Page 2 of 9

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:36 pm
by Adam Black
I voted for #4, because out of the wide array of options in this balanced and scientific poll, that was the one that most related to my situation.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:45 pm
by zjoere
@kentuckyfried:
nah it would be trolling if i only had the closeted homosexuel option and no it's immoral option.
can't a guy just ask people their opinion ?

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:52 pm
by torig
zjoere wrote:@kentuckyfried:
nah it would be trolling if i only had the closeted homosexuel option and no it's immoral option.
can't a guy just ask people their opinion ?


Don't worry zjoere ; we don't care and still will allow you to play Defcon with us :twisted:

Now in all seriousness, why would it be wrong. The sexual part is where people focus their attention, but understand it can be lust- or love-based, just as heterosexuals feel about women.
Besides, gays (what? lesbianism is being gay too, right? Why make the distinction?) don't freak me out so long as they respect *I* don't swing that way (nor both ways).
It's those people going 'I was born as a woman in a man's body, so I'll have to undergo surgery, so then I can be a real lady and get me a man." that TRULY freak me out :shock:

I'm not advocating a mass genocide on transsexuals (or whatever they are called) to "root out the problem", but I'll admit I'm not fucking far from thinking it... :oops:

(Sorry MVPE. Don't take it personal. :roll: )

(I'll bite. What's the obsession with _lesbians_ ?? The threesome's only good if both girls are really hetereo/bisexual :P :twisted: )

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:57 pm
by Mas Tnega
"It's OK to be gay" doesn't quite communicate my lack of interest in the matter, but I guess it's the closest.

Too big a deal is made of this subject by all sides. The day when people shut up about it is the day I believe consensus says it's OK.

It's a boring subject. To me, it's up there with jay walking, squatting above a toilet seat, and eating with your hands in your own home.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:00 pm
by Stewsburntmonkey
Mas Tnega wrote:Too big a deal is made of this subject by all sides.


Well, I tend to think denying a segment of society equal rights is quite a big deal. I tend to yawn at the gay pride stuff and think it is definitely overblown, but the gay rights stuff is quite important I think.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:10 pm
by Deepsmeg
My philosophy is that I couldn't care lkess whether someone is LGBT or not, so long as:
1) They aren't annoying about it ("Hi, my name's Bob. I'm gay." "How are you? (By the way, I'm gay)" "Lovely weather, just right for some sodomy - I'm gay!")
2) They respect that I'm not
3) They're someone I'd actually talk to normally - there are some gay people I don't like, not because they're gay, but because they're tossers

I don't understand why people have a problem with gay people. Ok, so Steve is having sexual relations with Fred. So what? You're clearly not interested in Steve or Fred in that way, so it's not jealousy.

Jimmy Carr had a good dialogue with someone in a show... (paraphrased)
JC: "I've thought about anal sex, I mean we've all THOUGHT about anal sex, right? Haven't you sir?"
Man: "I've not"
JC: "No, you just jumped straight in."
*pause for laughter*
JC: "No, I've thought abaout anal sex..."
*pause*
JC: "I thought 'Eiww! My cock would get covered in poo!'"

Is that why people have problems with it? The concept of getting poo on things?

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:11 pm
by Rkiver
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Mas Tnega wrote:Too big a deal is made of this subject by all sides.


Well, I tend to think denying a segment of society equal rights is quite a big deal. I tend to yawn at the gay pride stuff and think it is definitely overblown, but the gay rights stuff is quite important I think.


I'm with Stews on this.

Does someone being homosexual affect you biblethumping fundies? No. Hence take your homophobic behaviour and politely fuck off. There is no reason to deny someone rights just due to their sexuality.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:27 pm
by Chimaera
Thanks for that sensitive post Rkiver. Being a Christian myself, I have an inside view on these matters.

1. All of the random crap from Leviticus got overturned by Jesus, who replaced it with 'Be nice' and 'Love God'.
2. Most Christians disaprove of homosexuals, as the purpose of sex is to have kids, and that isn't possible with homosexuals.
3. Homosexuality is seen as equal with adultery.
4. Personally, I don't care about what anyone gets up to in those areas.
5. I like the lego bible thing.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:37 pm
by Stewsburntmonkey
Chimaera wrote:2. Most Christians disaprove of homosexuals, as the purpose of sex is to have kids, and that isn't possible with homosexuals.


Becoming pregnant is a possible result of having sex, but there are lots of instances where having sex (heterosexual sex) doesn't lead to pregnancy (or where pregnancy doesn't lead to children). Thus I don't know that we can really talk about purposes in such a simple way. Women ovulate to produce eggs which in turn can produce children. However most eggs go to waste and don't lead to children. Should we also disapprove of women letting eggs go to waste since it doesn't produce kids even though it could?


Out side of humans homosexuality is quite common so there is something inherently natural about it. It's not as if homosexual is a product of the mythical fall or of original sin (since if it was homosexuality would have to be unique to humans).

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:55 pm
by torig
Deepsmeg wrote:JC: "No, I've thought abaout anal sex..."
*pause*
JC: "I thought 'Eiww! My cock would get covered in poo!'"

Is that why people have problems with it? The concept of getting poo on things?


Look at all hetereosexual-oriented porn titles. See how many times anal pops up.

Another ace thing is that while I was working in Luxemburg for 3 months, I observed quite a funny pattern in the picking up of street prostitutes.
My hotel was located near the station, which is THE hooker area - besides Luxemburg is all banks and hookers, really.
Now not only did I have to drive around that area for 40+ minutes looking for a parking space each night, but I could observe the streets from my hotel room as well. My findings, after 3 nights of serious hotelroom-based observation were that MOST cars picking up a transsexual prostitute/shemalethingy were station cars/"monovolumes" as we call them over here.
You know, the FAMILY type of car? :lol:

Actually, most cars plain out were of that type. Lots of cheating going on there, and not necessarily with women... There are still a lot of people in the closet it seems.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:55 pm
by zjoere
Chimaera wrote:1. All of the random crap from Leviticus got overturned by Jesus, who replaced it with 'Be nice' and 'Love God'.
5. I like the lego bible thing.

1.no he didn't
5.it really makes things easier to understand doesn't it ?

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:02 pm
by MrBunsy
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Should we also disapprove of women letting eggs go to waste since it doesn't produce kids even though it could?
Some Dogmatic Catholics probably would.

My personal view, which isn't dissimilar to Chimaera's, is that it's about the same as any sex outside of a marriage; I wouldn't do it and don't approve of it, but it's not going to affect what I think of someone and how I'd treat them.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:09 pm
by Stewsburntmonkey
MrBunsy wrote:My personal view, which isn't dissimilar to Chimaera's, is that it's about the same as any sex outside of a marriage; I wouldn't do it and don't approve of it, but it's not going to affect what I think of someone and how I'd treat them.


Well if you deny them the right to marry I don't see how you can complain that it is sex outside marriage.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:12 pm
by MrBunsy
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
MrBunsy wrote:My personal view, which isn't dissimilar to Chimaera's, is that it's about the same as any sex outside of a marriage; I wouldn't do it and don't approve of it, but it's not going to affect what I think of someone and how I'd treat them.


Well if you deny them the right to marry I don't see how you can complain that it is sex outside marriage.
Civil partnership is good enough is it not? Marriage is an ancient sacrament between a man and a woman, you can't just change what it is.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:18 pm
by Stewsburntmonkey
MrBunsy wrote:Civil partnership is good enough is it not? Marriage is an ancient sacrament between a man and a woman, you can't just destroy it.


There are very few places, especially in the US, where even civil partnership is available.

My view of the matter is that the government cannot discriminate against people based on such things as race, gender or sexual orientation. Equal protection under the law is a core tenant of democracy and to deny equal marriage rights to gay couples is a flagrant violation of this sacred trust. If a church does not wish to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple that is up to them and they should be free to act as their beliefs dictate. However the refusal of the church should not have any legal weight. The legal and religious aspects of marriage should be completely separate. If the term "civil partnership" is used for gay couples it should be used for heterosexual couples as well. If the term "marriage" is going to be used for heterosexual couples it should be used for gay couples as well.