- 708
- GTP_MaxAttack
The Homosexuality Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Duke
- 9,138 comments
- 447,906 views
- 708
- GTP_MaxAttack
Those French always seem to have a bit more style than everyone else, this fella doesn't carry his look off very well eh? 
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
What possible use could a normal-weight man have for wearing a bra?
- 708
- GTP_MaxAttack
- 12,900
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
Did you learn this from a certain Mr. Fry by any chance?
PS: I get loads of Quite Interesting facts from him too by the way
I did, yes!
Make up possibly was to keep them looking their best, but I've not heard about high heels. They did used to wear thigh length boots, though, which has now become more associated with females and sex.
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I know for sure that Louis XVI of France wore them.
I did a quick search and found the site below (and Louis is there too).
http://chicks4bloggin.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-high-heel-sexuality-and-sophistication/
Heels apparently go back longer than I thought.
I did a quick search and found the site below (and Louis is there too).
http://chicks4bloggin.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-high-heel-sexuality-and-sophistication/
Heels apparently go back longer than I thought.
- 5,768
- Anoka, MN
They aren't demanding that religion be changed, but rather government benefits be changed. It just so happens that church is needlessly intertwined with the government in marriage. If marriage would stay strictly a religious ceremony, and you had to just go to a government office to get the benefits and be officially recognized as a couple, then there wouldn't be these problems.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,517
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
You do, I can go to any court house, pay $20 and become married.
You don't need to go through a religious ceremony to be married. I've been to a couple secular weddings and they sure beat the hell out of any religious one I've ever been to.
- 5,481
- Seattle, WA
- RykonZero
Max Powers
(Banned)
- 4,475
- XBL: MelBlount
- MelBlount
^R(are) U(you) serious?
It's an interesting and complicated topic. Honestly? I believe that homosexuality is mostly genetically based. Not all BEHAVIOUR is (homosexually) genetically-based, but history has, time and again, achingly displayed the strong 'natural' influence of homosexual feelings. In the face of fierce, and sometimes life-threatening social pressures, we still today have a society that (although largely uncertain of the gay place within itself, perhaps - as indicated - as a result of self-sexual uncertainty or phobia) strives to find a place for this ever fascinating type of person. This strongly indicates to me that homosexuality is, for many, a largely pre-determined (and therefore as best as I can tell, genetic) 'preference'.
Is this 'pre-disposition' the result of a malfunctioning, or 'broken' gene? Modern culture would likely jump to the defence of the pro-gay. But, what is clear is that it is not in the traditionally-viewed interest of self-preservation that you mate with members of your own sex. So arguably, perhaps it is a 'fault of the system'.
I suppose the question that should be asked is to the individual; if you could 'flip your sexual orientation', would you? There are many factors, such as technology (IVF, cell-cloning and adoption agencies), as well as the current state of the individual, that complicate this matter almost infinitely.
Of course, this doesn't even take into account the possibility that it is simply not a matter of 'gay or straight' for what is probably a large section of society. How much the 'greying' of your level of homosexual tendency is culturally influenced, and how much of this is a result of 'pre-disposition' however, is beyond me at this stage. I would speculate that the genetic influence would of course be much lower in this matter, than that of the group of 'compelled gays' discussed earlier.
EDIT: As for addressing the question in the thread title directly; I question whether we are too keen for opinions sometimes. I don't fully understand the mechanics behind homosexuality, and so I can only observe and learn as much as possible. Too many times in history, we have staunchly backed an idea that has later proved to be nonsense, or worse. Of course, if my very existence or significant part of culture was threatened by this issue, I would likely take a stronger stance (not unlike how sections of the religious community have). But luckily, I can merely observe without judgement. It is neither a problem or an 'alternative' lifestyle, but more precisely one of many ways in which people follow their ever-evolving routes to wherever it is we think we're going (fulfilment? Equilibrium? Heaven? Ha! Who knows?).
Is this 'pre-disposition' the result of a malfunctioning, or 'broken' gene? Modern culture would likely jump to the defence of the pro-gay. But, what is clear is that it is not in the traditionally-viewed interest of self-preservation that you mate with members of your own sex. So arguably, perhaps it is a 'fault of the system'.
I suppose the question that should be asked is to the individual; if you could 'flip your sexual orientation', would you? There are many factors, such as technology (IVF, cell-cloning and adoption agencies), as well as the current state of the individual, that complicate this matter almost infinitely.
Of course, this doesn't even take into account the possibility that it is simply not a matter of 'gay or straight' for what is probably a large section of society. How much the 'greying' of your level of homosexual tendency is culturally influenced, and how much of this is a result of 'pre-disposition' however, is beyond me at this stage. I would speculate that the genetic influence would of course be much lower in this matter, than that of the group of 'compelled gays' discussed earlier.
EDIT: As for addressing the question in the thread title directly; I question whether we are too keen for opinions sometimes. I don't fully understand the mechanics behind homosexuality, and so I can only observe and learn as much as possible. Too many times in history, we have staunchly backed an idea that has later proved to be nonsense, or worse. Of course, if my very existence or significant part of culture was threatened by this issue, I would likely take a stronger stance (not unlike how sections of the religious community have). But luckily, I can merely observe without judgement. It is neither a problem or an 'alternative' lifestyle, but more precisely one of many ways in which people follow their ever-evolving routes to wherever it is we think we're going (fulfilment? Equilibrium? Heaven? Ha! Who knows?).
Last edited:
- 6,584
- Kent, UK
- GTP_Jondot
We already have something similar to that. It's called Essex.
Thanks for clearing that up.
- 4,741
- Bogota,Colombia
- GTP_ARP93
Dude!!! Can I get that nationality? I'm not strictly atheist however...do Agnostics count?
ON TOPIC: I truly believe being homo is a an alternative lifestyle. That 🤬 arguments the religions have towards homosexual couples is totally inhuman, liberty restricting, and stone-age. I'm an absolute libertarian, so in this topic I must say you are allowed to like men/women, or whatever you want to have a sexual tendency towards to as long as you aren't a harm to anyone. Your choice itself doesn't represent a harm.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
And who, exactly, is doing that? Nobody. Conservatives love to get all frothed up about the word "marriage" and it is a complete red herring to hide homophobia and repression of gay couples.
I got married in a church. My friends (heterosexual couple) got married in a courthouse. They are still MARRIED even though a justice performed the ceremony, not a priest. They are not CIVILLY UNIONED or some idiotic crap.
Yet even some people who support gay commitment ceremonies insist they are not MARRIAGES for some reason. And plenty of states have made even that illegal.
Nobody is trying to force ANY church to perform homosexual marriages against their will. They are just trying to remove any laws against homosexuals making official commitments, and to drop the completely ridiculous idea that a "marriage" is only between a man and a woman.
- 14,060
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
To quote Russell Howard:
He was referring to Australians wondering whether or not they should tell a child of the age of 3 about homosexuality. Well, come on, a child of 3 (unless related to the infamous bigot Fred Phelps) is not going to care if a man can love another man.Russell Howard
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
As a person of Indian descent, I support gay marriage in India. Though I am Muslim and Islam forbids gay marriages and such, India needs some effective population control.
- 24,127
- Scarfolk
- Grim10
- Are you kidding?
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
- 3,033
Getting Married, from a legal standpoint, is not a religous affair. It has nothing to do with any religion. You can get married in Vegas for christ sake, and not remember taking your vows because you were too drunk.
People being Gay is genetic. Its a matter of evolutionary psychology to sort out. Empirical evidence strongly suggests there is no God, and that all religions are made up. Fake. End of story. Religous extremism does nothing but crash planes into buildings.
Every major scientific organization in the United states rejects a God concept.
People being Gay is genetic. Its a matter of evolutionary psychology to sort out. Empirical evidence strongly suggests there is no God, and that all religions are made up. Fake. End of story. Religous extremism does nothing but crash planes into buildings.
Every major scientific organization in the United states rejects a God concept.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
