Sure you heard this before but ...

This is misleading in more than just a few ways...

The most obvious being that, apart from you having cited no sources for this claim, the more likely reality is that the majority of self-identified lesbians don't "have sex" with men (implying a kind of regularity), but rather they have had sex (probably in most cases just ONCE) at some point in their lives. Perhaps when they were unsure of their sexuality.

It's not as clear-cut an issue as you make it out to be, you have a tendency to oversimplify everything. In real life people don't fit into neatly stacked boxes to ease your ability to classify them.

 

LOLOLOLOL!!! Sorry I don't have the amount of spare time to have learnt everything about everyone on here.

Why are you calling out Johnny for his sexuality? What bearing does that have on his ability to make well-formed arguments and points?

If anything, at least with regards to the nature/nurture argument, his points hold far more weight than yours ever could.

 

I made no suggestion of reglarity. YOUR tortured interpretation of my comments are misleading.

 

Nah, his opinions are a product of emotion and hormones. The comments from one of the most respected sociologist in the field carry more weight than the personal opinions of a single frustrated homosexual.

 

You need to tell that to our resident lesbian who believes a self identified lesbian women dont have sex with men.

 

All opinions are shaped by emotion to a degree, that and upbringing, as well life experiences, among other things. You aren't convincing anyone that your opposition to gay rights is based on anything but homophobia; an irrational hatred or dislike for LGBT people. You seem to disdain Johnny on account of his sexuality, and obviously view his being gay as a negative thing - as you persist in labelling or "calling out" anyone whom you suspect may be homosexual - simply on account of their support for gay rights. By all means, this is irrational... and by all means, this is clearly anti-gay. You are therefore a homophobe. There's no other word for it.

I don't blame him if he IS frustrated based on your blatant disrespect and offensive attitudes towards gay people. You're basically saying:

1) Homosexuality is simply about spreading HIV and disease, whereas heterosexuality furthers the species. (Forgetting that gay people DO procreate with surrogacy and straight people ALSO spread HIV and have increasingly higher rates of other sexually transmitted diseases...)

2) Same-sex marriage shouldn't be granted in part because of said differences (which are irrelevant), and because it's the government's job to protect the well-being of children who come from natural procreation and are lucky enough to have both biological parents. You're basically saying "**** the kids who are born into this world as surrogates, **** the kids who are adopted by same-sex parents". This is cruel and discriminatory, idealism before the rights of children in alternative families.

3) Homosexuality is a "human invention", in other words a perversion of our nature. MARRIAGE IS A PERVERSION OF NATURE!!! That entire point is moot. Irrelevant. As with your "point" about HIV.

You always ask us to say things relevant to the thread title or topic, yet it is YOU who persists in these "points" which have NOTHING to do with the question as to whether SSM should be legal.

Absolutely nothing.

 

Heres the topic of discussion below. Youve been chasing irrelevant tangents so long you dont even know what the topic even is. So of course you revert to your favorite topic, ME! LOLOL!!! Yeah we all know you two clowns think Im a homophobic bigot. Its been repeated a 1000s times in topics of discussion that have nothing to do with me. Its your way of avoiding addressint the topics of debate, by focusing upon attacks upon me. So freakin gay. Any way, here again is what johnny labels as "anti-homosexual, homophobic rhetoric". Either of you girls have the nads to string together a few words and try and state a reason why? I didnt think so. You may revert to your opinions of me, since thats all ya got.

 

So freakin' gay????

LOLOLOL!!!!

What does the term "gay" even mean to you?

Absolute moron. You return every single accusation, from lying, to strawmen, attack others for their "actual or perceived sexuality" by accusing those who disagree with you as "gay"; you contradict yourself, spout irrelevant points such as HIV and the "choice/not a choice" issue, then accuse OTHERS of going off on a tangent.

And it's not just "two people", it's pretty much everyone here. The only "two clowns" are you and Kreo. I hate appealing to authority but what the hell.... EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE A COMPLETE AND UTTER JOKE. A JOKE!!!

Now...

The topic creator asked a question, and everyone answered it in a logical fashion. The answer was no. Your first post.. suggested that feminine GAY MEN who are only technically attracted to GAY MEN are surely in 10s of 1000s of relationships with masculine LESBIAN WOMEN who technically are only attracted to LESBIAN WOMEN. It was so outrageously crazy a suggestion that the rest of your posts just seemed to be devoid of any logic. THAT was your premise.

 

So which was it? No nads or just unable to string together a few words?

 

Id respond in kind but would be summarily banned if I did, so I wont.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "which was it"?

 

But you can call me a moron, if you want. But I'm absolutely confident I'm not and everyone else here can vouch for that.

 

Thats ok. Im sure it was both, equally.

 

Is it kind of like how you're 50% bigot and 50% idiot, whilst somehow also being 100% joke?

 

Thanks for your accurate analysis of things going on in here. And ignore dixon, but be certain to counter his BS views a few times in each thread... so that anyone happening upon this site (via Google, Yahoo...etc.) might also see what a reasonable person has to say about homosexuality.

In essence, those who are reasonable will plant seeds of something useful, and what dixon plants will surely look like 'weeds'... once a person goes out, learns and puts things together.

 

Thanks for seeing what is actually going on in here.

 

A woman I knew who was bisexual claimed that she falls in love with the person, not their sex. Fine if that's true, but I would think that for most people a person's gender & sex both play a role in the evolution of any sexual relationship, and if I'm going to have a romantic relationship that also entails a sexual element, then I want the whole package. It's not like buying a car and being willing to dicker over options, knowing that you can eventually trade it in. If I'm making a lifetime commitment, then I'm going to make darn sure I get the things I really want. No offense to vaginas or the people who possess them. It's just not what I want for myself.

And why would you shortchange yourself by pursuing someone who doesn't want all of you?

 

Most lesbians I know don't like putting up with BS from straight men who don't get that they (the lesbians) are not going out of their way to be attractive to them (the straight men).

In other words, straight women seem to like you because you're a potential mate, even if it's not uppermost in their mind. To a lesbian, you aren't, so they aren't going to waste any time trying to impress you.

Not that there aren't "manhaters" out there. The label just doesn't apply to most lesbians.

Which guy are we talking about?

I didn't think Matt Bomer was necessarily 'out'. As far as I know, he's been suitably vague when asked about it. Personally, when it comes to celebrities I don't think people are entitled to know just because the person is famous. Some people are out just to family and close friends but not the general public, while others choose to be more open about that aspect of their lives. And some are so deep in the closet you couldn't pry them out with a backhoe.

As an aside, his co-star Tim DeKay was in a movie titled "Big Eden", in which he played the somewhat confused friend of a gay man (played by Arye Gross). When I say confused, I mean painfully in love without the sexual aspect.