The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 447,858 views

I think homosexuality is:

  • a problem that needs to be cured.

    Votes: 88 6.0%
  • a sin against God/Nature.

    Votes: 145 9.8%
  • OK as long as they don't talk about it.

    Votes: 62 4.2%
  • OK for anybody.

    Votes: 416 28.2%
  • nobody's business but the people involved.

    Votes: 765 51.8%

  • Total voters
    1,476
I can understand the latter. I don't understand the former however. I've never heard of a man who said that they were gay that actually aren't gay. Especially with how society in the past and currently tend to act towards gay guys (some of them), it's hard to see why some would choose to say that they are gay... unless they're trying to get closer to attractive women by using the 'gay' friend rubbish.
Some people do strange things just to piss off their parents. Chicks date certain guys to make their dad angry, make out with other chicks on spring break to get the attention their conservative upbringing or closed of parents don't allow them to have. A guy will pretend to be gay just to get at his conservative parents. I had a gay roommate in my college dorm who was the unfortunate soul who got used in that situation. He dealt with emotional abuse from the other guy's parents because he felt he was being strong for someone he loved. Then that person dumped him for a chick.

Rebellious youth makes us do strange things.


And there is also a bucket list for sex that some people have. They want to try everything once.
 
Some people do strange things just to piss off their parents. Chicks date certain guys to make their dad angry, make out with other chicks on spring break to get the attention their conservative upbringing or closed of parents don't allow them to have. A guy will pretend to be gay just to get at his conservative parents. I had a gay roommate in my college dorm who was the unfortunate soul who got used in that situation. He dealt with emotional abuse from the other guy's parents because he felt he was being strong for someone he loved. Then that person dumped him for a chick.

Rebellious youth makes us do strange things.


And there is also a bucket list for sex that some people have. They want to try everything once.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
That guy wouldn't heard the last of me without a rude backlash towards careless behaviors.
 
And this is why we can't have nice things.
That guy wouldn't heard the last of me without a rude backlash towards careless behaviors.
You should hear my stories about the frat guy dormmate some time. The way he treated women and how his girlfriend put up with a year's worth of cheating and emotional abuse shocked me.

Of course, I dated the chick who used me to keep her image up with her parents until she felt safe to come out to them. It would have been nice if she told me she didn't like guys in advance.

I'm beginning to understand why I gave up the nice guy attitude.
 
If you're gay, it's a licence to grope.

Urm... No.. I'm pretty sure it's not? Doesn't matter if your gay straight lesbian pansexual bisexual or whatever you identify as, sexual advances without the consent of another is not okay no mater what part of the spectrum either party comes under.
 
Urm... No.. I'm pretty sure it's not? Doesn't matter if your gay straight lesbian pansexual bisexual or whatever you identify as, sexual advances without the consent of another is not okay no mater what part of the spectrum either party comes under.
How does one obtain prior consent for sexual advances? Just curious.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-gays-paedophiles-news-program-project.html

What happens when people adopt an attitude via indoctrination rather than logic? They completely miss the point of analogies, apparently.

The indignant reactions to the comparison in this case reek of short-sighted and brainless "do-gooders". So sick of it.

"Name and shame" paedophiles? Not sure I agree with her on that one though.

That reminds me of this article @Daniel posted earlier in this thread. It's certainly an unusual angle on the situation, and thought-provoking. But I'd wager it's a riskier point of discussion than religion or politics with company; like it or not, you'll be painted as the "paedo-defender" by most people.
 
That reminds me of this article @Daniel posted earlier in this thread. It's certainly an unusual angle on the situation, and thought-provoking. But I'd wager it's a riskier point of discussion than religion or politics with company; like it or not, you'll be painted as the "paedo-defender" by most people.

Her point was valid, I think, but as you say it's a line that would see one painted as a defender. To do that would be to miss the point of the argument but that's never ever put newspaper-reading-Britain off mad, knee-jerk emotive reactions.
 
It's certainly an unusual angle on the situation, and thought-provoking. But I'd wager it's a riskier point of discussion than religion or politics with company; like it or not, you'll be painted as the "paedo-defender" by most people.

Avoiding such topics, to a certain extent, validates the approach of the "brainless" though, and social perception increasingly informs social reality. When good and logical people refuse to engage, the vacuum is filled by illogical people, be they "good" or "bad".

In this context, necrophilia, paedophilia, and homosexuality are equal. Backing away from that stymies logic, and the spreading of logic.
 
In this context, necrophilia, paedophilia, and homosexuality are equal. Backing away from that stymies logic, and the spreading of logic.
In the context of these listed being "unchangeable" or in some other context? I would never group people via a broad brush personally but as individual cases... Of course sex offenders these days are looking more and more like their headed to the gas chambers nowdays....
 
In the context of these listed being "unchangeable"......?

Yes. People want what they want. At least for homosexuals they have a sporting chance of legally getting it.

The main point here is about being able to separate the concepts of desire and behaviour, and address them each accordingly.
 
Yes. People want what they want. At least for homosexuals they have a sporting chance of legally getting it.

The main point here is about being able to separate the concepts of desire and behaviour, and address them each accordingly.

Ah, the specter of thoughtcrime rises again. :)

I don't believe that people should be considered criminals for what they think, no matter how messed up it is. People are criminals for what they do, or at the very least what they make a serious attempt to do. You don't have to actually kill someone to be arrested, simply trying is enough even if you fail. Thinking "I'd really love to catch that guy in a dark alley" is not a crime.

The same should be extended to "sexual" crimes, although it seems like a lot of cultures are so uptight about sexuality that they're willing to criminalise any non-"normal" sexual behaviour.
 
Ah, the specter of thoughtcrime rises again. :)

I don't believe that people should be considered criminals for what they think, no matter how messed up it is. People are criminals for what they do, or at the very least what they make a serious attempt to do. You don't have to actually kill someone to be arrested, simply trying is enough even if you fail. Thinking "I'd really love to catch that guy in a dark alley" is not a crime.

The same should be extended to "sexual" crimes, although it seems like a lot of cultures are so uptight about sexuality that they're willing to criminalise any non-"normal" sexual behaviour.
I personally am becoming more and more leery over social stigma. I started out as a "conservative" in american terms as a teenager and as I grow older becoming more liberal which is the opposite of what winston churchill would say is correct. :lol: I think anti sex laws are more about political power and less about "morality." That including pedophilia. I'm not a pedophile myself (thank gawd. :crazy:) but I'm seeing this as the new scapegoat that helps sponsor political campaigns mainly for evangelicals in the USA. I think to help understand the issue of age attraction and child porn you have to read this article if you haven't already it was a big talking point back when I first graduated secondary school (high school in US). I remember my law class discussed the issue about operation avalanche & effects.

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn
 
I can agree, but on the other hand, I am deeply against it. Yes, I think everyone should be able to be totally free in what they find attractive, and should be able to live out a normal life with not-so ordinary sexual preferences. If everything is regulated and everything happens with consent of both parties, why not? Sex is as natural as eating and breathing. As long as everything happens without harm and abuse, it should be able to be enjoyed.

On the other hand... We're talking about people gawking at/having sex with kids. It's just wrong. "From the heart", this just doesn't sit right with me, even if I can justify it with logic.

I won't deny that I was thinking about sex when I was younger (Around age 12, maybe younger), but to think of it being more widespread... It just makes my skin crawl. It's easier to think you're the creep than to accept that all children develop sexual urges.
 
Why doesn't anyone take screenshots when people say stupid things? :(

Telegraph did:

tweet_3093299c.jpg
 
Back