I am a straight female, but I don’t want any part of the whole sex thing. So be it. I must be reasonably attractive, cause I do get hit on regularly. Before, I would just say “Look, stop that. I don’t like it.” However, now I’m going to use awd_dsm’s tactic and start some serious ass-kicking (and I’m trained in self-defense).
And my lesbian sister and many of her friends have children. The “gay people can’t have children” theory is just wrong!
I don’t know? awd_dsm he’s 19, and overly insecure in his sexuality to be offended by being hit on by men. Is someone repressed?
You go on honey, let it all out. Keep saying all those nasty things about homosexuals and it will make all those horrible thoughts your having about boys go away. We’ve all been there.
I’ll bet you get a little chub going when you think about those guys hitting on you? It’s always what if isn’t it? Hummm? Well, at least until you, ummm… get finished and you start feeling guilty again.
Seriously, I’ve never hit on or tried to pick up ANYONE in a restroom and I don’t know any one who has. Clearly, those people are out there. I read a study on that one time. Most of those men are married and don’t even identify with being gay.
About animals not being born gay, read this. Pair of New York penguins are gay
Nobody is trying to stop you expressing your opinions, they are just freely expressing their opinions that this particular opinion of yours is a worthless and contemptible pool of drivel.
Ass/kiss? 
Oh I get it - it’s a homosexuality reference - you think that everybody who doesn’t agree with your thinly-veiled hate does so because they are gay?!? :rolleyes:
It’s a fairly standard thing among male homophobes … “Oh, he’s gay, so he must have no taste and go after whatever male flesh is there.” A guy I used to hang out with didn’t like the idea of homosexuals in the military because he was afraid of being jumped. By any random gay man. I think the whole “gay men have taste” thing was a bit beyond his 2.4 brain cells.
awd_dsm, trolling (posting an obnoxious statement just to get a reaction) is not allowed on this message board. Do not use such tactics again.
Ya know, the arrogance of you two is amazing.
(Jersey and His)
“We’re right, are youre all sinners!”
You are acting just like the Church Lady.
No, his4Ever, we are not keeping silent because we (christians) do Not agree with you.
You may want to try and find another church.
See that’s the problem right there; if you kneel at the urinal and refuse to stand up, you’re making yourself an easy target.
:eek:
That’s me, standing there speechless. Andy, that was so beautiful. Really.
You rock.
Um, no she isn’t misled. Jodi is one of our sharpest members.
I think you are the one who is misled. I suggest you light a candle and say the Memorare to ask for guidance.
First, I’m not gay, and I’m well, happy being straight, I guess.
Homosexuality=neutral. It’s not good, it’s not bad, it’s not right, it’s not wrong. It’s just there. It’s like being left-handed.
Hello, clueless moron, have you even READ any of this thread? Homosexuality is NOT a choice!
:smack:
I’m an atheist.
I’m also a straight guy.
I have no problem with homosexuals. I find the idea of two guys getting romantic indefinably icky, somehow, but I’m certainly not going to fault them for their preferences since it’s none of my damned business anyway.
Question: does the mere fact of my ‘straightness’, and my feeling that I’m much happier as a heterosexual than I would be as a homosexual based on nothing more than an indefinable gut instinct rather than religious dogma, qualify me as a “straight supremacist” – even though I don’t actively OPPOSE homosexuality? It would seem to, from a purely semantic viewpoint.
If so, does my common straight-guy double-standard view that two WOMEN together is not just acceptable, but is in fact an awe-inspiring act of grace and beauty, reduce the onus of being a ‘straight supremacist’? Or does the inherent hypocrisy make it even worse?
And lastly: as a straight supremacist, are we required to wear our brown shirts and armbands with Bermuda shorts, black knee-high dress socks, and flip-flops?
These are important questions, because the self-proclaimed homosexuals here are some of the coolest damned people I know, and it’d suck to be on the bad guys’ team.
Cordially,
me.
No!
get it right!
Its white socks with sandals!
Look at gobear’s post from a while back. Let’s see, he mentioned:
Tchaikovsky
Cole Porter
Gertrude Stein
Oscar Wilde
Michaelangelo
Leonardo de Vinci
To which I added Franz Schubert. And then of course, there are such wonderful actors as Sir Lawrence Olivier, Danny Kaye and Sir John Gielgud.
I’d say they’ve contributed A LOT. At least more than you have.
Of course. But you forget-you have a right to have your opinion. And so do WE. Which means, we have the right to tell you what a fuckwad you are. A right to express your opinion does NOT equal a right to not have people comment on that opinion.
Freedom of opinion, ain’t it a bitch?
I find the fear of being ‘hit on’ by a homosexual to be curious - surely all that is required is a simple ‘no, I’m not interested’? Why do so many people - most noticeably men - seem to think of it as a personal assault? Is it an insult of some kind that their ‘straightness’ is not as obvious as a neon sign? That’s what it is, isn’t it - they think that a ‘real man’ has ‘hetero only’ oozing from every pore in such quantities that even a casual passer-by can detect it.
Hmm . . . and this hostility towards being told that another man finds them attractive - okay, in the hetero world men find only women attractive, so when one man discovers that another man finds him sexy, he automatically assumes that his admirer finds him feminine. For some reason being thought feminine is an insult - perhaps because women are despised for some reason? So, is this just a side-effect of a male belief that women are inferior to men?
If so, we of the hetero female persuasion should consider taking a good, long look at any potential mate who exhibits violent homophobia.
And to add to the list, Gertrude Stein, Sir Ian McKellan, Sir Alec Guinness, and Robert Howard, author of the Conan the Barbarian books, in the field of philosophy, people like Plato, in the field of science people like Alan Turing, generals like Alexander the Great, Sulla, and, apparently, Bernard Montgomery, and, in politics, the controversial figures of President James Buchanan, and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.
Jodi what type of law is your specialty? If I ever need the services of an attorney, I want you in my corner.
I’d like to think that I’d be slightly embarrassed, then slightly flattered if I was ‘hit on’ by anyone of either sex; but what happened that one time at the urinal was disturbing (which, on reflection, was probably primarily an act of perversion and possibly only incidentally homosexual)
I say no it does not make you a straight supremacist since you’re not imposing your sexual orientation on anyone else.
A friend of mine once took a long look at me during cab ride through London and said, “Damned it’s sad! Look at you sitting there all [long string of compliments omitted]. I could so go to bed with you, if it wasn’t for the fact that I know that you put your machinery into that part of a woman. Sorry, but that’s just so yucky.”
He is neither a misogynist, nor does he have problem with heterosexuals per se, but on a bedroom level he is so extremely homosexual that even the idea of sleeping with a practicing bisexual guy gives him hives. It is just like when a certain type or individual of the opposite sex is absolutely sexually repelling for a heterosexual, which doesn’t mean you’ll hate them, or even dislike them as a person, or does it?
Sparc
Nope. I’m afraid that in order to qualify as a straight supremacist, you must feel that being straight makes you superior to gay people, and that gay people need to have laws made to keep them societally inferior.
Your feelings of “ickiness” are just that; feelings. People should be judged by their actions, not their feelings, and if you’ve managed to overcome your distaste for homosexual activity and accept homosexuals as individuals, as human beings, then you just don’t make the grade as a straight supremacist.
Instead, may I offer you the title of ‘good, noble human being’?
Oh, goody! An excuse to trot out my favorite theory!
It’s possible that gays ‘add to’ the human species in ways you that obviously have not occurred to you. There are many species in which members of a ‘family’ or other group suppress their own sexual desires and reproductive ability in the best interests of the family/group survival. Wolves are probably the best known example - usually only the alpha pair mate, and the rest of the pack cooperate in rearing the young. (It takes a village . . . ;)) The pack members aren’t distracted by the necessity of rearing their own young, but they are denied the chance to reproduce and thereby pass on their genes - but this is compensated for by the fact that pack members are usually related, so their genes are still propagated through the offspring of the alpha pair.
Homosexuality in the human species may exist for a very similar reason; considering the length of time required for a human to mature to independence and the prodigious effort necessary to rear even one child to that age, having non-reproducing family/group members willing to assist in rearing the children would be an enormous benefit. A homosexual family member and his/her mate would also be available to care for the ‘alpha’ children should either or both of the parents die; the gay couple will have no offspring of their own to supplant the ‘alpha’ children, yet will still have an interest in those children’s survival because of shared genes.
The ‘sex issue’ isn’t a problem unless you assume that humans copulate solely for the purpose of reproduction - which certainly isn’t the case, is it? Humans form emotional bonds with each other that are necessary in maintaining a relationship that will provide for any children until maturity; the sex act is an important part of that bond. Likewise, homosexuals form such bonds with their partners - a bonded pair would be more beneficial to species survival than a single homosexual - and that bond is strengthened through sexual activity. Also, a homosexual with no partner may decide to try the ‘straight way’ out of sheer loneliness - resulting in offspring that will supplant any ‘alpha’ children needing care.
And if you’re automatically dismissing this because it doesn’t mention God - is there any reason that God couldn’t have deliberately created homosexuals with the very same purpose in mind?
The title of “Good” I’ll gladly accept and thank you for it, though I’ve a way to go before I can claim Nobility. That, however, is another matter entirely. 
Side note: based on the responses to my post from yourself and Sparc, the SDMB quote-attribution function is apparently trying to convince me I’m schizophrenic.
I assure you, we’re not.