• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

why can't we have a relationship with other men?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
They get them because they are living, breathing human beings.
That is about what I thought. Ridiculous.

Think gay rights parades are vile and disgusting? Don't go to them.
Never have but they pipe them into our homes anyway.


Men are more promiscuous than women, in general. Straight men are too, in general.
Agreed. So?


You can be disgusted by whatever you want. Other people are allowed to be disgusted by your disgust and to say so.
I have never commented on anyone's rights concerning what offends them in recent memory.


What massive suffering are gay people causing to others?
This is nuts. The most prolific debater of any issue (Agnostic75) I have ever seen, has debated me on homosexuality for at least a few hundred posts and has never questioned this fact of reality. They have even conceded that homosexuals have more health problems in general than heterosexuals. I have never even heard a gay spokesperson deny this. I have supplied at least 30 sources proving this including the CDC. I just can't post them anymore if what I have is not enough. You may reject 75% of them for the heck of it and you are still left with massive amounts of studies. If reality is no longer common ground there no longer exists a reason for debate.


The justifying gain gay people get from relationships are the same justifying gains heterosexuals get from relationships. The only difference being, one of those things disgusts you and one doesn't. So what?
I can in theory grant that but in makes no difference. It must outweigh the damage it causes. No physical gratification alone can justify massive increases in suffering, deaths, and billions of dollars even just by those who do not practice the behavior.

It's a little weird for someone to repeatedly claim that gay people are causing massive suffering to other people without explaining exactly what that entails.
I have in every level of detail from every sort of source including homosexual sources imaginable. I even gave a list of just the non-STD damage that can occur from just male on male sex. I however am not doing so over and over (at least more so than I have).

Let me ask you a question. Forgetting all the myriad of STD's that are spread by homosexuality at a grater rate than without it, forgetting all the billions that it costs to treat the effects of, Forgetting it has no corresponding justifying gain, even forgetting the non STD health issues for a minute. Can you even grant the potential physical damage (non STD) that the simple male anatomy suggests could result? I am having a massive problem finding out what aspects of reality you and Flame will acknowledge exist to allow any theoretical resolution to occur.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in significant amounts. As so far no one has even attempted to deny this and I am still shocked that you might be.2. That the behavior has no corresponding benefit that justifies the harm it causes to even those who do not practice it.

Okay, now you're just being delusional. Several people have denied AND refuted your claims, with good reason. And you have failed to adequately support them.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Holy crap a post increases in size exponentially when you reply.
I try to respond individually to every argument or claim made in my replies. I'll try to reign it in in the future, particularly as a lot of posters appear to be addressing you right now and you are making a sincere effort to respond to all of them.

You claimed something concerning rights in your defense of Homosexuality. Where does it get them? I made no claims about rights. I have no obligation concerning them.
Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have said that you are disgusted by gay parades and activities, and I am saying that this is not an argument of any kind since homosexuals have a right to parade just as much as anyone else does regardless of your personal reaction to it.

I did not claim it as necessarily representative but the disgusting behavior that the large city gay parades have resulted in is common knowledge. I am still trying to determine if you are in denial or have a context or amount disagreement. Once I determine that the common ground of reality is not on which a debate can take place I usually determine the debate should not take place. I am going to consolidate this down at the bottom for this purpose.
You need to understand that what you consider "disgusting behavior" is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Until you explain to me exactly what these behaviors were that you consider disgusting, I cannot find any common ground with you on the issue. I live in a city that has regular gay pride parades, events and a gay village, and in all my years of living here and attending these events and places I have seen nothing any more "disgusting" to me than I see regularly at any other festival, parade or party.

If you claim to have them then you should support them. I didn't yet will do it for you. Even the non-Christian Jefferson said that only our creator granted rights. On what basis do you find rights outside this? Who has them to dispense? Whatever they are, outside of God they are subjective, ever changing, and opinion based and so are no part of any justification. You would have saved time supplying he source instead of deflecting.
I'm not going to get into another argument with you about whether morals or rights have any purpose outside of God's existence. This is not a debate about God, it is a debate about gay rights and the specific claims you have made about homosexuals. Whether or not you admit it, human rights is an entirely secular concept, and for you to dismiss them on this basis is ludicrous.

For the sake of time I will grant this but my point was one of prevalence, not equivalence.
Prevalence? In what way is NAMBLA prevalent to gay rights?

Rights again. Where do you get them from? Hitler, Jefferson, Adams, Stalin, me, you? I resent a concept defended at such a cost being trivialized by anyone who wishes to defend their personal desires. Please stop claiming to have them or defend them.
If you don't understand human rights, you are not qualified to have this debate on any level. Human rights are a secular concept, and are applied universally as a matter of basic human equality. If you have difficulty seeing how killing or imprisoning homosexuals is a gross infringement of human rights that is entirely separate of your supposed religious doctrine telling you what to think, then your moral compass is dangerously flawed.

I have given maybe 50 studies from at least 30 sources including the CDC and even homosexual sources. Is your entire position a denial of anything that is inconvenient.
I've not denied a single fact you've presented, just the reliability of their representation and sources.

I keep looking for any common ground to debate the issue and you deny all of them and no basis whatever. Rights that do not exist, common knowledge of parade behavior, and now studies from every source conceivable are out. What is left besides flame's opinion?
You presented me with four sources (and Mystic presented two), none of which are in any way compelling or indicative of your claims about homosexual relationships being demonstrably more harmful to society than heterosexual relationships. If you want to find common ground, you can start by accepting that rights DO exist, and your sources are largely biased.

What difference does it make if you deny on convenience.
Deny what? The article simply states that young gay men are more promiscuous than young straight men. This is not remotely surprising when you consider that men, in general, are more promiscuous than women. The article doesn't seem to hold your contention that this is a bad thing as long as responsible sexual practices are maintained within consenting relationships. This is not a killing blow for your "homosexuality is destructive to society" argument.

What does caught out mean?
Caught red-handed.

If reality is no longer a field where issues can be settled I see no point in debating opinions.
What reality? You've presented nothing but total trash. Your facts don't demonstrate the truth of your claims.

You have contested nothing. You have claimed and refused to even attempt support, you have rejected based on bias you did not even attempt to demonstrate, and you have contested common knowledge with opinion and then objected to opinion that weren't opinions and yelled straw man every few responses for good measure.
You have claimed facts and supported nothing. You have claimed common knowledge and then presented opinion. And now you are getting indignant because I refuse to take your extremely meagre sources as having any validity? I never denied their facts, just their reliability and the notion that they support your sweeping claims. So far, your argument is unconvincing to say the least. The only airtight facts you have presented are "certain diseases are more prevalent in gay relationships" (which is as asinine as pointing out that certain diseases are more prevalent in any particular group as a-posed to any other), and "young gay men are more promiscuous". Hardly compelling facts that justify your argument. These are not indicative of anything that you have claimed thus far.

The rest is in the same unsupported vein so I will again post my two contentions and hope you contest them with more than "rights you will not source", "bias not substantiated by anything", and the obligatory "straw man" accusation sprinkled throughout.
Or, you could respond to my arguments instead of deflecting them.

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in significant amounts. As so far no one has even attempted to deny this and I am still shocked that you might be.
Lots of people have, and you have yet to sufficiently support it.

2. That the behavior has no corresponding benefit that justifies the harm it causes to even those who do not practice it.
I'm still waiting on this list of benefits that exist in heterosexual relationships that do not exist in homosexual relationships. Will you be providing that any time soon?

Yelling bias, straw man, and rights not clearly shown to exist will cause me to conclude that denial prevents the issue from being concluded and give it up. Good luck.
The only person in denial is the person who denies the existence of human rights. As soon as you acknowledge that they do, and provide me with a list of benefits exclusive to heterosexual relationships, we can talk about who is in denial about what. I gave specific reasons why I rejected your sources and why I consider your facts to be entirely irrelevant to your claims, and your only response is to accuse me of being in denial, and yet you have accused me of deflecting.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Okay, now you're just being delusional. Several people have denied AND refuted your claims, with good reason. And you have failed to adequately support them.
One of is and that is for sure but as the CDC is on my side I will take my chances. Many have denied yet no one has even attempted to refute my claims. I take it you did not even bother to look through the posts where I have exhaustively given secular and even a few homosexual sources. I still can not even believe you would attempt to deny this. I am not posting more sources than I have until you or anyone else does the slightest thing to justify rejection of what I have already posted In fact simply chunk 50% of them as pity points and justify ignoring just the 50% that is left. Even better will you let the CDCs data on this issue settle the issue?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is about what I thought. Ridiculous.

Yes, it is a ridiculous notion that living, breathing human beings should be granted the same rights as all other living, breathing human beings.:rolleyes: You’ve got me there!

Never have but they pipe them into our homes anyway.

Oh, they do? Is your home on the parade route?

Agreed. So?

So it’s not necessarily the case that GAY men are more promiscuous than everyone else in the world. That’s what.
It’s clearly gay males you have a problem with, given that you rarely mention gay females.

I have never commented on anyone's rights concerning what offends them in recent memory.

Robin 1: What? So I am not allowed to be disgusted by anything? Who is it that is intolerant again? I personally did not use disgusting as an argument but I did use the massive harm that comes from using organs in ways they were unintended for, causing abhorrent damage. Is that not allowed either?

This is nuts. The most prolific debater of any issue (Agnostic75) I have ever seen, has debated me on homosexuality for at least a few hundred posts and has never questioned this fact of reality.

Sure he has. Maybe your opinions don’t equate to “facts of reality.”

They have even conceded that homosexuals have more health problems in general than heterosexuals. I have never even heard a gay spokesperson deny this.

I’m not so sure that he did.

I have supplied at least 30 sources proving this including the CDC. I just can't post them anymore if what I have is not enough. You may reject 75% of them for the heck of it and you are still left with massive amounts of studies. If reality is no longer common ground there no longer exists a reason for debate.

The sources you provided were dubious, at best. Most were impossible to find primary sources for, and most were very poorly cited.

How many sources did I provide for you showing that “gay reparative therapy” is complete and utter nonsense and yet you still believe it works? Let’s not pretend that you really care about facts, when it comes to this subject. Except when you seem to think your opinion constitutes verifiable fact.

I can in theory grant that but in makes no difference. It must outweigh the damage it causes.

It must? Really? Says who?

So when do we put the kibosh on heterosexual relationships then? They cause a ton of damage. Divorce, broken homes, STDs. It’s terrible!

No physical gratification alone can justify massive increases in suffering, deaths, and billions of dollars even just by those who do not practice the behavior.

Evidence please.

By the way, I’ve pointed out to you before and so have several other posters, that gay relationships aren’t simply all about sex and nothing else. Just like heterosexual relationships aren’t. When you keep harping on this physical gratification stuff, we know where your mind is.

I have in every level of detail from every sort of source including homosexual sources imaginable. I even gave a list of just the non-STD damage that can occur from just male on male sex. I however am not doing so over and over (at least more so than I have).

How does that affect people who aren’t in the relationship? You keep saying that gay activity causes billions of dollars in damage and that it directly affects people who aren’t gay and have nothing to do with any of it.

Let me ask you a question. Forgetting all the 1.myriad of STD's that are spread by homosexuality at a grater rate than without it, forgetting all the 2. billions that it costs to treat the effects of, 3. Forgetting it has no corresponding justifying gain, even forgetting the non STD health issues for a minute.
1. Heterosexuals are just as good at transmitting STDs as homosexuals are.
2. See #1.
3. According to the personal opinion of Robin1.

Can you even grant the potential physical damage (non STD) that the simple male anatomy suggests could result? I am having a massive problem finding out what aspects of reality you and Flame will acknowledge exist to allow any theoretical resolution to occur.
Gay people want to be in relationships for the same reason straight people do. They desire love and companionship, a partner to share their life with, things like that.
They’re kinda human that way. ;)

Straight people do things that can cause physical damage to their bodies as well. It’s not my business.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
One of is and that is for sure but as the CDC is on my side I will take my chances. Many have denied yet no one has even attempted to refute my claims. I take it you did not even bother to look through the posts where I have exhaustively given secular and even a few homosexual sources. I still can not even believe you would attempt to deny this. I am not posting more sources than I have until you or anyone else does the slightest thing to justify rejection of what I have already posted In fact simply chunk 50% of them as pity points and justify ignoring just the 50% that is left. Even better will you let the CDCs data on this issue settle the issue?
The "facts" you have presented don't say what you seem to think they do. They're not making your case for you.

Many have refuted your claims (and continue to do so). I have read all your posts so you can quit telling me to read them. I've seen them all and I've refuted many of them.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I try to respond individually to every argument or claim made in my replies. I'll try to reign it in in the future, particularly as a lot of posters appear to be addressing you right now and you are making a sincere effort to respond to all of them.
I am running short on time but wanted to say a thing or two even if it I do not get to the rest until tomorrow. I have used the word disgusting and meant it personally but it was never the premise of an argument. It was a commentary on an opinion I believe stated as such. However it was not the word I was looking for. I meant to say flagrant. Disgusting is true for me but irrelevant I meant to comment on homosexuality's correspondence with rebellion and it was more of a question than anything. Why the heck are at least the most vocal homosexuals so virulent and flagrant. They seem to go out of the way to throw a behavior in the face of traditional society. That is neither here nor there but something a discussion of the issue always reminds me of. I wanted to clarify what I meant to say even though what I said was truly my opinion it was not the comment I was looking for. Until I can get to the rest I will make you the same offer I did Skeptic which is the only other poster addressing me that I was aware of. Will you let the CDCs numbers on the damage of homosexuality settle the issue my contention number one rests on? You may make any length posts you wish but quality comes at the cost of quantity in my responses. You agreeing with me at least in spirit is refreshing but a little of putting after so much contention. As a veteran and even as a Christian opposition is accustomed to and any agreement a little uncomfortable. I kidding but I am a get to the basics and fast kind of person (and lazy). I am leaving soon and if I do not get to the rest until tomorrow have a good one.
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I will be more than happy to discuss Christianity's influence upon history both good and bad but only in an appropriate thread...

Christianity is just disgusting. I don't want to talk about it. I mean, people should have a right to be Christians. I'm not saying we should outlaw it. But, come on... it's obscene and unnatural and disgusting. Let's admit that. That's all I'm saying.

No it does not in proportion with the amount of people who practice it and anyone who cared about the integrity of conclusions based on statistics would know this, nor even if it was the same would homosexuality be any more justifiable.

Geez. All I have to do is point at the unwanted, malnourished, impoverished children of the world who die horrible, slow, painful deaths.

Heterosexuals make those. Gays don't make those.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Christianity is just disgusting. I don't want to talk about it. I mean, people should have a right to be Christians. I'm not saying we should outlaw it. But, come on... it's obscene and unnatural and disgusting. Let's admit that. That's all I'm saying.
Rage on.


Geez. All I have to do is point at the unwanted, malnourished, impoverished children of the world who die horrible, slow, painful deaths.
To point out what.

Heterosexuals make those. Gays don't make those.
Make those what? You will need to rename yourself incoherent instead of just ambiguous if you keep this up.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
That's pretty funny. I have no rage against Christianity. I think it should be legal and that Christians should even be allowed to marry. People have the right to choose Christianity if they just can't resist their primal lust for faith.

It's just disgusting, obscene and unnatural -- that's really all I'm saying.

Make those what? You will need to rename yourself incoherent instead of just ambiguous if you keep this up.

Babies, man. Heterosexuals make babies but homosexuals don't.

So heterosexuality does a lot more harm to the world than homosexuality does. Without all the men and women chasing their lust for each other indiscriminately, there'd be a lot less suffering.

We need more homosexuals in the world.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I am running short on time but wanted to say a thing or two even if it I do not get to the rest until tomorrow. I have used the word disgusting and meant it personally but it was never the premise of an argument. It was a commentary on an opinion I believe stated as such. However it was not the word I was looking for. I meant to say flagrant. Disgusting is true for me but irrelevant I meant to comment on homosexuality's correspondence with rebellion and it was more of a question than anything. Why the heck are at least the most vocal homosexuals so virulent and flagrant.
Have you never encountered any heterosexuals you could consider "virulent" and "flagrant"? I would say I have encountered more of them than I have flagrant homosexuals.

They seem to go out of the way to throw a behavior in the face of traditional society.
So do the most flagrant members of any culture, sub-culture, trend, clique or social group.

That is neither here nor there but something a discussion of the issue always reminds me of. I wanted to clarify what I meant to say even though what I said was truly my opinion it was not the comment I was looking for. Until I can get to the rest I will make you the same offer I did Skeptic which is the only other poster addressing me that I was aware of. Will you let the CDCs numbers on the damage of homosexuality settle the issue my contention number one rests on?
I have yet to see those numbers specifically - I've only been provided with the six sources I've already mentioned. I could look for those numbers and get back to you on them if you wish.

You may make any length posts you wish but quality comes at the cost of quantity in my responses. You agreeing with me at least in spirit is refreshing but a little of putting after so much contention. As a veteran and even as a Christian opposition is accustomed to and any agreement a little uncomfortable. I kidding but I am a get to the basics and fast kind of person (and lazy). I am leaving soon and if I do not get to the rest until tomorrow have a good one.
That's okay by me. I understand discussions like this can get heated, and I understand, as I'm sure you do of me, that as heated as the debate gets it is only a result of the passion that we have on our particular positions and the difficulty we have in finding common footing. It's difficult not to be frustrated when it feels like the person on the other side of the debate just can't see things that, in your opinion, are so very clear. It's like each one of us is trying to tell the other that the sky is blue.

I await your response, and I will look up the CDC numbers you speak on and, if I have the time, I will respond to them as in depth as I can.

Geez. All I have to do is point at the unwanted, malnourished, impoverished children of the world who die horrible, slow, painful deaths.

Heterosexuals make those. Gays don't make those.
You win the thread.
 
Last edited:

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
That was very polite Mystic. I do not remember you or our debate and in a place where politeness is such a rarity I find that remarkable but my position is summed up in my two main contentions.

Well, it's easy for me to get lost in a debate this long. Gotta hand it to you, you've been going debating with how many people for how long now? :D

FWIW, I had fun in the debate with you. It got heated for a bit, but I'm a humorous kind of gal, and I like folks who are caustic and stand by their principles no matter how much I disagree with them.

The information in post #304 was used to support them but not what my contentions rest upon. Someone whom I give enough credit to possibly know said some of those early statistics were incorrect. I do not know if there is any truth to that but unless they, plus all the others I posted are all wrong, I believe my two main contentions stand.

Okay, and I see you re-stated your two main contentions recently. Thanks for clarifying.

I would also like to differentiate between what I find personally disgusting (I have no more polite word to use), what I find theologically wrong, and what I find logically unsupportable. My main contentions lie only in the latter though some of my comments may stem from the former.

I'll be sure not to invite you to our next Gay Pride event, then, and save everybody some stomach acid. ;)
 

payak

Active Member
Question for gay people, are you born gay or do you became gay, and either way what makes a person gay scientifically in your expert opinions.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Question for gay people, are you born gay or do you became gay, and either way what makes a person gay scientifically in your expert opinions.

I began noticing an attraction to both genders by the time I was 4. I fell in love with Harrison Ford back in the '70s, made my announcement I was in love with him, and was regarded as "cute" and "sweet" for showing such a romantic feeling at such a young age. Then when I saw a woman in a beauty pageant that knocked my socks off and who I fell madly in love with around the same age, I made my announcement I was in love with her and wanting to marry her, and was met with a marked silence.

I began to see early on that sharing same sex attraction was not only not supported or encouraged, but that in a way didn't exist. I was called a "dyke" throughout school for my lack of interest in anything girly and how I was caught looking in the locker rooms in middle school. I was terrified of sleepovers and slumber parties because I had to undress and sleep in close proximity to girls that I was extremely attracted to...it's the same type of spark straights feel when being close to somebody of the opposite sex they find very attractive.

Spent much of the time praying away this "sickness" since I had no idea bisexuality was even an orientation. I thought somebody was either straight or gay, period (and people still assume this to be true). As a teenager, once I discovered what bisexuality was after somebody told me about David Bowie, it hit me like a ton of bricks that THAT was just like me. I spent the latter half of my teenaged years becoming more passionate about my Christian faith, sought to be saved as many times as I felt I had fallen short, prayed fervently wanting to be cured of my orientation and just made straight, and suffered some of the worst depression and anxiety in my life. I resorted to cutting myself in preparation for suicide, and in my late teens I found myself with a gun in my mouth ready to pull the trigger due to the profound feeling of failure and self-loathing.

The only thing that got me through was not prayer, not God, not Jesus, not faith, not a fervent desire to change....but an acceptance of my orientation as normal and healthy. I threw away all my notions that I needed to change my orientation and my "behavior" to please a deity and/or a community of people, and simply accepted it all. That was the beginning of the end of my depression and suicidal thoughts.

So, long answer, I know, but that's my story. I refuse to go back to that hell of an existence of where I see myself as sick, twisted, disgusting, and monstrous. People can think whatever they want, but know that seeing me this way, and hoping that I would agree with them, had me ready to check out completely. Anybody with half a heart, IMO, would not want me to suffer that profoundly again just so that they would feel righteous.

For me, then, I've always been bisexual. 40 years and counting.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Question for gay people, are you born gay or do you became gay, and either way what makes a person gay scientifically in your expert opinions.

Well, I'm not gay, but straight, and I can tell you that I never made a choice to be straight. It came to me as easily and with as little thought as being right handed.

So I can't imagine that it would be any different for gay people. I mean, if all gay people faced a choice but straight people didn't, then anyone who faces the choice MUST turn out gay. And that wouldn't be much of a choice now, would it?
 

Wherenextcolumbus

Well-Known Member
I began noticing an attraction to both genders by the time I was 4. I fell in love with Harrison Ford back in the '70s, made my announcement I was in love with him, and was regarded as "cute" and "sweet" for showing such a romantic feeling at such a young age. Then when I saw a woman in a beauty pageant that knocked my socks off and who I fell madly in love with around the same age, I made my announcement I was in love with her and wanting to marry her, and was met with a marked silence.

I began to see early on that sharing same sex attraction was not only not supported or encouraged, but that in a way didn't exist. I was called a "dyke" throughout school for my lack of interest in anything girly and how I was caught looking in the locker rooms in middle school. I was terrified of sleepovers and slumber parties because I had to undress and sleep in close proximity to girls that I was extremely attracted to...it's the same type of spark straights feel when being close to somebody of the opposite sex they find very attractive.

Spent much of the time praying away this "sickness" since I had no idea bisexuality was even an orientation. I thought somebody was either straight or gay, period (and people still assume this to be true). As a teenager, once I discovered what bisexuality was after somebody told me about David Bowie, it hit me like a ton of bricks that THAT was just like me. I spent the latter half of my teenaged years becoming more passionate about my Christian faith, sought to be saved as many times as I felt I had fallen short, prayed fervently wanting to be cured of my orientation and just made straight, and suffered some of the worst depression and anxiety in my life. I resorted to cutting myself in preparation for suicide, and in my late teens I found myself with a gun in my mouth ready to pull the trigger due to the profound feeling of failure and self-loathing.

The only thing that got me through was not prayer, not God, not Jesus, not faith, not a fervent desire to change....but an acceptance of my orientation as normal and healthy. I threw away all my notions that I needed to change my orientation and my "behavior" to please a deity and/or a community of people, and simply accepted it all. That was the beginning of the end of my depression and suicidal thoughts.

So, long answer, I know, but that's my story. I refuse to go back to that hell of an existence of where I see myself as sick, twisted, disgusting, and monstrous. People can think whatever they want, but know that seeing me this way, and hoping that I would agree with them, had me ready to check out completely. Anybody with half a heart, IMO, would not want me to suffer that profoundly again just so that they would feel righteous.

For me, then, I've always been bisexual. 40 years and counting.

I think there is a misconception that children because puberty are not sexual in any way. False! I remember, me and my best friend (a girl) pretended to be lovers once she was the man and I was the woman, she pretended she was taking my clothes off and I remember feeling aroused.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, I'm not gay, but straight, and I can tell you that I never made a choice to be straight. It came to me as easily and with as little thought as being right handed.
I recall making the decision to be straight. It wasn't because I wanted to be "normal", which is grossly over-rated (& not really achievable anyway). It was about observing that straight was the easiest path...macho heteros didn't get picked on (like Johnny A in elementary school), heteros didn't have to be so sociable, heteros drove faster cars, & they weren't expected to dress in coordinated colors. There was the downside that it involved girls, who had cooties, were inscrutable, & had no interest in metallurgy . But I learned to cope with their shortcomings, & even pretend to be acceptable. It was a good choice. But I do dress in coordinated colors. That's not a matter of choice.
 
Last edited:

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I recall making the decision to be straight. It wasn't because I wanted to be "normal", which is grossly over-rated (& not really achievable anyway). It was about observing that straight was the easiest path...macho heteros didn't get picked on (like Johnny A in elementary school), heteros didn't have to be so sociable, heteros drove faster cars, & they weren't expected to dress in coordinated colors. There was the downside that it involved girls, who had cooties, were inscrutable, & had no interest in metallurgy . But I learned to cope with their shortcomings, & even pretend to be acceptable. It was a good choice. But I do dress in coordinated colors. That's not a matter of choice.

That's not helping. *flings cat toy*
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
I recall making the decision to be straight. It wasn't because I wanted to be "normal", which is grossly over-rated (& not really achievable anyway). It was about observing that straight was the easiest path...macho heteros didn't get picked on (like Johnny A in elementary school), heteros didn't have to be so sociable, heteros drove faster cars, & they weren't expected to dress in coordinated colors. There was the downside that it involved girls, who had cooties, were inscrutable, & had no interest in metallurgy . But I learned to cope with their shortcomings, & even pretend to be acceptable. It was a good choice. But I do dress in coordinated colors. That's not a matter of choice.

Not sure if joking
futuramafry.jpg

or serious.

I suspect shenanigans.
 
Last edited:
Top