The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Azure Flare]

It just reflects the whole argument.

 

[Carbonox]

I have to chime with a thought. Well, I guess it's more of a observation. I think it is absolutely cringe worthy when a person comes in here and disagrees with the acceptance of homosexuality. It's not for the reasons you think either. It's the homosexuality supporters that are cringe worthy. They attack like a pack of jackals to a fresh kill. They hate, bash, and call names. Isn't that what you're fighting? When did fighting fire with fire become ok and acceptable? You're guilty of all the things in which you are fighting. It's stupid. Calling a man Hitler because he said the word fag? Makes sense, since he never called anybody that. He just used the word. The other thing that bothers me is the fact you all believe that anybody's opinion that differs from homosexuality acceptance is horrible. When did we all have to believe the exact same thing? People are entitled to their own thoughts. Even if those thoughts aren't social acceptable. It's an opinion. We not sheeple. You are stringing up people with different opinions then yours with the same rope that you would string up a person guilty of a violent hate crime.

Nobody called anyone Hitler.

And the poster of the original argument was the only one presenting an opinion as a fact. "When will all of you just accept the fact it's not normal behavior?" yadda yadda yadda.

Also a fair share of criticism for the staff of GTP - deleting all the posts in the whole argument was serious overkill.

 

[Ken]

It just reflects the whole argument.

How? Most of the arguments that I've seen in this debate thread are rather one sided and rude.

"I don't agree with homosexuality"
"You are Hitler and deserve to die"

I am paraphrasing, but still.

Nobody called anyone Hitler.

And the poster of the original argument was the only one presenting an opinion as a fact. "When will all of you just accept the fact it's not normal behavior?" yadda yadda yadda.

I could have sworn on my life I saw mention of people being compared to Hitler on the last page. I don't see it now. But it doesn't change the fact that it's been done in this thread before, in one fashion or another.

Also, for the poster, it is a fact. It is his fact. It allot of people's fact. They believe it with all their hearts. But it's not a fact. It's a strongly held opinion. But it's hard to argue semantics with some people. But people bashing him because of it? It's hard to stomach.

I have made part of my life's work to gain acceptance for the LGBT community. But I also understand when people don't share my views. You can't change everybody's mind no matter how much you want to. I have to accept that fact. I have to accept the fact that people will always oppose my views, no matter how hard I try. If I don't accept that, then I am no better than them.

 

[INEEDNAWZZZ]

I personally don't have a problem with it.

However, I do have issues with the minority who constantly feel the need to advertise their sexuality at every possible opportunity and use their sexuality as a crutch against criticism. Being proud of your beliefs is one thing, and that's great; everyone has ideas and values they want to advocate and bring up from time to time. But having to constantly tell everyone 'HEY LOOK, I'M GAY AND PROUD' pretty much every time they're around company just irritates me. People in homosexual relationships don't want to be seen as different or whatever, but certain groups feel the need to tell everyone that they're gay/lesbian/whatever (implying that they are different) and that they should be treated equally - if they just kept their mouths shut and carried on with their life, they wouldn't even be given a second thought.

This links in with my other pet peeve, which is the fact that you're accused of being against homosexuals just because you have an issue with them - nothing to do with their sexuality, but just the person in general. I don't care if you're straight, gay, asexual, fat, thin, white, black, Asian, purple or even green - if you're a douchebag, I will not like you. Simples. People who use their sexuality (or indeed other aspects) to say 'hey, you're discriminating!' when you simply don't like something unrelated about them are the worst of the worst.

 

[Dan]

"I don't agree with homosexuality"
"You are Hitler and deserve to die"

I am paraphrasing, but still.

I know you're paraphrasing, but let's be clear: I never told him he deserved to die.

 

[Joel]

Way to make it sound negative.

Well, that part of traditional "manliness" is negative. Unless you care to make an argument that women are an inferior sex to men, and that women and their vaginas should be subject to the wishes of their husbands and fathers, then it's a pretty negative aspect of patriarchy that has been taken out of our society. You'll have to give concrete examples of other parts of being a traditional man that are now socially unacceptable, because from what I can see the only traditionally manly thing that's been taken away is the idea that men are inherently superior. It's not socially unacceptable to be a man or to do traditionally manly things. James Bond movies are just as popular as they've ever been, athletes are some of the most famous people there are, and the most famous men in society are famous for the same reasons as they ever were.

The problem is you view manliness as what a man does, rather than who he is. For you manliness is barbecue, hamburgers, V8's, and classic rock. A man who eats salad, wear tight pants, and drives a hybrid because he likes to and is confident in who he is is more of a man than the guy who buys a big truck to fit in.

That's a lot of what I said before, and this thread is a picture-perfect example of it.

It's not really the same thing.

You've come into this thread slinging mud about how marriage is a "right" for gay people and that we're all brainwashed liberals. And then there was your quoting of the human genome project that actually refuted what your point was supposed to be. And the fact that in virtually every thread there is you're going on some tirade about socialism and leftists, the sissification of America, and how liberals ruin everything from cars to cartoons.

You're not a squelched conservative speaking out against the hivemind, and GTP isn't Tumblr. Look around this forum a little more, the people in this thread you think are bleeding heart hippies because they think gay people are equals are as staunchly pro gun rights and fiscally conservative as it gets. I'm a Canadian for private health care and limited government who believes gun ownership should be a right and doesn't agree with a progressive tax system. If you truly believe in personal liberty, then start acting like it, because on everything besides cars and taxes you're as opposed to liberty as the bleeding heart liberals you hate.

 

[Ken]

I know you're paraphrasing, but let's be clear: I never told him he deserved to die.

I know. I said that because it seems to be the underlying tone of the entire thread. If you don't fell such and such way, you don't deserve to breathe.

 

[Slash]

"I don't agree with homosexuality"
"You are Hitler and deserve to die"

This is exactly why I avoid this thread, because it literally feels like this.

 

[sammy neuman]

I have a theory. The political spectrum is not a straight line from radical this, to radical that. It is a circle, or rather two 180 degree semicircles, meeting at 0 and 180. +/- 90, while polar-opposites ideologically, are the last points at which a rational debate can be conducted and useful information extracted by an observer. Beyond that, the signal to noise ratio drops until, as you approach 180 degrees, you are into the 'lunatic fringe'. For any two equal points on the curves (say +75/-75, the tactics and rhetorical temperature will be identical, and the debaters could swap ideologies with no discernable difference.
My point is: A screaming, obnoxious gay-supporter is identical to a screaming, obnoxious gay-basher. If I react to one with fear and loathing, but think the other is 'a little loud in their opinions', I am prejudiced. In reality, I would find them both unpleasant, so I'm at least equal-opportunity prejudiced.
An observation: I post here at my own risk...

 

[Joel]

This is exactly why I avoid this thread, because it literally feels like this.

Your worldview is likely in part due to your religion, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you likely don't feel any sense of choice over your religious views and feel that it's innate to who you are as a person. So you come into this thread, and people are calling you and people like you immoral and slandering you for your worldview; something you feel is part of who you are and that you don't have control over.

Think about how that makes you feel. Think about how being dismissive or disapproving of homosexuality would make gay people feel. Then think about the fact that gay people can't just avoid a thread on the internet if they don't want to be shamed for their identity.

 

[Slash]

I get that and all, but it feels like you're opinion is somehow wrong because half the population doesn't agree with it. That's all.

 

[Joel]

I get that and all, but it feels like you're opinion is somehow wrong because half the population doesn't agree with it. That's all.

Have you considered that maybe it is wrong? Why do you believe what you believe?

Consider that a gay person in America has to live their life with the knowledge that roughly 50% of the people they come across every day don't believe their love is as valid as straight people's.

 

[Slash]

I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ken]

Ah. Debating. I miss that in this thread. Keep it going.

 

[Joel]

I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me.

What part doesn't make sense? You don't have to understand why people are gay to be accepting of it. Some guys like tall blondes, some guys like short brunettes. Some guys like guys. I don't understand why some guys are so attracted to redheads, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong or immoral about that.

You probably have a favourite hair colour on women. Could you explain why you do?

 

[Slash]

You make a good point.

But its like that with a lot of things for me...I like something so why doesn't everyone else like it sort of thing.

I can understand that everyone's different in that regard but at the same time I have a hard time grasping it because that's not how I personally feel and because I haven't felt that way before makes it difficult to grasp also.

Basically I get it, but I don't if that makes sense. I can understand very one is different but it feels strange because that's not how I feel and I think everything should be how I feel. That's why it "doesn't make sense"

 

[sammy neuman]

I've spent much time and energy with 'how I feel and what I think'. I expect it will never end, as it means I will either have stopped thinking or stopped feeling.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Well, that part of traditional "manliness" is negative. Unless you care to make an argument that women are an inferior sex to men, and that women and their vaginas should be subject to the wishes of their husbands and fathers, then it's a pretty negative aspect of patriarchy that has been taken out of our society. You'll have to give concrete examples of other parts of being a traditional man that are now socially unacceptable, because from what I can see the only traditionally manly thing that's been taken away is the idea that men are inherently superior. It's not socially unacceptable to be a man or to do traditionally manly things. James Bond movies are just as popular as they've ever been, athletes are some of the most famous people there are, and the most famous men in society are famous for the same reasons as they ever were.

My problem with @Dotini 's statement was that he seemed to be implying that patriarchy and traditional masculinity were one and the same. Absolutely not, it's possible to treat women with respect without being a metrosexual.

The problem is you view manliness as what a man does, rather than who he is. For you manliness is barbecue, hamburgers, V8's, and classic rock. A man who eats salad, wear tight pants, and drives a hybrid because he likes to and is confident in who he is is more of a man than the guy who buys a big truck to fit in.

And the problem I have with that is, why would it even get that far? Why would you even consider liking hybrids and ponies an option?

It's not really the same thing.

You've come into this thread slinging mud about how marriage is a "right" for gay people and that we're all brainwashed
liberals.

Well the thing there is, the whole "equal rights" thing is pretty disengenuous argument. Everyone already had an equal right to marry someone... of the opposite sex, because that's what marriage is. With gay marriage thrown in, rights are still equal, just changed.

And then there was your quoting of the human genome project that actually refuted what your point was supposed to be.

Don't remember that, all I know is, even scientists who self-identify as homosexual say that there is no conclusive proof of homosexuality being 100% genetic. Even the studies that seem to find a gene for sexual orientation tend to come with disclaimers stating that they are not conclusive, or that the gene in question is weaker than genes for other genetically determined traits such as aggression and traditionalism.

And the fact that in virtually every thread there is you're going on some tirade about socialism and leftists

'Cause those things have a lot to do with a lot of other things.

the sissification of America,

Apparently you don't think sissification is a bad thing.

and how liberals ruin everything from cars to cartoons.

Well what else would they do?

You're not a squelched conservative speaking out against the hivemind, and GTP isn't Tumblr. Look around this forum a little more, the people in this thread you think are bleeding heart hippies because they think gay people are equals are as staunchly pro gun rights and fiscally conservative as it gets.

>Because they think gay people are equals

There's that "you don't agree with LGBT therefore you're Hitler" thing again. Just because you think something someone's doing is sinful doesn't mean you think they're subhuman, if that were true all of us would be subhuman because we all have our troubles. Like I said, it's not about equal rights. It's about the definition of an existing right.

I'm a Canadian for private health care and limited government who believes gun ownership should be a right and doesn't agree with a progressive tax system. If you truly believe in personal liberty, then start acting like it, because on everything besides cars and taxes you're as opposed to liberty as the bleeding heart liberals you hate.

There are two specific issues that I can think of right now on which I oppose the "libertarian" position. Homosexuality and currently-illegal drugs (incl. marijuana). Beyond that, there aren't many places I favor the federal government getting involved (in fact, one might argue that the best solution to the gay marriage fight would be to get marriage away from the federal government in the first place, though that would best be done concurrently with slash & burn simplification of the tax code, since that seems to be where this whole thing came from in the first place).

 

[VindictiveScrub]

You make a good point.

But its like that with a lot of things for me...I like something so why doesn't everyone else like it sort of thing.

I can understand that everyone's different in that regard but at the same time I have a hard time grasping it because that's not how I personally feel and because I haven't felt that way before makes it difficult to grasp also.

Basically I get it, but I don't if that makes sense. I can understand very one is different but it feels strange because that's not how I feel and I think everything should be how I feel. That's why it "doesn't make sense"

See and here lies the difference: to be uncertain of what it means to be LGBT is perfectly understandable, and really probably to be expected, but it's how people react to that feeling. Some decide to tell homosexuals they're heathens and disgusting, some decide to be supportive and helpful, and some are just apathetic about the situation because it shouldn't matter to them. For the most part I have only seen a handful of comments that really crossed the line into over-aggressiveness on the side of homosexuality, but a lot of the more recent posters against homosexuality have resorted to fairly disruptive and nonsensical arguments without providing any sort of facts. Now, that doesn't mean supporters should stoop to their levels, and I'm not denying that it happens, but I personally have thought most of the debates and arguments started out pretty respectful, and usually both sides were that way.

Going into any discussion and immediately dropping a very derogatory word describing a person or group is not going to end well for that person in just about any situation. I know personally I've gotten more aggressive or confrontational in situations similar, so it's likely to happen for a lot of people. I understand the counterpoints here, about people being very presenting about their sexual orientations and why it might make people uncomfortable. In the U.S. at least we are very squeamish about knowing something intimate about someone whom we don't know. I wouldn't want to know what some random person likes to do in the sack, so I can understand that other people just get uncomfortable knowing someone is homosexual when that person decides to be a little too front with the matter. Now, if that discomfort is due to the fact that the person is homosexual at all, or rather more of a "cool, I don't care so why do you feel the need to tell me" is the difference maker. I think that's what most people here are trying to debate. Coming in here and immediately dropping a slur, or calling homosexuals disgusting is pretty clear cut, but to say you don't agree with homosexuality because of x, y, and z is another.

I don't know, that's my two cents. There's being apathetic about LGBT individuals or gay marriage, and there's calling people abominations and the like. Of course the same applies for both sides, but a lot of situations I personally see where volatility spikes for both sides (even outside of GTP) start with a person dropping in and throwing out a "disgusting" or "abomination" without much to support. Some reactions are a little too vicious in return, but for the most part it's more of a "why do you feel that way" or "how would you like to be called that." Basically, if you want your opinion to be treated with respect, then at least give some thoughtful intelligent debate, because no one, regardless of the topic, is going to like it if you start off by calling him or her an abomination, and it really doesn't come off as the least bit respectful to do so.

 

[Slash]

I don't agree with making fun of anyone's sexuality, period.

Some people take it way to far.

Being straight myself I would prefer if guys don't come onto me, because it that's not how I roll, but I won't make a big deal out of it. Unless the guy is a total jackass about it. I might find it a little strange, but if anything I might take it as a compliment because at least someone finds me attractive hahaha.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

I don't agree with making fun of anyone's sexuality, period.

Bingo. Apathy is really what's needed, not so much overwhelming support and contribution. As long as it's the sort of apathy that says, "Of course they should get married, why not? Who cares?" and not the "homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married, that should only be between a man and a woman." Personally, I believe supportive apathy will go much further for the LGBT community rather than overwhelming fanfare and rallies. I know some people won't like to see me post that, and I'm not saying all promotion is bad, because things like the equal rights stickers and what not are very positive in my mind, but when anything is desired to be considered ho-hum and unspectacular by anyone then in modern society in places like the U.S. it especially can't be over-abundantly covered by media.

For instance, football. I enjoy watching the game. Do I enjoy seeing it headline sports sites and channels even when the offseason is well underway and nothing is happening? No.

Some people take it way to far.

Being straight myself I would prefer if guys don't come onto me, because it that's not how I roll, but I won't make a big deal out of it. Unless the guy is a total jackass about it. I might find it a little strange, but if anything I might take it as a compliment because at least someone finds me attractive hahaha.

What I have a problem with is the overly macho attitude of "I'm cool with that, but you better not hit on me." Unless someone is being a creeper or douche about it, a quick flirt never hurt no one. Again, if the person is being over-aggressive or not politely backing off when told to, it's an issue regardless if it's male/female, male/male, or female/female. The guys who think a gay guy is going to suddenly start hitting on him because he told him he's gay are being a little too egotistical and ridiculous, I think.

 

[Slash]

For some guys they just don't understand though I use to be one of those guys. As I got a little more mature I started to take into consideration others feelings a little more.

 

[Exorcet]

I get that and all, but it feels like you're opinion is somehow wrong because half the population doesn't agree with it. That's all.

It has nothing to do with how many people think what. Some things are just wrong, the end. No one should condone murder or theft. Acts of bigotry are in the same camp.

You may not like displays of homosexuality, that's fine.

You may not want to be around gay people, that's fine.

Anything you want is fine as long as you stay out of other people's business. That means preventing gay people loving who they love and living how they like is wrong. End of story. That isn't directed at you, it's just an explanation of how fairness works and where the "attitude" of gays rights supporters in this thread may come from.

Also, I made a point before that you could argue that fear/hate/disapproval of gays could be a result of social conditioning more than anything, like how some races were considered inferior as a fact. But I'll leave that as just a external thought and assume that some people don't like gay behavior just because they don't like gay behavior. Those people are doing nothing wrong as long they don't interfere with other people.

You make a good point.

But its like that with a lot of things for me...I like something so why doesn't everyone else like it sort of thing.

I can understand that everyone's different in that regard but at the same time I have a hard time grasping it because that's not how I personally feel and because I haven't felt that way before makes it difficult to grasp also.

Basically I get it, but I don't if that makes sense. I can understand very one is different but it feels strange because that's not how I feel and I think everything should be how I feel. That's why it "doesn't make sense"

Don't feel. Reason. Is someone doing something wrong (causing harm)? If so who and how do you resolve the problem? If no one is causing harm, what is the problem?

And the problem I have with that is, why would it even get that far? Why would you even consider liking hybrids and ponies an option?

I don't understand this. There's nothing abnormal or wrong with a man like hybrids and ponies.

Well the thing there is, the whole "equal rights" thing is pretty disengenuous argument. Everyone already had an equal right to marry someone... of the opposite sex, because that's what marriage is. With gay marriage thrown in, rights are still equal, just changed.

Christianity isn't the government, so marriage between and man and a woman isn't marriage in the general sense.

Don't remember that, all I know is, even scientists who self-identify as homosexual say that there is no conclusive proof of homosexuality being 100% genetic. Even the studies that seem to find a gene for sexual orientation tend to come with disclaimers stating that they are not conclusive, or that the gene in question is weaker than genes for other genetically determined traits such as aggression and traditionalism.

I don't see what this has to do with accepting homosexuality.

>Because they think gay people are equals

There's that "you don't agree with LGBT therefore you're Hitler" thing again. Just because you think something someone's doing is sinful doesn't mean you think they're subhuman, if that were true all of us would be subhuman because we all have our troubles. Like I said, it's not about equal rights. It's about the definition of an existing right.

I don't see the Hitler thing. In the US at least, there is a separation of church and state, so while the religious definition marriage may be this or that, it has no bearing on legal marriage.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@White & Nerdy , you sound like a lovely couple of chaps so one of you should check back through the thread for the discussion/description/definition of marriage. Your thinking is flawed on that, I'm afraid. That's not opinion, it's a fact.

Cheese and pickle are a perfect marriage both gastronomically and in literal definition. I think you'd agree that the idea of a woman having a relationship with a large pickle is quite ludicrous and would be keen to reconsider your definition of marriage based on that.

When you say "the rights are still equal, just changed" are you saying that some are more equal than others? I don't understand the point that you're pricking at there.

Am I correct to infer that you think homosexuality is sinful?

@Exorcet... what's wrong with ponies? It's just a question of having the right barbecue.

 

[FoolKiller]

And the problem I have with that is, why would it even get that far? Why would you even consider liking hybrids and ponies an option?

Because taste and preference isn't an option. Some guys like fat chicks, some like them tall, and others have a very specific image they won't budge from. Some guys like Michael Bay movies, others classics, and others like westerns.

And some guys like raised pickups with blue balls hanging off the back and a decal of Calvin peeing on another car maker's logo while others like sport hatches. And then some can like hybrids too, possibly because they are fans of new technology and engineering and the hybrid design is interesting to them because it isn't a very old design.

What is your issue with people having preferences different than you, and leading some sort of fantastical crusade against them? And maybe that is why no one thinks your thoughts on homosexuality are reasoned, because everything else you don't like you claim to want to get rid of. Maybe if you weren't so extreme in your hatreds people would trust you to be reasonable in your views on homosexuality.

Well the thing there is, the whole "equal rights" thing is pretty disengenuous argument. Everyone already had an equal right to marry someone... of the opposite sex, because that's what marriage is. With gay marriage thrown in, rights are still equal, just changed.

So the right to marry the person you want doesn't matter? And if it is a non-issue because it doesn't change the equality of the rights, then why not make the change to allow everyone to marry whomever they wish?

Apparently you don't think sissification is a bad thing.

Why do you care? Are they forcing you to do it?

Well what else would they do?

Politics, rights, etc. are not sports. It is not us vs them. Quit treating it like it is and trying to lump everyone into two camps, then maybe people will take you seriously.

You use the term liberal as an insult, as if it is a term for humans you think less of. You use liberal the way some people use retarded.

I don't understand this. There's nothing abnormal or wrong with a man like hybrids and ponies.

Don't you know that automotive engineering and breeding of farm animals are traditionally female jobs...oh wait.

 

[Joel]

My problem with @Dotini 's statement was that he seemed to be implying that patriarchy and traditional masculinity were one and the same. Absolutely not, it's possible to treat women with respect without being a metrosexual.

Well that's the point. It's socially unacceptable to believe the man of the house is inherently superior. It's not socially unacceptable to be masculine. The most famous men in society are famous for the exact same reasons they always have been, they're rich, successful, and powerful.

And the problem I have with that is, why would it even get that far? Why would you even consider liking hybrids and ponies an option?

A) I don't care what other people do for fun because it doesn't affect my life.
B) I don't care what other people do for fun because it doesn't affect my life.
C) I don't care what other people do for fun because it doesn't affect my life.

I don't care what other people enjoy to do for fun. I have literally not even once seen an adult fan of that show in real life. I don't know what you think the real world is like, people go to work and do their own thing, there is no "it" to "even get that far".

Don't remember that, all I know is, even scientists who self-identify as homosexual say that there is no conclusive proof of homosexuality being 100% genetic. Even the studies that seem to find a gene for sexual orientation tend to come with disclaimers stating that they are not conclusive, or that the gene in question is weaker than genes for other genetically determined traits such as aggression and traditionalism.

That's great. The point you missed was that the very same article you cited said people experience little to no sense of choice about their sexuality. It also has zero to do with the morality of it.

Apparently you don't think sissification is a bad thing.

When you use the word "sissification" I read "I don't have empathy for others and I want that to be someone else's fault".

>Because they think gay people are equals

>mfw w&n thinks gay marriage should be illegal
>mfw he says they have equal rights
>mfw i have no face

There's that "you don't agree with LGBT therefore you're Hitler" thing again. Just because you think something someone's doing is sinful doesn't mean you think they're subhuman, if that were true all of us would be subhuman because we all have our troubles. Like I said, it's not about equal rights. It's about the definition of an existing right.

I didn't call you Hitler. GTP isn't tumblr. I said you don't think they're equals, which is true. You don't think gay people are equals, you think they're inherently sinful people and don't deserve to have the same rights. Unequal =/= subhuman.

Saying it's the definition of an existing right is absurd. Gay marriage doesn't change anyone else's marriage, and the implication that it would change marriage is essentially admitting that existing marriage is only valid because it's recognized by the government.

There are two specific issues that I can think of right now on which I oppose the "libertarian" position. Homosexuality and currently-illegal drugs (incl. marijuana). Beyond that, there aren't many places I favor the federal government getting involved (in fact, one might argue that the best solution to the gay marriage fight would be to get marriage away from the federal government in the first place, though that would best be done concurrently with slash & burn simplification of the tax code, since that seems to be where this whole thing came from in the first place).

So you think you're for liberty but really you only are when it fits your agenda. You're statist and pro big government as the Democrats when it doesn't. You don't care about personal liberty, you care about imposing your morality on other people.

You know what drugs being illegal means? It means a colossal war on drugs involving hundreds of thousands of law enforcement, military, and border patrol agents. It means hundreds thousands of people studying criminology at universities being educated on drug crime by left wing professors to get one of these jobs. It means hundreds of thousands of prison guards and billions spent on prisons. It means you believe that other people should be allowed to tell you what you put in your body. How can you call yourself against government intervention when you don't even believe you have the right to decide what you put in your body?


Here's the problem with your whole manly schtick. You think men are the opposite of women. You think being a man is about being the opposite of a woman. In reality, the only way to become a man is when you stop being a child.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Basically I get it, but I don't if that makes sense. I can understand very one is different but it feels strange because that's not how I feel and I think everything should be how I feel. That's why it "doesn't make sense"

Then, simply put, the step you're missing is "maturing". I don't mean this as an insult - we're all teenagers at one point or another - but you quickly grow out of the "my way is the right way" attitude out in the adult world.

Well, it's either that, or you craft a fancy tin-foil hat and announce war on fans of a cartoon...

Being straight myself I would prefer if guys don't come onto me, because it that's not how I roll, but I won't make a big deal out of it. Unless the guy is a total jackass about it. I might find it a little strange, but if anything I might take it as a compliment because at least someone finds me attractive hahaha.

Think about what @Noob616 said - some guys prefer blondes, or brunettes, or dudes - and now think about the type you might prefer. You making an advance on a blonde that isn't interested is no different than a gay guy making a pass on you. Like @VindictiveScrub said - a simple flirt never hurt anybody. I've had the relentless, creepy gay guy advances thing happen once, and the main thought I had in my mind was that it was only an example of what girls have to deal with from some straight guys on a daily basis.

 

[Slash]

Then, simply put, the step you're missing is "maturing". I don't mean this as an insult - we're all teenagers at one point or another - but you quickly grow out of the "my way is the right way" attitude out in the adult world.

Well, it's either that, or you craft a fancy tin-foil hat and announce war on fans of a cartoon...

I think I am reaching that point now. Or, at least starting to anyways.

Think about what @Noob616 said - some guys prefer blondes, or brunettes, or dudes - and now think about the type you might prefer. You making an advance on a blonde that isn't interested is no different than a gay guy making a pass on you. Like @VindictiveScrub said - a simple flirt never hurt anybody. I've had the relentless, creepy gay guy advances thing happen once, and the main thought I had in my mind was that it was only an example of what girls have to deal with from some straight guys on a daily basis.

That's a good way of looking at it 👍

 

[Encyclopedia]

I have to chime with a thought. Well, I guess it's more of a observation. I think it is absolutely cringe worthy when a person comes in here and disagrees with the acceptance of homosexuality. It's not for the reasons you think either. It's the homosexuality supporters that are cringe worthy. They attack like a pack of jackals to a fresh kill. They hate, bash, and call names. Isn't that what you're fighting? When did fighting fire with fire become ok and acceptable? You're guilty of all the things in which you are fighting. It's stupid. Calling a man Hitler because he said the word fag? Makes sense, since he never called anybody that. He just used the word. The other thing that bothers me is the fact you all believe that anybody's opinion that differs from homosexuality acceptance is horrible. When did we all have to believe the exact same thing? People are entitled to their own thoughts. Even if those thoughts aren't social acceptable. It's an opinion. We not sheeple. You are stringing up people with different opinions then yours with the same rope that you would string up a person guilty of a violent hate crime.

People are certainly entitled to their opinion and free to express them, but you can have opinions about other peoples opinions as well. And if you find an opinion disgusting you are free to say so.

Now personally, I like to keep things polite. But I can understand why there's strong feelings involved in the subject.

 

[Azure Flare]

Why would you even consider liking hybrids and ponies an option?

Oh for 🤬 sake, can you go 2 days without using hybrids and pony that way?