Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I often wonder if this may be a legitimate feeling that has arisen among many gays and lesbians. I can speak for myself in saying that I have never been too fond of heterosexuals. Regardless of how "tolerant" and "accepting" they claim to be, you're always aware of the fact that you have "other" status in their eyes, and your sexual orientation is what distinguishes you. In this sense, you are invariably a spectacle, an ongoing but never fully understood or acknowledged experiment in humanity.
This is what living in a straight society that relishes male-female relations has done to gays and lesbians. Once the social-sexual categories of straight, gay, and bisexual were defined decades ago, the battle lines were drawn and everyone unconsciously chose sides. Gays must "prove" that we are deserving of equal rights. We must "prove" that we did not make a choice. We must "prove" that our love is the same as our heterosexual counterparts. And in the midst of this, we are contradicted, mocked, scorned, and distorted.
I find myself becoming increasingly agitated, and that is why I have ran out of patience and don't feel the need to try anymore. I simply cannot and will not respect a dissenting opinion on being gay, and I cannot accept the question of "why" I am gay. Maybe, just maybe, the appropriate question is and always has been: Why are you straight?
But being homosexual IS being in the minority. I happen to think that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore a "natural" state of being. I don't think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. I mean, some people do--obviously--but that's not the norm. Being "gay," in my view, is no less "normal" than being "straight." But however natural homosexuality is, it is still very much in the minority. And it will always be that way, precisely because it's a natural deviation from the norm--which is, like it or not, heterosexual. The whole purpose of reproductive organs is to reproduce, so of course heterosexuality is the norm for the species. People's attitudes toward homosexuality, however, are a different thing. It's stupid to be anti-gay or anti-lesbian. It's like being anti-rain. Or anti-snow. You might as well be anti-Nature.
But being homosexual IS being in the minority. I happen to think that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore a "natural" state of being. I don't think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. I mean, some people do--obviously--but that's not the norm. Being "gay," in my view, is no less "normal" than being "straight." But however natural homosexuality is, it is still very much in the minority. And it will always be that way, precisely because it's a natural deviation from the norm--which is, like it or not, heterosexual. The whole purpose of reproductive organs is to reproduce, so of course heterosexuality is the norm for the species. People's attitudes toward homosexuality, however, are a different thing. It's stupid to be anti-gay or anti-lesbian. It's like being anti-rain. Or anti-snow. You might as well be anti-Nature.
The "norm" you are speaking of isn't heterosexuality, it's reproduction. You therefore claim heterosexuality is normal solely because of reproduction, and that is entirely subjective.
I guess you can start a homosexual community but in a generation it will have died out. That is the reason hetero is the norm. They can reproduce themselves normally. Your community would need some heteros to help make it grow.
This is not true at all. People might frown at someone who is belligerent about gun ownership - but they generally don't mind gun owners in general - the rape victim, the taxi driver, the police officer, the sportsman - people are fairly accepting of many cases of gun ownership. And where in the country can you get lashed to a fence and beaten to death because you own a gun? The two situations are miles apart.
First of all, maybe the reason this hasn't happened is because of the gun in question
Secondly, If you're going to bring Matt Shephard from Laramie into this then I'm going to bring up 12-year oldJesse Dirkhising, who was raped and murdered by two gay men. Oh wait, you've never heard of him because of much less MSM coverage. There are evil people of all human groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idahogie
I disagree. The OP is definitely angry. But I think I've stated his case pretty well - from my point of view. How would you feel if you were a minority that had been despised up until recently. And in your fight for rights, all your defenders made sure to emphasize that they weren't like you?
I have no idea and neither do you actually. I'd like to think I'd respond with a little less childish extremism though.
The "norm" you are speaking of isn't heterosexuality, it's reproduction. You therefore claim heterosexuality is normal solely because of reproduction, and that is entirely subjective.
I'm sorry, but I think both homosexuality and heterosexuality are "normal." But the "norm" is heterosexuality, in terms of an evolutionary "norm." Of course it is. Without reproduction, the species dies. And reproduction requires heterosexuality. There's no reason to pass judgment on either homosexuals, heterosexuals, or Nature itself. It just is what it is.
I'm sorry, but I think both homosexuality and heterosexuality are "normal." But the "norm" is heterosexuality, in terms of an evolutionary "norm." Of course it is. Without reproduction, the species dies. And reproduction requires heterosexuality. There's no reason to pass judgment on either homosexuals, heterosexuals, or Nature itself. It just is what it is.
No, it is what YOU say it is. And if you can get enough people to agree with you, then the topic becomes a foregone conclusion. You are comfortable in your blissful heterosexual world of reproduction to make such pronouncements, but you clearly do not understand the implications of what you are saying.
No, it is what YOU say it is. And if you can get enough people to agree with you, then the topic becomes a foregone conclusion. You are comfortable in your blissful heterosexual world of reproduction to make such pronouncements, but you clearly do not understand the implications of what you are saying.
What implications? It is what it is. Most mammal species include a percentage of homosexual members, and even bisexual members in some species. The fact that the vast majority of the members of any species of mammal are heterosexual is simply a fact of Nature. What do "implications" have to do with it?
What implications? It is what it is. Most mammal species include a percentage of homosexual members, and even bisexual members in some species. The fact that the vast majority of the members of any species of mammal are heterosexual is simply a fact of Nature. What do "implications" have to do with it?
Nevermind. I give up. Carry on with whatever it is you people do.
Nevermind. I give up. Carry on with whatever it is you people do.
Sorry. I tried to understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
