A great man once explained the difference between a faggot and a gay man. He said a faggot is a flamboyant asshole who flaunts his sexuality and never fails to mention it in everyday conversation, whereas a gay man simply likes another man, but doesn't let that affect his life. This is true.

Now that we're done with the quotes, let me be straight on this: I hate faggots, the definition of a faggot being the one I just said.

I certainly believe in gay pride, because we are in sort of a war right now between homophobes and normal people who understand basic human rights. However, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals do not need to flaunt their sexuality like it is their life. People love a humble gay man more than a flamboyant one. Neil Patrick Harris is gay, but he acts like any other normal man. Then there are those who wear rainbow t-shirts every day, talk with the stereotypical lisp, throw out a limp wrist at every statement, and put that flamboyant flair on everything they say.

Long story short, the more you act like a stereotype, the more people believe in these stereotypes. If you want people to stop hating gays, don't put a rainbow as your profile picture. If you want them to stop hating lesbians, don't wear a lesbian-themed shirt every day. If you want people to stop hating bisexuals. don't feel the need to fuck every slightly attractive man or woman you see.

Case closed.

I must say I agree with you to some degree. Myself being a homosexual, it's not really a defining part of my life nor is it often brought up. Do I often think about my sexuality? Absolutely, it is a part of who I am, but it isn't everything I am. To be honest, I understand the fact that certain people may be a bit more flamboyant than others by nature, but when someone finds out that they're gay or bisexual and begins to act a certain way because of that, I find it somewhat insulting. I'll say without hesitation, if asked, that I do believe in equal civil rights and if further asked, I'll admit that I am gay. What I won't do is bring up my sexuality every two minutes to my friends and dance half naked in the street for gay rights. Hell, I am a bit feminine and enjoy other guys who are such, but there's a line that can easily be crossed between how someone acts by nature and how someone acts just to prove either a stereotype or a specific trait because apparently everyone has to know. Hell, had someone brought up the fact that they're Catholic or Jewish every two minutes and acted or dressed that way just to get all up in your face and draw attention, I'd be fairly angry too as I don't want it shoved down my throat. Same goes for most people who tend to want attention from everyone just because they have a certain trait or religious belief. I'd rather not have other's opinions or ideals shoved down my throat, but I will absolutely respect one's opinion as long it isn't obnoxiously presented.

All cultures and new generations look for ways to express themselves. Then it turns ugly.

I agree with that statement.

At 10/28/12 08:18 PM, Cootie wrote: I honestly think that flaming gays are hurting the gay community to a large degree. They tend to live up to the gay stereotypes and give ignorant bigots what they want the most.

I thought what they wanted the most was for nobody to be gay.

On the bright side I never saw anything that colorful.

At 10/28/12 08:18 PM, Cootie wrote: I honestly think that flaming gays are hurting the gay community to a large degree. They tend to live up to the gay stereotypes and give ignorant bigots what they want the most.

I'm bisexual, and I agree with the fuck out of this.

The whining, the lisps, the promiscuity, the inability to accept the fact that people can respectably not be okay with homosexuality, all of that bullshit needs to go.

Agreed, faggots are the ones thats making themselves look bad.

At 10/28/12 07:10 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: A great man once explained the difference between a faggot and a gay man. He said a faggot is a flamboyant asshole who flaunts his sexuality and never fails to mention it in everyday conversation,

I believe you just described Chronamut perfectly.

At 10/28/12 08:51 PM, Light wrote: There's nothing respectable about disapproving homosexuality. There's no logical reason to oppose it.

I don't know about no logic....just throwing this out there. Don't take this seriously... not a real opinion of mine....but lets say hypothetically in the most extreme unlikely scenario. Maybe if there was one woman and one man left on earth after the end of the world, and there are no other measure of injecting sperm to restart the human race or any other reproductive measure. Then maybe being gay can be bad thing.

Let me restate I do not think it's wrong to be gay. You can throw a idea of woman having her tubes tied or the man having his balls cut off.

At 10/28/12 08:28 PM, Tankdown wrote: On the bright side I never saw anything that colorful.

Then you've never eaten a bag of skittles.

Why do you care about what they do enough to make a thread about it? Almost every demographic annoys me to some extent - I bet if I hung around with you and your buddies for a few days I'd soon get irritated by all of your quirks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I were made to feel ashamed and guilty and forced to hide an essential part of who I was for my entire life only to finally overcome all those obstacles and come out, I'd be shouting it off the top of a fucking mountain too.

I've been fortunate enough to never have to be in that situation, but I can still totally empathize with it.

Homosexuals and bisexuals aren't even proper terms to describe the actions of those who commit themselves to intimacy with the same sex; this would be more properly associated to a psychological disorder, hence why they are obstructing the personality strand and are screwing with their gender inorder to preserve this entirely misconceived notion [being 'attracted' to the same sex makes you a 'homosexual' or 'bisexual'].

The terms, themselves, are even improper. Rubbing your meat together is not even sex. 'homo' means same, but in the relationship; one guy is more girlish than the other, and one girl is more guyish than the other.

This is as bad as religious dogma.

At 10/29/12 07:37 AM, Entice wrote: Since when was sexuality and relationships not a huge part of everyone's lives? Especially when many people still don't recognize yours?

Do you know what is more important than your retarded relationships that are built entirely off your lack of sexual control and blind lust for anything that makes your libido go ''OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO''?

A relationship with logic and reason. Do you have that? No -- if you did, you would not be in those obviously logically inept relationships based off of logically inept idelogies. Hell, even the terms used in the relationship are logically inept.

When we are gay, we typically psychologically identify more with the opposite gender. That's why gay people act, well, gay. So it's actually natural for many gays to act more or less flamboyant. The real problem is those who force that flamboyancy. Those who really TRY to act stereotypically gay to let people know are indeed the problem. However, those who act 'gay' just because they are indeed gay are no problem at all.

Ugh.

At 10/29/12 07:27 AM, Insanctuary wrote: this would be more properly associated to a psychological disorder

No, because "disorder" suggests that the condition is somehow detrimental to the person or to the people around them, which is clearly not the case with gay people.

hence why they are obstructing the personality strand and are screwing with their gender.

Sex and gender are not the same thing. There's no such thing as a naturally correct gender to be "screwed" with because gender is a social construct.

The terms, themselves, are even improper. Rubbing your meat together is not even sex.

Please tell me you're joking.

'homo' means same, but in the relationship; one guy is more girlish than the other, and one girl is more guyish than the other.

Congratulations, your understanding of human sexuality is roughly equal to that of people in medieval times. These things are infinitely more complicated than you're claiming, and this kind of reactionary reductive bullshit isn't productive for anyone.

At 10/29/12 08:18 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Ugh.

At 10/29/12 07:27 AM, Insanctuary wrote: this would be more properly associated to a psychological disorder

No, because "disorder" suggests that the condition is somehow detrimental to the person or to the people around them, which is clearly not the case with gay people.

Then you are a full-fledged retard for letting full-fledged retards convince themselves they are not full-fledged retards. It is a serious disorder; this gender role switching mechanism has nothing to do with their sexuality -- it has everything to do with their childhood insecurities. Men turn submissive; and women turn aggressive. These are not healthy mechanisms, and they are only there as a mental safe-gate. People are mixing this with their blind lust and thinking all of this actually exists, when it clearly does not. The only think that exists is their stupidity.

hence why they are obstructing the personality strand and are screwing with their gender.

Sex and gender are not the same thing. There's no such thing as a naturally correct gender to be "screwed" with because gender is a social construct.

When you are having sex, and trying to by-pass the natural functionality of nature; you are god damned correlation sex with gender rather you want to admit to it or not.

The terms, themselves, are even improper. Rubbing your meat together is not even sex.

Please tell me you're joking.

No, I am not. Sex is entirely for 'coitus'. Not rubbing your meat together. Humans have the ability to project their sexual fantasies and feelings onto anything in the world. Being sexually attracted to the same sex is lust; and nothing special -- never will be special -- EVER.

'homo' means same, but in the relationship; one guy is more girlish than the other, and one girl is more guyish than the other.

Congratulations, your understanding of human sexuality is roughly equal to that of people in medieval times. These things are infinitely more complicated than you're claiming, and this kind of reactionary reductive bullshit isn't productive for anyone.

Haha, complicated? Please, don't flatter your so called 'argument'. I only see ignorance sitting on a self-acclaimed throne. Homosexuals are no more difficult than religious people, political parties and conspiracy theorists. You are all bat shit crazy. Have 0 evidence. Argue like monkeys. Bend logic to fit in your nonsense. Act like children when you don't get your god damned way. You are all insecure brats -- period

At 10/29/12 08:31 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

'homo' means same, but in the relationship; one guy is more girlish than the other, and one girl is more guyish than the other.

Congratulations, your understanding of human sexuality is roughly equal to that of people in medieval times. These things are infinitely more complicated than you're claiming, and this kind of reactionary reductive bullshit isn't productive for anyone.

Haha, complicated? Please, don't flatter your so called 'argument'. I only see ignorance sitting on a self-acclaimed throne. Homosexuals are no more difficult than religious people, political parties and conspiracy theorists.

For someone who appears to dislike homosexuality, you clearly love probing your own arsehole for theories. Have you ever read anything about sex and gender at all, or are you just going with your gut?

At 10/29/12 08:43 AM, Earfetish wrote: For someone who appears to dislike homosexuality, you clearly love probing your own arsehole for theories. Have you ever read anything about sex and gender at all, or are you just going with your gut?

I understand sex and gender and the psychological roles that play in them -- it is you that clearly has no fucking clue. You are like a Christian telling an Atheist they don't understand the Bible.

Get off your high horse and figure it out. Those who crawl see more than those on their god damned pedestals.

At 10/29/12 08:49 AM, Insanctuary wrote: I understand sex and gender and the psychological roles that play in them -- it is you that clearly has no fucking clue. You are like a Christian telling an Atheist they don't understand the Bible.

I studied sex and gender 7 years ago in A level Sociology - while this doesn't make me an expert on the subject, I know that gender roles are meaningless when it comes to who you find attractive.

For instance, I could have a penis, but I could also do the dishes, cook food, enjoy flowers and ponies and dress in pink, and I go out with a tomboy who likes fast cars, horror movies, boxing and who wears blue jeans and a t-shirt. What a mindfuck.

You might want to try and tone down the 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong and stupid' attitude you're displaying, too. Believe it or not, you do not have the entire world figured out.

At 10/29/12 08:58 AM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: but also people who constantly bring their gender, race or religion into any conversation and live up to stereotypes as if it's some kind of noteworthy attribute

God forbid anyone should be proud of their cultural heritage...

At 10/29/12 08:56 AM, Earfetish wrote: I studied sex and gender 7 years ago in A level Sociology - while this doesn't make me an expert on the subject, I know that gender roles are meaningless when it comes to who you find attractive.

I hope you know that your scholastic studies came from systematical vomit. Anybody can study something and act like they suddenly understand it all. I will contest you and say that gender roles play a HUGE part in sexual relations. The mind labels and extracts value on individual objects. There are parts of our body that are desired by different people because our bodies are models of the abstract of which we abuse with our blind lust.

For instance, I could have a penis, but I could also do the dishes, cook food, enjoy flowers and ponies and dress in pink, and I go out with a tomboy who likes fast cars, horror movies, boxing and who wears blue jeans and a t-shirt. What a mindfuck.

This was not my point. Your actions have nothing to do with your gender or sexuality. You are completely off the grid here, son. My point is that if people can fuck themselves with inanimate objects and fucking food of all things; then everything else sexually related is nothing special.

You might want to try and tone down the 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong and stupid' attitude you're displaying, too. Believe it or not, you do not have the entire world figured out.

I know I don't have the entire world figured out, but I do know that I have it more figured out than you guys do.

Oh, so you're outright denying that the emotion of sexual love between two partners exists! Good luck with that.

If I've got you wrong, you're not writing your thoughts down in the clearest possible manner anyway.

At 10/29/12 09:09 AM, Earfetish wrote: Oh, so you're outright denying that the emotion of sexual love between two partners exists! Good luck with that.

Love may be an illusion, but loving is an art.

The thing is, there is no logical reason behind homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activities. It is all bent out of shape by misconceptions, logical fallacies, calumny and teenage angst riddled ignorance. The people who argue for it are as retarded as people who argue for Mitt Romeny, who argue for Anti-Abortion, who argue for Religion, who argue for a conspiracy theory -- it is absolutely inane on all levels.

People are fighting a war over fucking childish illusions.

At 10/29/12 09:12 AM, Insanctuary wrote: People are fighting a war over fucking childish illusions.

Oh. I tend to think that gay people might actually know what's going on in their own head better than I do and that if they want to get married then they should be allowed to. There are many places in the world where homosexual activity is punished by the death penalty and it was only very recently that it stopped having harsh punishments in the US and UK. I don't see why you would call these concerns 'childish illusions' when they seem real to me.

At 10/29/12 09:17 AM, Earfetish wrote: Oh. I tend to think that gay people might actually know what's going on in their own head better than I do and that if they want to get married then they should be allowed to. There are many places in the world where homosexual activity is punished by the death penalty and it was only very recently that it stopped having harsh punishments in the US and UK. I don't see why you would call these concerns 'childish illusions' when they seem real to me.

This 'people know themselves better' bullshit needs to end pronto. This is a cop-out for people to avoid having people attack them for their problems. If people have problems, then it is reasonable to conclude they've got no fucking clue of themselves.

I don't want to punish them by death; I want this sillyness to end. It is a giant plague of ignorance to our society.

They are childish delusions. They are so desperate they have to accuse 0.5% of the animal kingdom as being gay. They have to make up some 'gay' gene. They have to misquote Richard Dawkins. Real logical people don't do this because they are actually sane and aren't batshit crazy desperate neanderthals who base their entire life over their own childhood insecurity riddle misconceptions.

Oh lordy. Great topics today.

At 10/29/12 09:31 AM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: Earfetish, don't bother with that self-loathing, attention-whoring, pseudo-intellectual, severely damaged cunt. He just makes intentionally false assumptions, talks down to everyone, pretends to know abstract shit that he says that we don't know and then continuously trips over his cock when asked for evidence because "there's such thing as solid evidence, everything is subjective, durrr hurrr"

As if you aren't an insecure, ignorant, poorly acknowledged angry child? Your ideas are all riddled with so much grief and anger. You are very detatched from reality and sense. You spew false assertions and do nothing to back them up.

When this argument finally ends, you'll actually regret not doing anything worthy with the time it took to deal with this idiot. I guarantee it.

You're just mad because I slaughtered you in our other discussions. You had no way to retaliate. You cowered out of our debates because all you ever had to offer was easy shots and ad hominems.

At 10/29/12 09:42 AM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: ad hominems

Thank you for being of assistance to Insanctuary's psychology lessons.