Is no one "straight"?

[Guest]

Pleasure.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

If it's not too late for a comment on the original topic. (Hmm Joe and ami are both on the thread...) Well, I say bollocks to all that and why not?

Gay, straight, and bi are what they are. People are sexually attracted to the sex or sexes that they are and that is generally fairly well hard-wired and set by around puberty time (though it may take much longer than that to find the whole truth of that sexuality).

And then there is falling in love. As those who have fallen in love can tell anyone, you don't get to choose who you fall in love with. It happens, bam, and you love that person. If it turns out that person has radically different genitals than you thought you were sexually attracted too, well tough luck shithead, love don't give a flying fuck. You love them still, because love is deeper than physical sexual attraction or even the emotional "pair-bonding". It's, well, love.

For instance, I've got a comic story in progress where the protagonist is utterly infatuated with her partner whom she thinks is male until she stays over and peeps at him in the shower and discovers that through bioengineering he actually used to be a she and now has every conceivable plumbing as a true hermaphrodite. She ends up having to come to terms with the truth that despite him not being what she was sexually expecting and would be attracted to, she still loved him deeply and that love ends up extending into her sexual attraction.



Anyway, that's the two-cents from the straight guy. Now what happened to most of the thread. Did Joe or ami open up the "gays are sinners and inhuman and must be cured by my man-meat of doom" debate again or something? (Sorry for not reading all the way through but I'm lazy today)

 

[NoJo]

If ...
...but I'm lazy today)

It sounds like you're saying a straight person can sudenly fall in love with someone of their own sex, in spite of not being previously sexually attracted to their "radically different genitals".

I say that person was a closet case.

 

[minsue]

Agreed. Humans have such odd priorities. Thank goodness goslings have some sense to them.

Shanglan

Or at least can fake it reasonably well

 

[impressive]

And then there is falling in love. As those who have fallen in love can tell anyone, you don't get to choose who you fall in love with. It happens, bam, and you love that person. If it turns out that person has radically different genitals than you thought you were sexually attracted too, well tough luck shithead, love don't give a flying fuck. You love them still, because love is deeper than physical sexual attraction or even the emotional "pair-bonding". It's, well, love.

I so totally agree with this. (And may I quote you? So much tasty fodder in this thread!)

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

It sounds like you're saying a straight person can sudenly fall in love with someone of their own sex, in spite of not being previously sexually attracted to their "radically different genitals".

I say that person was a closet case.

S'why I said "thought they were sexually attracted to".

In George Carlin impersonation: If they're falling in love with their own sex, guess what, they aren't straight.

Anyways, agreement.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I agree with lucifer as well, and also with SubJoe (my new hero); I don't think the two statements are mutually exclusive.

Closet cases need their own thread.

 

[NoJo]

There was a thread. Nobody posted. So now they just wander aimlesslessly around, farting , scratching their crotches and chewing tobakky in a deperate attempt to conceal the horrible truth.

 

[impressive]

There was a thread. Nobody posted. So now they just wander aimlesslessly around, farting , scratching their crotches and chewing tobakky in a deperate attempt to conceal the horrible truth.

Most of them now live in West Virginia ... which has the highest percentage of adults missing natural teeth.

 

[amicus]

Ayn Rand once postulated that "emotions are automatic responses to previously made value judgements..."

Love is an emotion, is it not? And 'falling in love' as well.

It could well be if a boy grew up in a household with a dominating mother who nagged the boys father to death and the boy bonded with the father; it is not unthinkable that the boy, in later life may be attracted to a man resembling his put upon father.

Just a thought...



amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

There was a thread. Nobody posted. So now they just wander aimlesslessly around, farting , scratching their crotches and chewing tobakky in a deperate attempt to conceal the horrible truth.

They're still around. Sneaking off to tongue each others mouths. Hiding their secret life by joining together to condemn homosexuality on these types of threads. Not that I'm naming names of course, that'd be a breach of trust. That's why I won't even say J and A.

Shouldn't have said that.

 

[minsue]

They're still around. Sneaking off to tongue each others mouths. Hiding their secret life by joining together to condemn homosexuality on these types of threads. Not that I'm naming names of course, that'd be a breach of trust. That's why I won't even say J and A.

Shouldn't have said that.

I've missed you

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I've missed you

Duckie.

Had a little civil war to deal with that had nothing at all with me getting Evil Genius and a beautiful stack of utterly addicting books for Christmas. Really. Why won't you believe me?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I can't recall ever condemning homosexuality. I'd be delighted to see where I have, if I have.

Past that, I don't really appreciate the accusation.

 

[NoJo]

I for one, would never accuse you of being a closet case until I'd had a jolly good attempt to find out for sure.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I can't recall ever condemning homosexuality. I'd be delighted to see where I have, if I have.

Past that, I don't really appreciate the accusation.

There was a legitimately innocent thread a while back where you insinuated that homosexuals were not deserving of basic human rights and were "unnatural" in order to try and make a more innocent point.

I could go digging but it'd likely piss me off again and I'm in a pretty good mood since yesterday me and my unofficial gf were finally able to catch up with each other to exchange gifts.


P.S. amicus, not sure. I violently disagree with Freud so I would say unlikely, but someone with a less biased view of him may find some merit in your point.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
There was a legitimately innocent thread a while back where you insinuated that homosexuals were not deserving of basic human rights and were "unnatural" in order to try and make a more innocent point.

I could go digging but it'd likely piss me off again and I'm in a pretty good mood since yesterday me and my unofficial gf were finally able to catch up with each other to exchange gifts.

Your interpretation of what I was potentially insinuating in some unnameable thread in an uncertain time frame is a pretty thin place to start from. I don't have any opinion about homosexuality that would be "condeming them", I certainly have never asserted that they don't deserve basic human rights. I'd appreciate, in the future, if you'd either back your shit up or stop slinging it.

Originally posted by Sub Joe
I for one, would never accuse you of being a closet case until I'd had a jolly good attempt to find out for sure.

I appreciate that, thanks.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Your interpretation of what I was potentially insinuating in some unnameable thread in an uncertain time frame is a pretty thin place to start from. I don't have any opinion about homosexuality that would be "condeming them", I certainly have never asserted that they don't deserve basic human rights. I'd appreciate, in the future, if you'd either back your shit up or stop slinging it.

You're going to make me dig? You fucker.

All right. It was in the Gay Marriage debate. How long ago? I don't remember. My mind has a limited cache. The point was part of the "gays don't fulfill the social contract" argument. You directly insinuated their lack of human rights and then moved away from that thread of thinking (I'd like to believe it was because you yourself believed that they deserved human rights and recognized bullshit when you said it). The unnatural comment was repeated more than once, once with I believe you actually saying unnatural, but I'd have to dig through the some-huge-number of pages of circular arguments and pissing contests to find the exact phrase.

If you want, I can go back and do so. Is this neccesary, my highness?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I for one, would never accuse you of being a closet case until I'd had a jolly good attempt to find out for sure.

And dear God, is there are more wonderful sport than closet spelunking? One never knows what one might find.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

You directly insinuated ...

That's quite an interesting turn of phrase.

 

[NoJo]

I'd appreciate, in the future, if you'd either back your shit up or stop slinging it.

Are you offering to push in his stool?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
You're going to make me dig? You fucker.

All right. It was in the Gay Marriage debate. How long ago? I don't remember. My mind has a limited cache. The point was part of the "gays don't fulfill the social contract" argument. You directly insinuated their lack of human rights and then moved away from that thread of thinking (I'd like to believe it was because you yourself believed that they deserved human rights and recognized bullshit when you said it). The unnatural comment was repeated more than once, once with I believe you actually saying unnatural, but I'd have to dig through the some-huge-number of pages of circular arguments and pissing contests to find the exact phrase.

If you want, I can go back and do so. Is this neccesary, my highness?

If you're going to sling shit, back it up--neither complicated nor inappropriate. I strongly suspect you're going to find a lot of comments of contigency and a really hard time substantiating your off-base insult.

 

[minsue]

If you're going to sling shit, back it up--neither complicated nor inappropriate. I strongly suspect you're going to find a lot of comments of contigency and a really hard time substantiating your off-base insult.

Yes, you are good at making sure to have "comments of contingency" as you put it, however statements such as this certainly do imply a great deal of, shall we say, negative feelings towards homosexuals.

I speak of homosexual marriage as something that could be legislated away... because it can. Homosexuals, in general? I think if someone is to label themselves as such then a fundamental revision of our social standard must be considered--even legally.

If nothing else, I take issue with the phrase, "if someone is to label themselves as such".



I've no urge to go further into the thread. There's a reason I avoided it the first time 'round.

 

[carsonshepherd]

And dear God, is there are more wonderful sport than closet spelunking? One never knows what one might find.

Shanglan

Especially in YOUR closet... *shudder*

 

[minsue]

That's quite an interesting turn of phrase.