The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[PeterJB]

Apart from us having more choice of sexual partners, I don't see how it can be considered 'better' than the others.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Apart from us having more choice of sexual partners, I don't see how it can be considered 'better' than the others.

That's how it can be considered better than the other's. It's a minor advantage but I would still describe it as one.

 

[Joel]

I wish to be asexual, which I pretty much am, but I don't personally understand why somebody would want to be heterosexual or homosexual when bisexuality is obviously better.

Because you don't "want" to be. If you're gay you're gay, and if you're straight you're straight. If you're bisexual, you're bisexual. It's just the way it goes.

It's not like in a video game where I levelled up to puberty and chose my sexuality.

 

[PeterJB]

That's how it can be considered better than the other's. It's a minor advantage but I would still describe it as one.

Well, I'm afraid that wishing to be one way or another makes little difference. I didn't choose to be bisexual, and I 'wish' that I could be heterosexual, as being bisexual won't exactly help me in the heterosexual lifestyle I've chosen to adopt, but I can't see my same-sex attraction going away any time soon.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I know that you can't choose your sexuality. What I am saying is that from a purely logical viewpoint bisexuality is better than monosexuality. My statement was that I personally cannot really understand why one would want a sexuality, but if one did want to have one it would make more sense to have a sexuality where more options are available; though if you are stuck with a sexuality you're stuck with one and that's it. It's just the way you are.

 

[PeterJB]

I know that you can't choose your sexuality. What I am saying is that from a purely logical viewpoint bisexuality is better than monosexuality. My statement was that I personally cannot really understand why one would want a sexuality, but if one did want to have one it would make more sense to have a sexuality where more options are available; though if you are stuck with a sexuality you're stuck with one and that's it. It's just the way you are.

Procreation, or leisure.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Procreation, or leisure.

I don't personally understand why one would want to procreate, and if I want leisure I have a guitar and I have !

 

[Danny]

Apart from us having more choice of sexual partners, I don't see how it can be considered 'better' than the others.

I've found the inexplicable mistrust from both gay and straight communities to be a bit of a pain...

 

[DG_Silva]

I don't believe it's mistrust of bisexuals, just a misrepresentation. I've never had that much of an issue with bisexuals, but I think for most people it's a case of not being one or the other, without being able to see that it's not a choice.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't personally understand why one would want to procreate, and if I want leisure I have a guitar and I have !

Then you are asexual.


Sexuality, gender, it's all just a chance to come up with new 'labels' for people.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't personally understand why one would want to procreate,

Ten years ago I'd have agreed with you. One day it just sort of happens. Not for everyone, but I know more parents who had no interest in children until they got older than ones who always wanted kids.

 

[Encyclopedia]

An animal that isn't a human or another ape that has been trained in sign language will find it very difficult to give consent. A child molester is worse than someone who engages in bestiality because a human can say no, but it will be highly unlikely that a young child would understand what was going on or how to say no, or what to do about it after it had happened, making child molesters especially creepy rapists. If they go for older children then the victim may have a greater chance of dealing with the situation in an appropriate way (eg. knocking the molester unconscious and then calling the police), but they will likely be smaller than the aggressor and have difficulty fighting them off; and will also be more likely to feel to upset / scared / be to uninformed to inform those who need to know and can deal with the situation by putting the molester in a mincing machine. Child molesters are creepy perverts who deserve to be castrated repeatedly, bestialities are strange, paedophiles and zoophiles have the potential to become child molesters or bestialities.

I find it hard to believe that an animal would tolerate sexual advances by a human if it didn't want to. And while they couldn't give consent through the human language, they could certainly do it by body language.

My point is, acting out beastiality is potentialy victimless (asuming no forcing). Acting out pedophilia isn't. Children haven't reached sexual maturity. A grown animal has.

Anyways, we're going seriously off topic here now.

 

[BobK]

So.... gerbilling is okay?

 

[Liquid]

 

[Roger the Horse]

I struggle to see how that is a fail.

 

[Liquid]

It's a funny, posted on a site about fails.

Roll with the punches....

 

[Roger the Horse]

It's a funny, posted on a site about fails.

Roll with the punches....

It's not a particularly funny statement, it's just a wise statement.
If just about everything else about you is considered genetic, then why not sexuality. As I said earlier one of my very best friends has known that they're bisexual since they were a little kid.

 

[arora]

The beasteality comments I cannot understand, I consider myself superior to all the animal kingdom but that does not mean I'd ever advocate abuse ffs, disturbing.

And just for kicks.........

 

[Encyclopedia]

The beasteality comments I cannot understand, I consider myself superior to all the animal kingdom but that does not mean I'd ever advocate abuse ffs, disturbing.

And just for kicks.........

Except that it's not abuse if there's no forcing. Strange, sick etc. perhaps but not abuse. Rape is rape and is always wrong but letting a dog lick peanutbutter off your wiener isn't rape. If there's no harm done then there's no harm done. I doubt that a cow cares that much what the farmer is doing. and if it did it would send him flying through the air.

And before anyone gets any ideas, NO I'm not into beastiality. I just don't like moralizing.

Anyways, this is perhaps best suited for another thread.

 

[Dennisch]

Anyways, this is perhaps best suited for another thread.

Open now! The beastiality thread! Yes or no?

 

[Denur]

Open now! The beastiality thread! Yes or no?

Well, we already do have one, but it is not available for all.....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=127023

 

[Swift]

I wish to be asexual, which I pretty much am, but I don't personally understand why somebody would want to be heterosexual or homosexual when bisexuality is obviously better.

Uh, how so?

 

[FoolKiller]

Uh, how so?

Best of both worlds?

From a relationship standpoint I see what he is saying (assuming you can be happy with either or), but from a stigma or political point I can see it being problematic.

I have to say though, the asexual thing seems interesting. Do you know how much more productive I would be if my mind weren't so distracted by...um...pretty much any kind of media? College would have been exponentially easier if I didn't spend so much time focusing on women. I knew gay and straight people so focused on following their sexual attractions that they failed out of school.

But then, I look at my family now and if that is the result of an extra two years to graduate (and I can draw that direct connection) it was well worth it.

 

[Sach]

 

[Swift]

Nice!!

 

[dylansan]

They always try to justify it by saying "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks on you" is too vague or is out of context. Yet somehow "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" is not open to any interpretation. It clearly means being gay is a sin.

 

[arora]

All sin is sin in the bible, the out of context part has to do with dispensation.

 

[BobK]

According to the theists (yes, theists, not atheists) in the God thread, you can pick and choose what to live by and what to ignore from the Old Testament. So it's obvious what this guy's choices are (and aren't).

 

[TankAss95]

According to the theists (yes, theists, not atheists) in the God thread, you can pick and choose what to live by and what to ignore from the Old Testament. So it's obvious what this guy's choices are (and aren't).

I can't choose what I think is right and wrong. If, say, I just went out and mocked a disabled person, I would feel immense guilt for my actions. As a Christian I believe that we know the very basic's of right and wrong through the moral code that is written upon our hearts (Rom. 2:14-15). We know what is right and wrong because we feel satisfied when we do an act of good and ashamed or guilty when we do an act of wrong. You can't cheat this moral code; it's no soap-talk. It's as hard as nails.

Over particular difficult issues it isn't so simple as knowing what is right and wrong. Because of this, it would be irrational for a Christian to make a knee-jerk decision. Often we do immediately think some things are bad through mere reaction, I am guilty of this as anyone else. Instead it is more rational for a Christian to seek for guidance through prayer and a study of scripture (crucially the time and background it was written in, the type of literature, etc). It is often really difficult to find answers to some questions like this, and I would appreciate if you would refrain from affirming that (apparently) all theists merely choose to preference to what they live by. I do not deny that this is sometimes the case, but it is purely insulting when someone reduces the very sense of my morality to mere personal choice.

The particular issue over homosexuality is difficult for me to answer because I really don't have a knowledge yet over much of the Old Testament law and what happened to the Old Covenant and how we should treat it. I don't know, but even if I did think homosexuality is immoral, I would still treat homosexuals with the same uttermost respect as I would try to do with anyone else. I do not support any type of theocracy and I do not want to turn my country into one. Even though I disagreed with someone's views or practices, I would still uphold, support and protect the human rights we all enjoy.

 

[homeforsummer]

I know that you can't choose your sexuality. What I am saying is that from a purely logical viewpoint bisexuality is better than monosexuality. My statement was that I personally cannot really understand why one would want a sexuality, but if one did want to have one it would make more sense to have a sexuality where more options are available; though if you are stuck with a sexuality you're stuck with one and that's it. It's just the way you are.

It's not logical because it doesn't consider that some people aren't interested in one sex or the other.

It's like saying "apples and oranges is better than apples or oranges" - well, yeah, but only if you actually like both. If you don't like oranges then saying "both is better" is illogical. Choice isn't automatically better than no choice if the options don't suit you...

I'm personally not interested in men, so why would bisexuality be better for me?

By trying to reduce sexuality to mere numbers you're undermining the beauty of sexuality, which is that everybody likes slightly different things. In fact, that goes for choice in general.