Is it wrong to be gay?

[Emo_Saur_]

parades consist of Gays, and gay right supporters. I'm sure some of them are actually protesters too, much you westboro at Soldiers funerals. I have no problem with homosexuals, I do however have a problem with flamboyant homosexuals who strive to make it obvious they're gay. I smoke pot, I don't strive to make it obvious I do it a lot, pretty much the same concept. Also, my views. 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.

[flipsta_lombax]

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. 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.

Well, think about it. Why do you think most gay people would do this? I'm glad to say that I am a "Guy who's a regular guy who likes other guys", assuming that when you mean "regular", it depicts a person who'd only admit this homosexuality and do nothing more about it.

Set aside feeling for a sec, and ask yourself why do you think they would go beyond just stating a matter of fact? Why are they never "just gay" and act normal? I suggest that our society in general does not see homosexuality as "normal". It sucks but everyone, gay or not, knows homosexuality ought to be perceived different, not considered as the norm but something... unorthodox in the aspect of living.

Do read my previous post before continuing on to reading this next part of my argument. Now... you and I can agree that this 'action', "forcing a lisp or wearing outlandish bullshit", is nothing more than a defensive way to prove someone's point, their knowledge. It can get distasteful, even for me most of the time, but people usually never take the time to see things in a bigger picture, but would rather fall into actions like:

OH FUC, he/she is gay. Let's attack them because I feel they are different from me and that I think being straight is the ONLY way.

Or:

I'm gay, people should care about that. I'm very proud that I am. I'm different and they should accept me. Let's prove ALL straight people that they are wrong for thinking their way is the ONLY way.

To make my argument short, I'll go ahead, reveal my point, sum it all up and say: I believe most people act too much on things that's perceived "different", "out of the normal", "unorthodox". What I mean is that when one will see something different, immediately they will judge, or hate or even abuse it. But one who opposes this action will act just as much, thinking ALL of people who thinks homosexuality is wrong, is wrong.

Some straight people will go as far ahead as adhering hatred and indifference towards the homosexual community, but some gays have made the homosexual community feel more like a cult, rather than something as simple as a state of being.

But what can we do? This has been going on since the start of humanity.

[iironiic]

I don't mind people openly showing their flamboyancy in public although it can get annoying when lines are crossed. What irritates me about some people are the type of gays who attempt to "convert" others to be gay as if the world has to be gay. At least that was the message I perceived from the gays that I have to deal with back in high school. This is similar to how some people attempting to convert others to believe in a different religion, which is extremely frustrating.

And to answer the question of the thread, what constitutes "wrong"? That is solely up for the individual to determine. Personally, I believe that being gay isn't wrong for reasons that won't matter to all of you because we choose what is "wrong" and what is "right" in our lives.

EDIT: By "wrong" and "right", I am only speaking in terms of what one believes.

[flipsta_lombax]

Originally Posted by iironiic

And to answer the question of the thread, what constitutes "wrong"? That is solely up for the individual to determine. Personally, I believe that being gay isn't wrong for reasons that won't matter to all of you because we choose what is "wrong" and what is "right" in our lives.

EDIT: By "wrong" and "right", I am only speaking in terms of what one believes.

It's only the ones who abuse this self-determination, turn it around, and become self-righteous that I'm concerned with. Somehow an individual can choose that right/wrong for their lives, but when someone opposes their way of living, the opposer may force their own right/wrong ways and EXPECT them to follow.

It happens all the time, and it happened here in this thread. What I am trying to get across is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether we will agree or not. 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.

[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~

[rushyrulz]

I find it interesting that people are still making the reproduction argument. Did you know that population growth is a bad thing?

[RubiedCross]

In response to genetics, natural selection, evolution, etc...

Originally Posted by RubiedCross

Let's look at it scientifically. First of all, science is objective and not opinionated. There is no "right" or "wrong". Biologically, according to evolution, we reproduce with the best, try to extend our genes' lives, etc. Rubix explains a good deal of this very briefly on page 17 on so. Purely biologically and evolutionarily, homosexuality does not benefit ones' genes. However, we are advanced creatures; we have intellectual and emotional capacities that do not limit us to evolutionary goals. That would be delving into psychology and behaviors, though.

This has already been covered and decided that science is impartial, and thus irrelevant. If you want a discussion on the science behind it, search for a thread entitled "Homosexuality". It's from 07.



The rest of everything you guys have said has to deal with behavioral issues and is not something that I want to address directly, because it would take too much of my time and isn't worth the individual attention. What needs to be recognized is that the issue most people have is with people's behavior, and not really their orientation. Being gay /= behaving obnoxiously. Hopefully this thread will raise that awareness, which is why I find it relevant to still comment on it even though the issue of whether it is right or wrong has been addressed to the fullest.

[Mike Weedmark]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

I find it interesting that people are still making the reproduction argument. Did you know that population growth is a bad thing?

Good or bad, it's what nature encourages. It's irrelevant imo though. Being natural doesn't make anything good or bad. I think people need to get off the reproduction point as much as they need to get off the nature one. I only brought it up to cover that base.

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.

This is equivocation. What they mean by existing in nature isn't what I mean.

Fido, in general, you spent a lot of time nitpicking my post, putting words into my mouth, and missing the main points. I was arguing that homosexuality is fine as long as it's not the pointless, aggressively flamboyant kind. You seem to be looking for an opponent, which I'm not.

And for the record, encouraging people to use wikipedia for their own personal information isn't the same as giving it academic clout, which no forum post has the authority to do anyway.

But, the article you posted, academic or not, accompanied by any colloquial dictionary definition you want, still doesn't prove homosexuality is natural. It's one of nature's exceptions, not one of its rules. Animals have homosexual sex because they're dumb as shit, are complete slaves to their instincts, and have no restraint whatsoever. Comparing them to humans who do it consciously and willingly is insulting to homosexuals, but also a false analogy. But like I already said, people need to get off the nature arguments anyway. Their relevance is zero.

[FallenXxRaven]

Originally Posted by fido123

Could it be said you only disagree with gays advertising their sexuality? I don't make a big deal out of my sexuality at all except for what my family and friends are going to think, along with many other gays. If a gay guy keep it to himself to a realistic degree, do you think that's all right?

I really dont think it's wrong to advertise homosexuality. I mean, how many guys at your school do you hear say "Oh dude, I got such good head last week from Amanda" (If you know anyone by that name, sorry xD). My point being that if its okay for heterosexual me to advertise how much I like women, then its the same for you to advertise how much you like men.

The only time I ever agreed with gays having to stay in the closet was with Don't Ask Don't Tell, simple because there are homophobes in the army, as with anywhere else, and Lt. Dangle (Ha) saying he's gay could get him beaten, left behind, shunned, what have you, and the army is absolutely no place for things like that, theyre supposed to be a team. So, as pathetic as it was before it was repealed, it probably did save a hell of a lot of problems.

Other than that scenario where getting shot is not just a possibility, but a probability, I dont think it should be wrong for gays, straights, or whatever to say how they are because (as mentioned) unless you have to put your lives in the hands of someone who might be a homophobe, you can say "Im gay, and if you dont like it, f*ck you."

EDIT: Holy hell, VBZ started me off on the first post instead of the last for the first time in forever, I had no idea that was 600 posts ago rofl. Oh well, theres my two cents, I'm not gonna take it back now xD

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

Fido, in general, you spent a lot of time nitpicking my post, putting words into my mouth, and missing the main points. I was arguing that homosexuality is fine as long as it's not the pointless, aggressively flamboyant kind. You seem to be looking for an opponent, which I'm not.

I don't think your stupid or anything of the sort, it's just I see some fundimental flaws in your viewpoints on homosexuality, although overall you're "ok" with it. Why would pointless, agressivly flamboyant homosexuality be a bad thing. Personality wise those people annoy me but a lot of people really are like that. I sometimes wonder if it's a hormone imbalance or something. Are pointless, agressivly flamboyant heterosexuals just as bad as a gay one?

@FallenXxRaven: I agree with you 100%. What I think (was a long time ago) was trying to say was when gay people tell people they're gay because THEY ARE GAY AND PROUD~ It's ok to act normally and talk about a couple endevours, but when somebody talks about being gay for the sake of being edgy or taboo or OH SO PROGRESSIVE, I think that's degrading, and causes some people to think most or all gays are like that.

[rushyrulz]

Modern society isn't ready for gays to talk about their intimacies yet. I'll give it 50 years before it's socially acceptable. Lets keep in mind that women getting the right to vote is a thing of the past 100 years as well as people keeping household slaves, I have faith that society will gradually learn to accept homosexuality just like we regard african americans as normal individuals (for the most part :/ but that's another topic) when before they were basically tools for white people, not even allowed to use the same bathrooms.

Thankfully the heterosexual vs. homosexual war isn't as furious as segregation was in the 60's, but if we can learn anything from that time, it's that we can overcome this 'homophobic era' just like we can learn to accept blacks as equal members of society. Of course there's still some controversy today, but it's nearly a complete 180 from where we were 50 years ago. The new generation needs to be raised on the belief that homosexuality isn't a bad thing, instead of the stuff we all learned when we were kids: God will hate you if you're gay and you'll go to hell.

We can pick and choose what we want to cite from the bible, but in the end I don't really care since there's often contradictions, for instance:

'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads.' (Leviticus 20:13)

vs.

"Test all things and hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So I'm confused by the bible, and therefore won't use it as my guide seeing as I don't have any reason to believe what it says beyond trying to read and understand the bible (and I went to catholic school for 8 years). So without religion to fall back on, I turn to logic and science in an attempt to find answers for myself. I don't know maybe if I fail to find what I'm looking for with science and logic I'll turn elsewhere for answers as I mature.

[flipsta_lombax]

If I had a nickel every time I feel I'm least noticed on FFR, I'd probably be very rich by now.

Originally Posted by fido123

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.

I'm not very sure if you got me, really. My stance is that people can voice their opinion all they want, whether they are agreeing or not, rational or not. I may be missing out on your definition towards "rational" because, again, this is subjective. Citing back to my "is-ought" argument, not even you have a say on what is and what isn't; how can you be so sure without solid proof? You ought for agreement with what you feel or desire is 'right' ("rational"), but not everyone agrees with what you 'feel' and 'desire'. Someone in this world will still feel you're "irrational" regardless of your stance on "rational". Ya get me?

If someone thinks being homosexual is wrong, dirty, hateful to God, condemning you to Hell, stupid, etc., what they think is nothing more than an opinion. An opinion really shouldn't phase anyone but the one who made it.

Acting upon their opinion, however, is where I feel it's "irrational". Gay prides, banning same-sex marriages, mental and physical abuse towards gays, gay prides, discrimination, gay prides etc. alike is where I don't agree with. But in the end, unfortunately, people spend way too much time trying to prove their opinion is right, seriously, and again, that's where the line is crossed between opposing parties.

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

Modern society isn't ready for gays to talk about their intimacies yet. I'll give it 50 years before it's socially acceptable. Lets keep in mind that women getting the right to vote is a thing of the past 100 years as well as people keeping household slaves, I have faith that society will gradually learn to accept homosexuality just like we regard african americans as normal individuals (for the most part :/ but that's another topic) when before they were basically tools for white people, not even allowed to use the same bathrooms.

Thankfully the heterosexual vs. homosexual war isn't as furious as segregation was in the 60's, but if we can learn anything from that time, it's that we can overcome this 'homophobic era' just like we can learn to accept blacks as equal members of society. Of course there's still some controversy today, but it's nearly a complete 180 from where we were 50 years ago. The new generation needs to be raised on the belief that homosexuality isn't a bad thing, instead of the stuff we all learned when we were kids: God will hate you if you're gay and you'll go to hell.

A perfect example at where I'm trying to get at. What you've pointed out, about women, about African Americans back in the past.. modern times now would be considered "unorthodox" or even "irrational" back to these time eras. All because someone acted upon their own opinion, their sense of what's different.

Like you are trying to say yourself, there is still controversy today. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still people out there who still disagree with women or African American rights. And disagree with me or not but I stay firm to my argument: EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion, UNTIL they act upon it.

Look, people will nitpick others for something that hits the senses as "different", unorthodox", "irrational", "right or wrong". This what you call "homophobic era" suggests indifference towards someone who simply holds an opinion.

[fido123]

Although I agree with your philosiphy, in practicailty some opinions just don't hold any ground. If I said all Phillipino's regardless of where they live don't celebrate Christmas, that's my opinion right? Do Phillipino's celebreate Christmas? YES! Does the argument they don't celebrate Christmas deserve any reasonable consideration or hold any sort of ground? NO! What that person is saying is false. Everybody can have their own opinions but some opinions are wrong, and came about due to faulty logic and emotion. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but their opinion can be wrong. If somebody tells me their opinion and it's flat out wrong, their opinion means shit. If an opinion is built off any sort of logic, reason, and rational, regardless with how much I disagree with it, I will respect it and know that they can be right and I can be wrong. If soembody's opinion is wrong, they should rethink it. I've never heard a logical or rational explaination about why homosexuality is wrong out of a religious context, therefore until somebody gives me an opinion against it that isn't wrong and horseshit, I will assume nothing is wrong with homosexuality. People's negative opinions on homosexuality I believe to be far more often than not to be caused by simply being uncomfortable with the idea of two nakid men in a bed. It's 100% fine to think that's repulsive, but it doesn't mean you have to hate people for it, and if you do, you're a biggot~

Do you perhaps want to have this discussion over MSN or something? I don't think a forum is going to do this discussion to much justice due to the complexity of it.

[Cavernio]

"Also, my views. 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."

Rushy is a straight man, right? Have you ever gotten around by the thoughts or images of mutiple men having sex with 1 woman? I'm assuming yes. Do you call yourself gay because of it? No, although a specific part of that turn-on involves other men.
Have you ever been turned on by the thought of 2 women making out? Again I'm assuming yes. But you don't call yourself a lesbian, so why does it turn you on?
Both these things could be considered fetishes (although I'm pretty sure fairly common ones, so I'm not sure if the term 'fetish' really applies), and they both involve things that potentially question your own sexuality. Yet in neither case do you consider yourself a homosexual, and in 1 case you specifically wouldn't like the homosexuality aspect of it, (ie: probably a turn-off if you found out those women are homosexuals,) which begs the question: why do you call yourself straight?

If I had sex with another woman, I wouldn't call myself a lesbian. I wouldn't call myself bi-sexual. If I had a threesome with a man and a woman, I wouldn't call myself bisexual then either. There's obviously something about men that I like that women just...don't evoke in me, and I don't think ever will. There is an emotional component in romance and love that sexual acts don't need to involve. I have never fallen in love with a woman and I have never had a crush on a woman, and that is why I call myself straight. Why are you straight?

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Rushy is a straight man, right?

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

I'm gay and I'm proud because I know I can follow my heart and I don't need to listen to what a book tells me. If there is a God, I'll listen to the spirit he put inside me at birth instead of listening to the book that was written by man centuries ago.

The post you referenced was made by Emo_Saur_, so I take it the rest of your post was directed at him instead of me :P

Originally Posted by fido123

People's negative opinions on homosexuality I believe to be far more often than not to be caused by simply being uncomfortable with the idea of two nakid men in a bed. It's 100% fine to think that's repulsive, but it doesn't mean you have to hate people for it, and if you do, you're a biggot~

I agree. You couldn't pay me to do half the shit straight guys do with their girls, but you don't see me making arguments why being straight is wrong because I think in my own mind it's utterly repulsive and neither should straights make that kind of argument against gays. Am I saying straight pornography doesn't get me aroused? no, half of straight porn is a dude, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it all goes away when I see anything I find gross like a female receiving oral sex for instance. Solution: Don't watch straight porn and move on with your life knowing that some people are able to get off on it, and others like me aren't. The same can be said about straight people imagining what acting on one's homosexuality would look like and how it makes them feel, but I believe that ignorance is bliss. If you think about something that makes you uncomfortable, just don't think about it.

[Emithith]

The only wrong thing about being gay is that they FEATURE it almost. (<< My opinion, that's not "wrong") lol It's not like straight people. I mean, I know there are some overly sexual people who are over the top about their sexuality and are straight, but it's almost a thing with gay people to talk off key or what ever that weird ass tone in their voice is. If they could just assimilate into the community like others and keep their sexuality to their bedchambers (which, needs to be an universal thing, not just gay/lesbians) everything would be just fine.

I didn't read many of the previous posts because they were just walls of text that were annoying to read for me, so bear with me if I missed anything or am off topic.

Also, I find in CTs that people like to challenge any posts you make instead of just using them as food for thought. It's kinda annoying. I know it's a discussion, but..

I also have to say that it's not helping when people like the Westboro Baptist Church keep making the slurs against them. Gay/Lesbian isn't wrong, it's just not productive in furthering our species through reproduction.

/2cents. I probably will come back and respond, but I gotta gather my thoughts.

[rushyrulz]

which is worse?

(NSFW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2glCe-dlo8&t=2m46s

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wqk6qD4r8

two extremes I know, but I find the first as equally as annoying as the second, which leads to the point that acting so over the top about your sexuality is probably never a good thing.

[flipsta_lombax]

Originally Posted by fido123

Do you perhaps want to have this discussion over MSN or something? I don't think a forum is going to do this discussion to much justice due to the complexity of it.

Nah, it's all good. I don't think anyone on a rhythm game site can think as complex as my argument, so maybe it's why it's automatically dismissed, but I appreciate you understanding my stance. And I totally get what you're saying, really.

I do want to say though, yes, opinions can be wrong. But I am ONLY regarding an opinion that reflects logic and experience, but alas I have dismissed those who create opinions 'out of their ass'. I myself DO NOT consider those as opinions, but moreso prejudice or just plain ignorance.

As rushy has pointed out, ignorance is bliss: it's the root of all life problems, but it'll never go away. We can only have wishful thinking if we want to rid of it. But whatever, I'm still a homosexual. Opinions or not, it's what it is.

[Cavernio]

Just because no one replies to your post, doesn't mean it's glossed over. If you make your point well, there's nothing more needed to be added for the sake of the topic, and especially if I agree with it, enough said.

Emithith: The discussion went there in very recent posts. How would you have any idea how many gay people act gay if the opposite of what you're saying is true; that is, if most gay people didn't outwardly act gay? You would still largely be basing it on those people who do outwardly act gay, and you could come to the exact same conclusion.

Secondly, there's a very good reason for gays to act gay; so that people know they're gay. How would you like men to hit on you because they think you're gay? The reverse would happen to gays all the time if they didn't outwardly portray their sexuality in some way. It would also suck to have to specifically walk up to someone and ask 'are you gay?' before you could flirt, or if you couldn't tell at a glance if you could possibly have a shot with that girl.
Furthermore, you're conflating overt sexual behaviour with sexuality. Waggling your hips while you walk isn't exactly the same thing as making out in public. Or, if you're not conflating the 2, you're essentially asking the impossible: the majority of men are attracted to women and vice versa. That means straight people will always be overt about their sexuality simply because they have a visible gender. Are you suggesting we all hide our genders?
Another thing, if all sexuality were kept solely to the bedroom, finding a person to have sex with would have to revolve around something weird like nightly bedroom meet-ups or some such thing.
If you could just assimilate gays and the quirks they have adopted to fit into the community, then everything would be just fine.

That said, I'm sure that if I were gay I'd probably try and act specifically not gay most of the time or something in an attempt to keep my own individual identity because I'm dumb like that.

[Emithith]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Just because no one replies to your post, doesn't mean it's glossed over. If you make your point well, there's nothing more needed to be added for the sake of the topic, and especially if I agree with it, enough said.

Emithith: The discussion went there in very recent posts. How would you have any idea how many gay people act gay if the opposite of what you're saying is true; that is, if most gay people didn't outwardly act gay? You would still largely be basing it on those people who do outwardly act gay, and you could come to the exact same conclusion.

Secondly, there's a very good reason for gays to act gay; so that people know they're gay. How would you like men to hit on you because they think you're gay? The reverse would happen to gays all the time if they didn't outwardly portray their sexuality in some way. It would also suck to have to specifically walk up to someone and ask 'are you gay?' before you could flirt, or if you couldn't tell at a glance if you could possibly have a shot with that girl.
Furthermore, you're conflating overt sexual behaviour with sexuality. Waggling your hips while you walk isn't exactly the same thing as making out in public. Or, if you're not conflating the 2, you're essentially asking the impossible: the majority of men are attracted to women and vice versa. That means straight people will always be overt about their sexuality simply because they have a visible gender. Are you suggesting we all hide our genders?
Another thing, if all sexuality were kept solely to the bedroom, finding a person to have sex with would have to revolve around something weird like nightly bedroom meet-ups or some such thing.
If you could just assimilate gays and the quirks they have adopted to fit into the community, then everything would be just fine.

That said, I'm sure that if I were gay I'd probably try and act specifically not gay most of the time or something in an attempt to keep my own individual identity because I'm dumb like that.

Having a friend that you know is female and not a lesbian would work better than people hooking up in clubs and jacking up the over the top population rate further by having sex for pleasure.
Either way this is a gay right/wrong conversation, so let's not get into that. I understand it would probably be pretty damn hard to get someone if you were gay, if you can't show it, but I don't exactly mean "acting gay" I mean that higher pitched voice/accent thing. It's the most annoying thing ever, and it seriously annoys me when I hear it. TALK NORMALLY DAAAMNITTTTTT.
Why do they have to talk that way to get attention? Why can't they just wear a ring on their finger or something. Or like do something less annoying.

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

I was trying out the gay accent in vidchat last night and I couldn't even do it rofl.

lmao