could show you that would convince you that God exists, so taking a default position of atheism is not really valid. Yea, I have that very same problem. People just don't believe I'm half a mile tall & made of macarony, and in the absence of evidence to support my pretty fucking outrageous claim, I simply dunno how to make them fall for it.And, of course, if we really wanted to get in to it you could argue that the people who do not believe in God have the burden of proof on them, for the simple reason that nontheism is the new idea challenging the previously accepted one of theism.Rubbish. The default position is that of atheism. People don't believe in anything remotely like organised religion or personal deities, 'til they're spoonfed the shite. I submit every human child & the entirety of human history (of which the fleshing out of religious fluff is a large part), as evidence.

EDIT: For some reason, people never believe me either, when I proclaim clouds are made up of invisible electric eels. Very frustrating, methinks.

Yea, I have that very same problem. People just don't believe I'm half a mile tall & made of macarony, and in the absence of evidence to support my pretty fucking outrageous claim, I simply dunno how to make them fall for it.

Oddly enough, we have the same problem convincing people that man-made global warming exists, the universe is 13.5 billion years old or that evolution explains how life developed in to its current forms.

Rubbish. The default position is that of atheism. People don't believe in anything remotely like organised religion or personal deities, 'til they're spoonfed the shite. I submit every human child & the entirety of human history (of which the fleshing out of religious fluff is a large part), as evidence.

Human beings also aren't born with a knowledge of quantum mechanics, modern literature, economics, music theory, engineering or anything else that we have ever discovered in any field. By this logic, none of those really exist because we don't know about them when we are born.

Just because someone isn't born with an innate knowledge of something doesn't mean that the concept is invalid. All human knowledge is taught because human beings are social creatures that must rely on each other in a society to survive and thrive.

Oddly enough, we have the same problem convincing people that man-made global warming exists, the universe is 13.5 billion years old or that evolution explains how life developed in to its current forms.

Strangly I have found that reasonably intelligent individuals in general have no problems accepting any of these three concept.

Oddly enough, we have the same problem convincing people that man-made global warming exists, the universe is 13.5 billion years old or that evolution explains how life developed in to its current forms.Yes, and unsurprisingly it's the same fucking thing, just reversed. People take shit on faith, instead of examining the available evidence. In religion, they jump on the bandwagon, presumably because it's a bunch of compellig ideas. In issues of science, they jump on the wagon of whatever idea best suits them, instead of checking out the evidence. That leads YEC wankers to doubt the age of the planet, 4WD drivers to doubt global warming & so on. Same damn thing: basing opinion not on knowledge, but on the absence of it. Human beings also aren't born with a knowledge of quantum mechanics, modern literature, economics, music theory, engineering or anything else that we have ever discovered in any field. By this logic, none of those really exist because we don't know about them when we are born.No, that'd be by your idiotic & pretty fucking twisted strawman. We don't 'believe' in the shit you listed. We deduce they're true, based on.... Ta-fucking-da: evidence!

The observational, experimental & theoretical evidence, supporting things like the concepts of religions, roleplaying games, ghosts & the like, is zero. That's why there's no basis for considering them valid outside human imagination.

Of course, when it comes to the supernatural, there's the whole "How the fuck do we deduce something's supernatural when we ourselves are restricted to observing the natural?" thing. Your favourite deities might be somewhere, but we're in no position to determine that, even if they try to make themselves known. Anything such critters could do, that we'd be able to register, would look wholly mundane from this side of reality. Inexpicable perhaps, but not the least bit supernatural.

Oh please...I can't even believe you would say that. Sexuality does not define how loosely one defines 'cheating'. I can bring up plenty of examples of hets engaging in activities that they refuse to define as cheating that the reasonable person would label as such. But what the hell would that prove? Some people are cheating bastards, regardless of who they want to fuck.I'm not saying that it's a reasonable assumption to believe that if you were in a relationship with a bisexual, that s/he would automatically believe that certain forms of cheating were okay, but the stereotype exists because of the few that do.

Well shitty for them if they let a stereotype limit them in that way. Giving that attitude any credence is counter-productive.I agree; I don't think bisexuals are inherently less faithful than anyone of any other sexual orientation.

Certainly. However, many people are afraid to get into a relationship with a bisexual for this reason, no matter how unjust the stereotype is.
Like I said, it's double the competition. :)

Well shitty for them if they let a stereotype limit them in that way. Giving that attitude any credence is counter-productive.
True. The funny thing is how many so-called bisexuals later turn out to be, first 3/4 gay, then 4/5 gay, and then suddenly realise they're 100% gay. These ones I surmise are the confused closet cases.

No, that'd be by your idiotic & pretty fucking twisted strawman.
Can you not debate calmly and dispassionately? If for no other reason than you're on an internet forum...

We don't 'believe' in the shit you listed. We deduce they're true, based on.... Ta-fucking-da: evidence!
Yet, excluding certain exceptions, evidence can be interpreted in any number of ways.

I completely agree. If your being outwardly homosexual for attention....Join up in a drama class. Then again, you shouldn;t be made fun of, for simply being homosexual.

damn I got caught by a caricature... maybe soviestan lowered my warning standards... but what if he's one too?

:D

Whew! You really scared me.:eek:

Well, these days one of the few ways I can find enjoyment in debating the same tired old topics is to "devil's advocate". It alleviates the boredom for a while.

Well, these days one of the few ways I can find enjoyment in debating the same tired old topics is to "devil's advocate". It alleviates the boredom for a while.

To be honest, you had me wondering there, too.


Don't worry, I won't slap you with a trout.

If you were a nympho, there's no way in hell you'd be faithful. It'd be beyond your control. You just have a healthy appetite - like the rest of us.

Hey hey. I didn't say faithful; I said loyal. Sexual fidelity has always been a weak point for me, which is why I make up for it with honesty and emotional loyalty. :)

Although, lately, I've managed to keep myself under control. Not sure why though.... guess I'm mellowing out now that I'm heading toward my 30s. :D

That vaguely sounds like a pick up line!:eek:

*rotflmao*

To be honest, you had me wondering there, too.


Don't worry, I won't slap you with a trout.

You can if you want :p

True. The funny thing is how many so-called bisexuals later turn out to be, first 3/4 gay, then 4/5 gay, and then suddenly realise they're 100% gay. These ones I surmise are the confused closet cases.Or perhaps they just want to avoid the fairly inevital "Oh no, my boyfriend's gonna leave me for a fucking girl any second now, 'cos he's still not come all the way out of the closet & everyone knows people can't actually be bisexuals". A hell of a lot of bisexuals also 'suddenly realise' they're straight. Typically when they're around my age & thinking about family - just like the suddenly gay ones. Just maybe, it's more to do with coping with tired old crap, than it does with actual sexual orientation.Can you not debate calmly and dispassionately? If for no other reason than you're on an internet forum...Yes & no. I wasn't angry, it's just how I am. You have your mannerisms, I have mine.Yet, excluding certain exceptions, evidence can be interpreted in any number of ways.Very true, and completely besides the inanity the other guy was trying to argue. Hey hey. I didn't say faithfulFor some elusive reason, you - a nondescript internet persona - just managed to turn me on... Damn I feel pathetic now. And my girlfriend's not even here.. :(

Or perhaps they just want to avoid the fairly inevital "Oh no, my boyfriend's gonna leave me for a fucking girl any second now, 'cos he's still not come all the way out of the closet & everyone knows people can't actually be bisexuals". A hell of a lot of bisexuals also 'suddenly realise' they're straight. Typically when they're around my age & thinking about family - just like the suddenly gay ones. Just maybe, it's more to do with coping with tired old crap, than it does with actual sexual orientation.
Perhaps. It's still vexing. In general though, I prefer bisexual guys attitude-wise to gay ones. That is, if I were to generalise.

Perhaps. It's still vexing. In general though, I prefer bisexual guys attitude-wise to gay ones. That is, if I were to generalise.I'm not saying it's wrong that a lot of gays invoke bisexuality as a means of crawling out of the closet. I've never met - or just heard of - a concrete example, but then again, there's rarely that much smoke without at least a tiny flame.

What I am saying, is that it's generally bullshit & a self-perpetuating myth. We get get cast as people who haven't come to terms with our sexuality, and that myth is so strong that our lovers more often than not, start believing it. Basically that means it's extremely hard to maintain a monogamous relationship for a bisexual, unless the bi at some point renounces his/her true sexual orientation. We're expected to do it, regardless of whether we're in straight or gay relationships, and when we don't, our partners are constantly assailed with the myth that the reason we don't, is because we're either still looking for Mr/Ms. Right, or looking for something on the side.

The only 'ex-bisexuals' I know, are people I positively know renounced their sexual orientation to avoid wrecking their relationships. Ammusingly a gay friend of mine I'd known for about five years, suddenly showed up with a girlfriend (now his wife) a few years ago. Naturally that sent shockwaves through the social circle, and even to this day there's whisperings in the corners about what a poor, naive bastard his wife is.

I'm myself contemplating 'converting' to heterosexuality. Not because the thought of a big, throbbing cock in my mouth don't make my knees all weak, and not because my girlfriend doesn't know I'm bisexual, but because I've been in serious relationships before, and know how the endless barrage of stereotypical crap about us bisexuals almost invariably put an end to relationships. I guess it's like being born & living out your life inside a church; you might not really believe the shit, but in the face of an entire world of propaganda, it's hard not to feel the evil claws of doubt digging into your innocent ass every once in a while.

Then again, my girl actually gets off on the idea of me being bisexual, so perhaps there's no need to start lying about it. Time will tell.

In any case, it's not the least bit 'vexing' when you look at it from a bisexual's point of view. I'll grant you it's pathetic as hell, but the cause should be obvious. As Bottle remarked pages ago, it's this silly bifurcated view we have of sexuality that's to blame. And of course, it's hard to combat when we bisexuals are so incredibly few, and keep living up to the myth.

In any case, it's not the least bit 'vexing' when you look at it from a bisexual's point of view. I'll grant you it's pathetic as hell, but the cause should be obvious. As Bottle remarked pages ago, it's this silly bifurcated view we have of sexuality that's to blame. And of course, it's hard to combat when we bisexuals are so incredibly few, and keep living up to the myth.
I thought there were more of you out there than homosexuals. :confused:

Anyway, as I have said, I have no problem with bisexuals. I am just naturally paranoid, to an extent. I often prefer them though to gay individuals, so long as they are monogamous.

For some elusive reason, you - a nondescript internet persona - just managed to turn me on... Damn I feel pathetic now. And my girlfriend's not even here.. :(

Well, I'm flattered... I think. lol

I thought there were more of you out there than homosexuals. :confused:

Anyway, as I have said, I have no problem with bisexuals. I am just naturally paranoid, to an extent. I often prefer them though to gay individuals, so long as they are monogamous.

There are, but most of us masquerade as either gay or straight.