How can you being gay affect me being straight?

reply to post by G.A.G.


i just want to let all the gays that read this to know that all straight men are not as stupid as this dumb f**k.
i dont know why some men are hate/fear gays.some will say because they are secretly gay and hate themselves, but i dont buy that either. im 100% straight and 100% secure in my sexuality. i know that no one will turn me gay; some people think being gay is a choice. now think about that for a minute. to say someone CHOSE to be gay is to say anyone can choose to be gay. i, for one, cannot choose. nature made me straight and the thought of being gay disgusts me just as a gay man would be disgusted being straight. anyone who thinks its a choice can make the choice themselves to "switch teams." do you really believe they chose to be hated by the rest of the world? even in nature homosexuality is present. do you think you know better than nature? you probably do.
bottome line: some of the most brilliant thinkers, artists and musicians just so happened to be gay. they have a place in society and should be appreciated for their contributions.

Originally posted by DutchCroat
Maybe one doesn't need to find a defence for anal sex. It's the hypocrisy of some posters who blame anal sex for a lot of health problem, but are unwilling to accept that vaginal and oral sex are just as dangerous.

Oral and vaginal sex aren't as dangerous.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Anal sex is far more likely to spread disease, that's why a tiny proportion of the population (gay men) cuase the majority of new HIV infections in this country every year.

1. Not all gay men have anal sex.
2. Straight people have anal sex, too.
3. HIV is spread through vaginal and oral sex, as well.

Still no explanation as to why you think anel sex is normal,this is really the crux of the argument that nobody seem's to be able to explain.

When the gay agenda is talking to children and a child ask the same question,do you just say mom and dad do it to?Ya I know ,K thru 5 would probably not ask that question.........maybe thats why the younger kid's are targeted.

1. Your right
2. Two wrong's don't make right
3. But where did the person passing on HIV get it or better yet where did it originate?

Please answer............thank you.

A child doesn't know anything about sexuality or adult romantic love in terms of heterosexuality, either. You can say, "sometimes adult men and women have strong feelings for each other and want to be around each other all the time, and sometimes they hold hands" to explain that to a child. Likewise, you can say the same about a homosexual couple. It doesn't require any further explanation than that when you're talking to a child, because children aren't sexualized yet at that age.

I'm confused. The argument seems to be, "a child doesn't know anything about sex or adult romantic love," which is true. But that doesn't stop people from explaining heterosexual relationships to them in a simple, straightforward manner as described above. So why shouldn't the same apply to a homosexual relationship? In my opinion to do otherwise is simply a double standard. You don't have to advocate or justify something to a child just to answer a simple question.

Originally posted by macman
By being one less male going after the same female i want?

Nothing. Simple.

That's how I look at it. I love having gay males around. It turns the odds in my favor. Lesbians however. . Damn those lesbians! /sarcasm.

I don't mind having respectful, gay guys around. As far as explaining it to children... If you were speechless then I bet you struggled to explain the first time your kid saw a black or disabled person... Yeah, kids always bring up stuff that seems different to them.

Deal with it; "parent up."

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm confused. The argument seems to be, "a child doesn't know anything about sex or adult romantic love," which is true. But that doesn't stop people from explaining heterosexual relationships to them in a simple, straightforward manner as described above. So why shouldn't the same apply to a homosexual relationship? In my opinion to do otherwise is simply a double standard. You don't have to advocate or justify something to a child just to answer a simple question.

Like I said before, they're essentially asking "why are those men acting differently than all the other men?" Simply saying "they like each other a lot etc. etc." doesn't answer that question.

I don't allow it to affect my family.
Stay away from me, my child, my family and my property.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm confused. The argument seems to be, "a child doesn't know anything about sex or adult romantic love," which is true. But that doesn't stop people from explaining heterosexual relationships to them in a simple, straightforward manner as described above. So why shouldn't the same apply to a homosexual relationship? In my opinion to do otherwise is simply a double standard. You don't have to advocate or justify something to a child just to answer a simple question.

Like I said before, they're essentially asking "why are those men acting differently than all the other men?" Simply saying "they like each other a lot etc. etc." doesn't answer that question.

How about adding, "Those men feel differently than other men, and have the same kinds of strong feeling for one another that men and women do for each other simetimes," ? Children are inherently inquisitive. I doubt saying "men and women have feelings for each other" would end their line of questioning, either, but people still say it.

Originally posted by G.A.G.
reply to post by SubPop79

 

You could have said "because they love each other." Or I could have said that they are fags, but a 5yr old knows little about words "love or fags"

If your son knows "little" about love as a 5-year-old he is in trouble. You need better parenting skills.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I'm confused. The argument seems to be, "a child doesn't know anything about sex or adult romantic love," which is true. But that doesn't stop people from explaining heterosexual relationships to them in a simple, straightforward manner as described above. So why shouldn't the same apply to a homosexual relationship? In my opinion to do otherwise is simply a double standard. You don't have to advocate or justify something to a child just to answer a simple question.

Like I said before, they're essentially asking "why are those men acting differently than all the other men?" Simply saying "they like each other a lot etc. etc." doesn't answer that question.

"Sometimes guys fall in love with other guys, everyone is different."

Ridiculously easy answer. . . Everyone is different. It's called teaching tolerance.

Originally posted by Battleline
reply to post by Helmkat

 

A good point "forced" may be a wrong choise of words at least for you.Why is that children are being taught in various school's that Gay sex is normal when the majority of parent's do not want there kid's subjected to this at a young age.

If the minority "puts" some thing on the majority without consent of the majority or really not even haveing a say in the matter then what is it?

The old adage of "gay's in the closet" is just plain stupid,it has not been that way for many year's now.

Sex education in schools is really a whole different subject if you ask me. If you don't like what your school is teaching there are many avenues people can take to remove their children from the class.

Anyway I think the issue is again terminology. In this case the use of the word "normal". When I see "normal" used as you and many others have it seems to imply that any sex that does not end with the potential for procreation is not "normal". That is a very antiquated view of sex from where I sit, teenage boys must be very "abnormal". What about Hetero couples who use the rythmn method? is that abnormal? What about couples where one or more partners are infertile? Their sex can never lead to children, where does this notion of "normal" fit with them?

Normal is a trap that wants to narrow the spectrum of human sexuality.

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
"Sometimes guys fall in love with other guys, everyone is different."

Ridiculously easy answer. . .

It's a BS answer, they might love each other but most men who love each other don't act that way.

reply to post by G.A.G.


Funny title...

Answer: by covering your butt?

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
"Sometimes guys fall in love with other guys, everyone is different."

Ridiculously easy answer. . .

It's a BS answer, they might love each other but most men who love each other don't act that way.

edit on 25-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

You "love" men, so do I. Do either of us "fall in love" with other men...?

Love comes in many forms. If your kid has not been taught or picked up on the semantics of that by the age of five, I suggest it would be a good time to be a real parent and start educating your kid about nuances.

Originally posted by Helmkat
Anyway I think the issue is again terminology. In this case the use of the word "normal". When I see "normal" used as you and many others have it seems to imply that any sex that does not end with the potential for procreation is not "normal". That is a very antiquated view of sex from where I sit, teenage boys must be very "abnormal". What about Hetero couples who use the rythmn method? is that abnormal? What about couples where one or more partners are infertile? Their sex can never lead to children, where does this notion of "normal" fit with them?

You don't even have to talk about sex itself, when a man rejects every woman on the planet because he prefers to have sex with other men, that is abnormal.

I don't think anyone has suggested that procreation must be the goal for a sexual attraction or act to be considered normal. We have a sexual attraction in the first place primarily to encourage sexual relations with adult human beings of the opposite gender. Being sexually attracted to adult humans of the opposite gender is "normal," being sexually attracted to little kids, or sheep, or the same gender is "abnormal."

just another way to screw society up. for the longest time i was okay with gays(i dont call them fags because thats adding insult) gay marriage dont care but now as i see that its actually demoralizing society im against it. i understand that hey they should be able to love one another. of course but i dont want my kid growing up seeing them holding hands and kissing. it gives the wrong impression. im not scared that my kid will be gay if he or she is then hey im okay with it.

but what im getting at is i would of had no problem telling them hey there are kids around here. i dont want my boy at an impressionable age to see two men public display of affection more or so.
i just think its wrong for kids to grow up in a society where its okay and make them all take classes at a young age that homosexuality is okay. to be honest we have to keep the human race going and that goes against it...well at least my bloodline lives on

Originally posted by SubPop79
reply to post by G.A.G.

 

Well fags are still capable of love, and I surmise that love of men is the basis of homosexuality, so I would be more accurate in saying that they are holding hand because they love each other.

edit on 24-1-2011 by SubPop79 because: (no reason given)

You peeps have it ALL wrong. A fag/CS-er is a straight individual who is willing to bend over and take it in the a** by another straight individual (usually his/her superior)... or they're willing to polish someone's knob... in order to advance themselves in the food chain. That's a FAG.

Being GAY is an entirely different ball game. Pardon the pun.

Originally posted by 1088no5

Originally posted by SubPop79
reply to post by G.A.G.

 

Well fags are still capable of love, and I surmise that love of men is the basis of homosexuality, so I would be more accurate in saying that they are holding hand because they love each other.

edit on 24-1-2011 by SubPop79 because: (no reason given)

You peeps have it ALL wrong. A fag/CS-er is a straight individual who is willing to bend over and take it in the a** by another straight individual (usually his/her superior)... or they're willing to polish someone's knob... in order to advance themselves in the food chain. That's a FAG.

Being GAY is an entirely different ball game. Pardon the pun.

I am pretty sure the Redneck name for a Gay guy is "FAG!"

LOL at all the comments in this thread
People are talking about attraction?

HELLOOOOOOO
The kid was 5 years old at the time, how the hell do you explain attraction to a 5 year old???

The answer is you don't!
You are not supposed to teach attraction to 5 year olds, they should only be thinking about ice cream, playing hide and go seek and playing in the park

reply to post by G.A.G.


I guess I don’t understand you point. Which is screwed up --- 2 men showing affection towards each other in a non offensive way or a parent that is so stuck in his prejudices that he’s at a loss to understand affection between 2 people of the same sex?

Geez...I bet you’d be happier if the 2 men were using their hands to punch each other rather than be affectionate. And it’s not like the 2 men who groping each other (that i'd find inappropriate gay or straight) --- but you're saying that they were just holding hands in a public place --- and that harmed you or your child somehow?

Not a very compelling argument against homosexuality imho.