Homosexuality, does it really bother you?

[Journeyman]

Why is it such a big deal what a human beings sexual preference is?

The only way I see this as a big deal is if homosexuality goes against your religious beliefs...as long as gays are respectable, I don`t see the big deal...

BTW- I do not think its appropriate for gays to flaunt their sexuality in public (which may seem contradictory) but my point is, why are people so worried about this?

 

[dickman]

I don't mind homosexuals. As long as they keep their affairs private and do not hit on me. What I don't agree with is homosexual priests because even though they are gay, they supposedly have to live a life of celibacy, nevertheless they would be most likely to abuse or sexually molest children.

If that occurs again than forget the police because they would be protected by their bishop, instead you would have to contact my Smith and Wesson.

 

[JudgeWapner]

Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Seymour]

The only people that care about what fags do are pathetic, sorry ass, miserable hicks whose lives are so boring or bad that they have to worry about what others are doing all day. Everytime I see these nuts protesting against gays I really feel sorry for them - I just think of the ugly rag they are married to, the living paycheck by paycheck and their miserable families they go home to - I guess misery does love company so they try to make others miserable like them.

 

[jeffry22]

it doesnt bother me, I kind of enjoy seeing two chicks going at it.(as long as they are not fat)

 

[Meanstreak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW- I do not think its appropriate for gays to flaunt their sexuality in public (which may seem contradictory) but my point is, why are people so worried about this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Contradictory and completely wishy washy ... it's like those people that say 'I'm not a racist, but ...' but my ass, if you start a sentence like that you a racist and if you state something so prejudiced as 'flaunt their sexuality' you are only betraying your true feelings.

You know I don't like the overfed and underbread yuppies driving their ridiculous status symbol SUV's but I realize it's their right so I ignore the morons as they pass me doing 150 talking on thier cell phones.

To each their own ... don't tread on me and I'll do the same.

Peace.

 

[miked429]

will the war in the middle east hurt the price of lubes.i.e.ky jelly and vasoline.i hope not for the homo's sake.you think we are taking it in the ass over gas prices.gays will be really taking it the ass.

 

[dickman]

Miked,

The difference is that they like it!

 

[angusr]

An interesting psychological study was performed where a group of college men (who self-identified as heterosexual) were asked about their attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality. They were then hooked up to a machine that measured their sexual response (heart rate, blood flow to penis, etc..) and were shown gay pornography.

The men who had the most accepting and relaxed views about homosexuals were the least likely to be aroused by gay porn. The men who had the most virulent anti-gay attitudes were much more likely to be aroused by the gay porn. The researchers suggested that men who were conflicted about their own sexuality had a tendency to rebel against their homosexual urges and project homophobic type views as a response. So ironic that these men are feeding back into the cycle that tortures them to begin with.

Being gay is completely OK. Gays are not more likely to abuse children as somebody suggested earlier. Anyone who is uneasy about gays . . . get out and make a few gay friends and you will see that they are just people with the same good points and bad points as anybody else.

 

[truthteller]

My wife has a friend who is gay and he is one of the nicest persons I have met. Very kind and generous with everyone but I don't agree with his lifestyle due to relgious reasons.

However it's his choice but would never agree with it.

 

[TheGeneral+]

I have to be honest with myself. I like to watch lesbians, but I do not care to hear about men sucking men. With that said, it is not fair for me to be bias. I refuse to differentiate. People are people. Do what you want.

 

[Journeyman]

I knew the sentence would seem contreadictory, thats why I admited it...

What I meant was, for the sake of minors (impressionable kids) I didn`t think gays parading around flaunting their gayness, in obnoxious ways ...thats not appropriate, IMO...

So basically IMO, gays can do what they want, it does not offend me in the least, at the same time two heterosexual people could be sexually obnoxious in public and I`d say thats not appropriate either...

In America sexuality is overrated , too many stuffy uptight people with nothing better to do....

At the same time I hope to God, I don`t get aroused if I watched two men get it on lol..
<kidding>...If I ever come upon a male homosexual website I just exit...

I have to admit though, I had no idea when two men had sex, that the pitcher entered from the front, not like I gave it alot of thought, but it was surprising...

To each his own just don`t flaunt it...thats all I`m saying, for the sake of kids

 

[Meanstreak]

JMan
Again, I don't understand the qualification ... I would seek to shield my young impressionable daughter from any type of sexual behaviour - gay or straight - that I deemed pornographic.

On the other hand, I would hope to expose her to a healthy understanding of sex and its relationship with maturity and love - both gay and straight.

You nailed it when you observed how America is RIDICULOUSLY SENSITIVE about sex. I mean for CRYING OUT LOUD ... it is the only thing that EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET HAS IN COMMON !! We all love sex ! We are the RESULT of SEX !! DEAL with it !!

Peace.

 

[DarrylParsons]

It's a good point that we are all the result of sex, and it should be emphasized IMO that we are the result of *heterosexual* sex. This highlights the major distinction between the two types of sex -- one creates more humans while the other does not. Kids should not be brought up to regard the two as equivalent lest they lose sight of this essential fact of life.

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Yeah, its really ambiguous...

 

[barman]

Kids are a lot smarter than you seem to give them credit for.

We can easily teach them that a male and a female are required to participate in order to create new life.

And we can do that while also teaching them that those who do not choose to practice sex for procreation should not be unduly discriminated against with regards to constitutional protections.

It's not tough unless you make it so.

 

[DarrylParsons]

I do not underestimate kids' intelligence. They will figure out on their own that creating new human life is a far more significant thing than the question of how adults engage in recreational activities.

I envision a politically correct teacher telling my kids something like: Some of us have a mommy and a daddy, some of us have two mommies, and some of us have two daddies. Whatever the case may be, it is all good and we should accept each other as equals blah blah blah. Of course that's poppycock and the kids will figure that out on their own, but they will be confused first because someone they're supposed to respect is feeding them BS.

I am saying that we are better off by preparing them for what they will experience later because it will give them a sense of identity and purpose and as a bonus they will have more respect for us in our later years.

 

[barman]

DP: I envision a politically correct teacher telling my kids something like: Some of us have a mommy and a daddy, some of us have two mommies, and some of us have two daddies. Whatever the case may be, it is all good and we should accept each other as equals blah blah blah. Of course that's poppycock and the kids will figure that out on their own, but they will be confused first because someone they're supposed to respect is feeding them BS.

BAR: OK, I can see that teacher as well. And no, Johnny can't have two 'daddies' in a biological sense.

But it's easy enough to explain to a kid that such monikers can be quite accurate in a social sense.

My stepson has two 'Daddies'. Now one is obviously his father and the other (me) is a STEPfather. But within our combined family structure it has been perfectly accurate to descibe us both as "Dads".

Many kids have 'Uncles' and "Aunts" that of course are not related in a close biological sense.

But it's not hard to explain that distinction to a kid.

I'm puzzled as to why you think it would be any more difficult to explain to a kid that having two male caregivers - for one example - cannot be accurately described as having Two Daddies.

He could be shown how the child in question (yea, even himself perhaps) was created by the sexual union of a male and a female while at the same time, he lives in a viable family structure that may lack one sex or the other as as a primary 'parent'.

It's admittedly a large paradigm shift for many people, but I've noticed that our society has been able to handle much bigger shifts on other topics. Explaining homosexuality can't be all that hard.

I say that with the presumption that the one doing the explaining is coming from a truthful foundation of information.

 

[captain#5]

I love gays.They are my everyday type of people.


Yeah, right.I am waiting for the next male Steers couple to get pregnant.


The good news is the gays are useless,powerless,and most important harmless.Even though a closet door still exists, I would love to see the Steers go back to the closet.My kids don't have to see another backwards way of life.



Thank god for Johnson @ Johnson coming up with a product called K-Y Jelly.Keep the stock moving.Thank you gay people.Keep marching, so I can see you in the news on most normal Sunday nites.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Bar,

I have no doubt about kids' abilities to understand facts and I also trust teachers to tell the truth about undisputable facts. Still, there are underlying *values* which are felt but not said and these are areas of concern for me.

The key value in question here is that IMO it is BEST for a kid to be brought up by his biological mother and father. It is next best to be brought up by a single biological parent of the same sex plus another person of the opposite sex who the biological parent is in love with. It is third best to be brought up by any other situation involving at least one biological parent. After that there is a huge step down (admittedly IMO only) when we talk about adoption situations and within these the highest ranking is one male and one female. Still further down (a huge way down) is being raised in an orphanage or other institution.

When I say *better* I mean in terms of giving the child a feeling of identity and purpose.

I have nothing against adoption since it is a big improvement over the alternative. However, I believe a spade should be called a spade and we should not sugar coat the stories told to children about the circumstances of their early life. In a classroom situation when learning is the focus I can accept not discussing the subject too much, but to give implied BS that these situations are equivalent is a travesty IMO and exposes the education system's true goals of making peoples' allegiances first and foremost to the system and only as a distant second to their own family.