Thanks. Which was done with a purpose. Many who have something "anti" to say about homosexuals, points to "sex", not the rest of the things which come with being 'human'. BTW, I know that naked guys dancing would affect 'me' very differently. I know they wouldn't; just as I know that not every good looking guy 'automatically' necessarily turns me on. A great deal of it for me (and other homosexual people), is about "relationships"; what turns one on varies. I know that. Mechanically speaking, yes. Emotionally, it's far deeper than that. Appreciated. Ha-Ha! No difference there! And it is interesting today, that the younger and middle-aged guys are amazingly "okay" with homosexual people overall. I'm happy to see that. We know that gay people are there in the midst of all that we are doing, and as long as people get the job done... it's cool. (see the above) (also above) No. There ARE more things to realize/note than the mechanical differences. What people talk about, what interests them sexually, what we see of them in public... there are many things which are characteristic of them in a sexual sense. And not all of that is under wraps; much of that is VERY visible and prominent.
You've just hit the nail on the head. What many of us are pointing out is that homosexuals are no different that heterosexuals. Why then are homosexuals being denied the same rights to marriage? Their relationships are in need/deserving of the same responsibilities and protections of marriage. Why then were homosexuals banned from serving in the military? They are just as capable and reliable as heterosexual soldiers. So why hold two different standards?
I've had enough 'pain' in life doing many other things, like working. Prince Albert, just seems unnecessarily 'painful'. Even more importantly, what's that got to do with the alleged "Gay Agenda"?
No Prince Albert here, not that anyone is entitled to that information either way. Just one more example of the BS gay people have to put up with. We get asked all sorts of BS questions that would never be asked of a straight person. The fact that we're gay and aren't hiding it in the closet doesn't give anyone permission to ask such prying questions. So then there's the dilemma. Do we risk giving legitimacy to the question by answering it? Or do we put up with the "you won't answer so it must be true" garbage?
Characterizing a person's orientation as nothing more than how they have sex is not the equitable perception of the matter that it pretends to be. The entire point of doing so is to avoid all of the context surrounding orientation in order to pretend that the complaints gay people bring forth against their detractors have no legitimacy. If you've never faced discrimination or violence inspired by someone's prejudice against your orientation, then you have a giant blind spot - one that some willfully preserve by rationalizing away what they don't care to see or understand.
Are you suggesting the only time you are hetero is in the bedroom? Do you ever refer to your girlfriend or wife in public? Hold her hand when you're out? Kiss her goodbye at the train station? Go dancing together? Talk about what you did together on the weekend? Do you enjoy the rights of marriage, including inheritance, visitation et. al? Our sexuality has a great deal to do with interactions, in myriad subtle ways. You aren't open minded, you are a brutal repressor of expression of self. You don't care what people are as long as it doesn't impact you in ANY way. What if that standard were turned on you? Could you live that way? Would you? Or would you eventually strike back and say "No more!"?
to your last "point", what oppression and why do you attack me personally? Is that in the "handbook" on how to deal with anyone who has an opinion differing from yours? And sexuality, keep it in your bedroom like I do. If you let how you have sex define you as a person then you have bigger issues than worrying about having your feelings hurt.
not really when you look at it point to point. It's just another example of trying to throw a negative label on another person who does not share the same opinion as you. I say live and let live and keep sex in the bedroom. You say if I don't share the same beliefs as you then to heck with me and I deserve to be insulted. Who is the real tolerant person there??? I'm a man, no more no less. I am not a straight man, or a blue man (though I liked the show) or an Italian man. No sir, I'm a man and that's enough for me.
Based on your responses you have a problem. You defend the hand holding, the kissing in public, the discussion of what gay people did over the weekend with their partner and so on. That is what the red bits in your commentary are saying. Sure, it's no problem. Everyone does it. But then you say keep it in the bedroom. You can't have it both ways. Your sexuality is a bigger part of your day to day life than you realize, and you want that to be ok for you, but gays keep it in the bedroom. You haven't really thought this through yet. I'll be anxious to see you evolve your position, because your last one contradicts itself. Good luck.
There is a streak of the egocentric in your positions. The points you continue to make are based only on how YOU see the world and not on the reality of the world. You give very glib retorts like line dancing. After you've tried slow dancing with another man in a redneck bar in Enterprise, Alabama I'll be willing to discuss how equally gay people are treated in today's America.
There is a streak of the egocentric in your positions. The points you continue to make are based solely on how YOU see the world and not on the reality of the world. You give very glib retorts like line dancing. After you've tried slow dancing with another man in a redneck bar in Enterprise, Alabama I'll be willing to discuss how gay people are treated equally in today's America.
A number of 'heterosexual' people, openly define themselves (even their worth) based upon what they do in-bed. Some gay people do as well, but certainly not ALL within each group. I've seen those HATEFUL and STUPID looks from homophobic folks, who can't stand guys/gals expressing real, casual affection in public. That's what he's talking about, probably. Some people can't get it through their THICK HEADS... that homosexual people (just as heterosexuals) also have relationships (not defined by some 'tingle' between their legs). Of course! And those who are extreme-traditionalists or homophobic... are tormented by the reality that they will never manage to put a LID on those very things; not ever. I've had friends and watched other heterosexual people who experienced even a "hint" of questioning their sexuality, or someone thinking they were "gay"; they almost CRUMBLED emotionally. No, they (proud heterosexuals) dislike it VERY MUCH when they are subjected to that which homosexual people endure almost daily.
Islam ain't nothing but a thing. People change and so does religion. And if you want to be a Muslim, live in a society that keeps a lid on YOU (in many ways other than just your sexual-orientation)... then go do it. In the meantime, as long as America is what it is... I and others will fight for the reasonable rights that all human beings deserve.
Procreation is a heterosexual process. That is the point. It requires a sperm and egg. Women do not produce sperm and men do not carry eggs. Two men are never going to impregnate each other nor are two women.
So let's make a law that only heterosexual sex can result in procreation. It is redundant, but who cares? But what this has to do with marriage is anyone's guess. I see no relevance.
