Is it wrong to be gay?

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

No it doesn't. Existing in nature doesn't make something natural.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/
Noun:
A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adjective:
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Adverb:
Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

It doesn't just exist within mankind, and is therefore natural.


[quote=Mike Weedmark;3580826]Nature always selects for the survival and reproduction of the fittest. Homosexuality goes as against the grain on that one as it's possible to go. It pisses on and says **** you to the grain. There is nothing nature squashes out of existence faster than the genes of two people who don't reproduce.[/code]

So why is going against the grain of reproduction bad? What's negative about it? If I don't have a kid what's wrong with that? Is it the same as a couple who gets together and can't/won't reproduce? If not why? Why should I give a **** if my genes don't get carried down?

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

(And also, wikipedia doesn't disprove anything on any topic. It's wikipedia.)

Originally Posted by http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=21051

Wikipedia is a free, online, open encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles on numerous topics. This is a good place to go if you have a question about something factual, instead of an opinion topic. (There are plenty of good science articles in here, if that's what you're looking for.)

www.wikipedia.org

What belongs in this forum are issues of debate, interpretation, opinion, theory, speculation, philosophy, etc. - basically it's about things that have no right or wrong answers.

If you have a question that does have a right or wrong answer, it's probably best to go to Wikipedia and try to look up the answer yourself before asking here.


Also, Wikipedia Reference Desk for Q&A.

It does here. It may have not have been so good back when it was new, but articles like the one I linked which are pretty much locked down and verified and the sources have been checked out, are more reputable than pretty much everything else you can find on the internet. If you don't believe it go to the library and get a book or find a research paper because I'm not doing that for you.

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

There's one problem I've had with almost every gay person I've ever met, though: They're almost never just gay. They're never just a guy who's a normal guy who happens to like other guys.

The ones you notice aren't because they're flamboyant as hell. You just don't notice probably 90% of gays because it's not a visible attribute unless they're engaging in some sort of affectionate behavior in front of you. If being black wasn't a visible attribute, you'd probably assume everybody dressing like a gangster with a do-rag blasting Dr. Dre was black, including all the white people who also do that. The black guy who watches Naruto and comes from a wealthy family would probably never be noticed as a black guy unless he said otherwise in this scenario. I honestly hate the gay stereotype and it makes it impossible to get a boyfriend because the only guys who look gay get on my nerves like crazy. I also have a lot of beef with the gay community for pushing the image that we're all a bunch of overly flamboyant cock monglers.

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

It's always a thing for them, that they can't seem to get past. Something that has consumed their life to the point that there's nothing else defining about them. If you took away their ability to talk about and do things they perceive as contributing to their gayness, they'd have to stop talking and moving at all. It's these kinds of people I can't stand. People who only bother to develop the one thing that sets them apart from others, and do it in contrived ways like forcing a lisp or wearing outlandish bullshit, and for stupid reasons like this strange compulsion they all seem to have, to "beat" other gay people at being gay or something. It's almost like it's not even a sexual orientation for them, but some kind of weird, sociopathic hobby.

Some are naturally like this, but I think some put on the act to "embrace their sexuality" or some bullshit like that. Either way most gays don't. Trust me, if I had a choice I wouldn't because I HATE being associated with the "gay community". I see a poster for gay pride and think "Holy shit is that shit every ****ing GAY".

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

I have no problem with people who are just plain gay, the same way I'm just plain straight. But, give them permission to be a wacky annoying clown jackass, it does not.

I agree, just know that most gays aren't like that. It's natural human/animal behavior and has existed all throughout history.

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

I thought it was clear enough that I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about something so easily disproven.

Just saying your ballpark estimate is really inaccurate. It's obvious to how it happens due to again, you can only notice the flamboyant open stereotypical ones.

Originally Posted by Emo_Saur_

I believe being gay is nothing but a mere fetish, much like one liking feet, scat, or loli, whatever gets your aroused I believe it should be kept behind closed doors.

It's not just physical attraction for most. It might be for some but personally, and for many others, it's an emotional one. I guess it could be related to how you probably can't picture yourself getting emotionally intimate with another guy, or picture yourself getting infatuated with. I'm probably far less likely to have sex with somebody I don't know all that well or somebody who isn't my boyfriend or who I'm dating compared to your average person.

Originally Posted by flipsta_lombax

Just avoid partaking in trying to prove your point, because there is no solid proof what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong anyways. It's pointless on both sides if you all think about it.

If somebody had a rational point I would take this stance, but what I do is point out when something isn't rational, or I know something they're assuming as a fact, or presenting as a fact is incorrect. If an argument isn't rational that argument isn't correct.


EDIT: Holy shit I forgot I'm the OP of this thread. How time flies~