|
Homosexual Matrimony (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
well, sorry for my imperfect english once again. i meant people who are too busy proving their point to sometimes review/reconsider it, have doubt in it. you can count me one sometimes. we're all human ffs |
Uh, you mean exactly like you're doing? Lol. Your stance is the epitome of narrow-minded and under-developed. Lmao. Troglodyte. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Troglodyte. |
:haha:
such a good word. |
|
|
| Aesthetic |
| They can do what they want, one question.. Why are some gay men overly flamboyant.. we get it you're trying to be as feminine as possible.. how come some of these guys are more "feminine" than women you would meet? Taking the script over the top imo |
|
|
| Lews |
| It really depressed me that some people want to take rights away from others like this. ing ignorance. |
|
|
| Esiotrat |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
no thanks. i'd rather keep it all in. too tired. |
You need to prove yourself, back the things up that you're saying if it's fact and not opinion. Even so, back up your opinions. |
|
|
| Esiotrat |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aesthetic
They can do what they want, one question.. Why are some gay men overly flamboyant.. we get it you're trying to be as feminine as possible.. how come some of these guys are more "feminine" than women you would meet? Taking the script over the top imo |
They have their reasons.
Some gay men act feminine, some act masculine, some act straight, some don't care, some are jocks, some are ravers, some are nerds...Some have gender identity disorder, some do not. Each person is a different case.
Also, please note that there is no set standards of what a woman acts like.
Women can act in just as many different ways as men, the same is true for homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals.
So, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume that when you say "act like a woman" you are referring to gender roles. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On that basis, I do not see any of my gay friends acting particularly like a stereotypical housewife.
So the short answer to all this is:
It depends. |
|
|
| Aesthetic |
| you know what i'm talking about.. the ones that are outrageously FABULOUSSSSSSSSSSS |
|
|
| Esiotrat |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aesthetic
you know what i'm talking about.. the ones that are outrageously FABULOUSSSSSSSSSSS |
Heteros can be just as loud and outrageous. Again, depends on the individual case. :) |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
but let me ask you this instead: do you not find one of the following to be natural for a human being - heterosexual / homosexual? don't you think nature has a cause for things like that? |
Both sexual orientations are natural for human beings. Is it not extremely ing obvious by the evidence that gay people, you know, exist?
I am well the aware that the point you are trying to establish is that man+women=children is the "natural" way of things, and indeed, you are not wrong in this, as it is the practice most humans endeavor on. But just where is your evidence to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural? It has already been established in this thread that all range of other animals practice it as well - do you think they were corrupted by liberal society as well?
Where does "natural" end for you and "unnatural" begin though? Can you answer that? Can anyone answer that? It seems to me that people base this off of what their gut tells them, and that's typically just a reflection of what mom or dad taught them. But ing truly - what reason do you have to object to the happiness of others, much less the equal recognition by government amongst citizens?
There is a much larger issue for me here, and it does not have to do with homosexuality. Whatever your views are and whatever reasons you suppose for holding them are of limited concern to me. I've participated in enough of these threads to know that I am not really going to change anyone's mind, and truly - that's not my directive here. What I object to, however, is egocentricism in a civic sense; By this, I mean opinion's oppression on civil liberties. In this instance, people can't get over their ing selves to realize there is a very real breach of rights here - for the government and people to say that an entirely consensual union between people is inferior to others merely because of the parties involved is a gross injustice. It's like enough people agreeing with one another that red is an inferior colour to blue because the ocean is blue and the ocean is natural, thereby placing a ban on red, and worse still, getting away with it. It's ing cherry-picking in the worst, most irresponsible sense because the majority of people can almost wash their hands entirely clean of it when it's not in their face, but the silent minority must merely sit back and accept their branding in society as unnatural, second-class citizens, with second-class benefits.
It's very reminiscent of fights that have already been fought - particularly those over skin colour or ethnicity. To make an analagous point of this: I do not care if you are racist, your views are yours, but for you to use your government as a platform to project your ego, to merely perpetuate your own half-baked views at the expense of the others' basic, human rights for equal governmental recognition... well if you don't see a problem with that, this conversation was over before it started. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aesthetic
you know what i'm talking about.. the ones that are outrageously FABULOUSSSSSSSSSSS |
Though I do know what you are talking about, I think it's important to keep in mind that heterosexuality is in the overwhelming majority, and many, many human endeavors exist for the sole purpose of facilitating fertility. Indeed, the sexual hegemony of human beings is likely one of the largest contributing factors to the relative "dominance" of our species. It is also why a sexually liberated species could probably stand to to grow that much stronger by facilitating amorousness in whatever way it manifests - this means the widescale acceptance and recognition (at least by authoritative entities such as governments) of any consensual endeavor that alleviates stress and brings people towards common causes for coping with our existence as fundamentally social, yet complex and lone beings in a universe that may as well be the epitome of unnaturalness if our considerations are homogenous. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Though I do know what you are talking about, I think it's important to keep in mind that heterosexuality is in the overwhelming majority, and many, many human endeavors exist for the sole purpose of facilitating fertility. Indeed, the sexual hegemony of human beings is likely one of the largest contributing factors to the relative "dominance" of our species. It is also why a sexually liberated species could probably stand to to grow that much stronger by facilitating amorousness in whatever way it manifests - this means the widescale acceptance and recognition (at least by authoritative entities such as governments) of any consensual endeavor that alleviates stress and brings people towards common causes for coping with our existence as fundamentally social, yet complex and lone beings in a universe that may as well be the epitome of unnaturalness if our considerations are homogenous. |
You didn’t explain why fags feel the overwhelming needs to speak like idiots. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I felt that was best left to you. |
|
|
|
|
