Does it come with free refills?
And only heathens drink their coffee straight (ahah) up. Cream is the mark of a civilized gentleman.
… not that heathen-ness can’t be hot on the right person 
Says who? How do you know? I cannot imagine anyone loving you a tenth as much as I love my boyfriend.
Actually, I cannot imagine anyone loving a person like you. You must be very lonely. I hope so.
Bah! Coffee should be black and strong. Unless it’s cappuccino, dairy and sugar have no place in coffee. Or an iced latte. Or an Irish Coffee. Okay, really, there are several uses for dairy BUT NOT with regular morning wake-me-up coffee. No sir, that should be strong and black.
At least that’s the way I like it; but to each his own.
To follow up on matt_mcl’s suggestion:
Check out the “Ask the Gay Guy!”, “Ask the Gay Guy II!”, "Ask the Gay Guy III!, and Ask the Gay Guy IV threads. Perhaps many of your questions are already answered there.
Endless refills with no charge.
And as my boyfriend likes my heathen-ness, I must be the right person.
Shakes, to answer your original question: No, you do not have a right to know if your doctor or anyone else you interact with on a professional level is gay, any more than you have a right to know if he likes to be tied up, beaten, and pissed on while watching Woody Woodpecker reruns, or if his wife likes to take it up the ass. Provided everyone is of age and consenting, what goes on in someone’s bedroom (or couch or kitchen floor, for that matter) is absolutely, positively none of your business.
No, being gay is not a disease or a malfunction. It has roughly the same effects on one’s health as liking blowjobs or hetero anal sex, or not wanting children. Those all put a damper on reproduction, but that’s about it. They don’t reduce the length or quality of life in any way, except for dealing with bigots (which sadly does sometimes reduce the length of someone’s life). There’s no more need to “cure” or “fix” homosexuality than there is a need to cure or fix the lefthanded, the colorblind, or the childless by choice.
Being gay is not a choice, either. Gay men didn’t make a decision to like the dick any more than I made the decision to like it, or the furries made a decision to get turned on by anthropomorphic cartoon characters, or the whips and chains crowd made a decision to be into that. People are turned on by what they’re turned on by, just because. That’s the nature of sexual attraction.
Yes, some gay men suck. An equally large percentage of straight men suck. Some gay women suck, as do an equivalent portion of straight women. Some kids suck. Some of every single demographic in the history of the world suck. The fact that some members of a population suck doesn’t mean that there’s something inherently wrong with being a member of said population.
All that being said, I do hope you can understand how telling someone that the world will be a much better place once they’re all eradicated, that they need to be “cured”, that they shouldn’t be entitled to basic human rights, that they’re unfit as parents, that they’re inherently immoral, that they’re disease-ridden, and that they’re dysfunctional can be interpreted as telling them they’re not as good as everyone else. Those characteristics are, after all, things that are considered inherently inferior. And last time I checked, calling someone inherently inferior based on sexual orientation/race/sex/ethnicity was pretty much the defintion of being a bigot. As such, you pretty much don’t have any right to grump about people calling you a bigot. Like I always say, if the shoe fits, kick 'em with it.
I’d also like a cite for your assertion that the love between two men or two women couldn’t possibly equal the love between a man and a woman. Near as I can tell, true love is true love, and I think it’s a dreadful shame that some people go through life without realizing that.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Guys, as long as a thread is in GD, whatever its subject, do not directly insult any poster in it. Some of you could stand to cool it. And yes, we do allow Stormfronters here as long as they obey the rules.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Very important point. Whether someone is preaching antisemitism or homophobia couched in pseudoscientific terms, they’re allowed to put forward their beliefs around here. There’s no special dispensation given to bigotry against homosexuals; the same dispensation is given to those who hate black people, Jews, atheists, and so on.
Sunshine, they say, is the best disinfectant.
I’ve avoided this thread for a long time because I honestly couldn’t make heads or tails of the OP: I couldn’t tell what it was arguing for, if anything. But later posts have been much clearer.
Shakes, you’re simply not arguing from a position of evidence. You’re not even arguing from a position of bad evidence, like bodswood does in his religious threads. You’re arguing from plain and simple claims, totally unsupported by anything except your own say-so.
If you have evidence, please present it. Otherwise, you’d do well to quit typing and start reading.
Daniel
Telling them they are diseased, degenerate, dysfunctional, abnormal, unnatural is NOT respect. It is NOT treating gays equally. Not at ALL.
And this:
Saying that their love can never be as “fulfilling” as straight romance? How would you even KNOW?
At the very LEAST, you have to admit you’re acting incredibly patronizing, if not out and out cruel.
If that’s what you consider “respect”, I’d HATE to see how you act when you don’t respect someone!
:mad:
Shakes, you’ve formed certain opinions, based on your emotional reaction to certain images and ideas you’ve absorbed from around you. And now you’re trying to justify and defend these opinions, just because you’re unwilling to examine that emotional reaction.
The fact is, there are facts and there are opinions. Your trouble in this debate is that you’re backing up your opinion only with more opinions, or with information that is provably misinformation.
I sincerely recommend that you let go of your emotional attachment to these opinions, and consider the factual evidence that’s been offered to you, and explore how those cited facts may change your opinions.
Because, another fact here, much of the information you’ve used to form your opinions is simply and completely wrong. Take a look at the factually correct information offered to you in this, and other, threads. If you’re going to try to defend your opinion, you should be sure of the facts that have formed that opinion.
Here’s a cite for SHAKES, from the Bible no less:
-Said by David, ancestor of Jesus, upon his friend Jonathan’s death. So much for your “formula.”
And SHAKES, you can’t really believe that having asthma and being gay are in any way analogous conditions. I bet if people treated you the way you are treating gay people because of your asthma, you’d soon be wheezing another tune.
There is no evidence that David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, or that he wanted, and suppressed one, for that matter. In fact, all the evidence we do have suggests he was sexually attracted to women.
Have you read ‘The Four Loves’ by C.S. Lewis? It deals with affection, friendship, sexual love, and Christian love (‘charity’). It may be of interest.
David and Jonathan, sittin’ in a tree!
K-I-S-S-I-N-G!
First comes love, then comes domestic partnership, then comes adoption of a child from a developing country!
Now who’s bigoted?
Excalibre, the kiss in 1 Samuel 20:41 is a kiss of friendship and affection. It’s not so uncommon between men in many cultures, then as now.
I don’t think you have to read much into the text of the Bible to suspect David and Jonathan’s relationship went further than your everyday heterosexual friendship. But that wasn’t my point, anyway. It’s interesting how people will ignore “evidence” they don’t like. Yes, David was attracted to women, but that doesn’t bear on Jonathan’s relationship with David at all. And my point was that their love was “wonderful,” surpassing David’s heterosexual relationships with women. In my previous post, I didn’t claim anything about David’s or Jonathan’s sexuality. It’s strange how you inferred that from the Bible passage I quoted though, and then denied it, claiming “all evidence” points to the contrary. Clearly, that is not the case.
But hey, if two heterosexual men are free to make a lifetime covenant of love, and have it blessed by God, then what’s so wrong with a gay relationship? Sounds a little like marriage to me.
John Stott has addressed the subject of Homosexual Marriage in a book, which has been abridged for the Internet. One section concerns the nature of love:
'Gay Christian activists borrow from Scripture the truth that love is the greatest thing in the world (which it is) and from the “new morality” or "situation ethics of the 1960’s the notion that love is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship (which it is not).
In his “Time for Consent,” liberal theologian Norman Pittenger lists six characteristics of a truly loving relationship. They are: (1) commitment (the free self-giving of each to the other); (2) mutuality in giving and receiving (a sharing in which each finds his or her self in the other); (3) tenderness (no coercion or cruelty); (4) faithfulness (the intention of a lifelong relationship); (5) hopefulness (each serving the other’s maturity); and (6) desire for union.
If then a homosexual relationship, whether between two men or two women, is characterized by these qualities of love, surely (the argument goes) it must be affirmed as good and not rejected as evil. It rescues people from loneliness, selfishness, and promiscuity. It can be as rich and responsible, as liberating and fulfilling, as a heterosexual marriage.
But the biblical Christian cannot accept the basic premise on which this case rests, namely that love is the only absolute, that beside it all moral law is abolished, and that whatever seems to be compatible with love is ipso facto good, irrespective of all other considerations. This cannot be so, for love needs law to guide it. In emphasizing love for God and neighbor as the two Great Commandments, Jesus and his apostles did not discard all other commandments. On the contrary, Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments,” and Paul wrote, “Love is the fulfilling [not the abrogating] of the law.”’
The full article may be found at http://www.bibleteacher.org/hmarriage.html
So you may love lobster, but you’d better not eat it.
I’m responding against my better judgement, because bodswood has been accused by many posters (including myself) of arguing points without proper research or evidence, and he’s made a sincere effort to bring research to the debate. Which is the point of this board. It’s unfair to just casually reject or ignore that.
(bolding mine)
I have only two points to make, one from a moral/ethical/religious standpoint and one from a secular/political/sociological standpoint:
- Note number (6) in the list of things above required for a truly loving relationship. Also note that for homosexuals, not bisexuals, there simply is no desire for union with a member of the opposite sex. I can only assume that proponents of the “ex-gay movement” believe that every homosexual person has the capacity to be heterosexual if they could only stop giving into temptation. I can also tell you that this is just not true.
I have tried, and many, many other gay men I’ve spoken to have tried. Not only does it not work, I believe that it would be morally reprehensible for me to have a relationship with a woman – much less a marriage! – knowing as I do that I have no physical attraction to women, while I do to men. Is the “desire for union,” sexual desire and passion, the most important aspect of a relationship? No. But it is still important, and there’s absolutely nothing sinful about thinking that sex is an important part of marriage.
So that leaves the “debate” at an impasse. I believe that “rule 6” above overrides the restriction against homosexuality, whereas you believe that the restriction is most important. It’s there in black and white, the Bible lays down the law about homosexuality, and the Bible is the final word. I’m unqualified to debate on whether the Bible really does have such an explicit restriction on homosexuality itself or whether it’s merely a purely human, societal revulsion with homsexuality based on its rarity and based on the casual and promiscuous acts of some homosexuals.
I’m unqualified because that distinction irrelevant to me; I know my interpretation the moral code that I’ve developed and learned from the Bible, and I know that the blanket declaration that homosexuality is “wrong” contradicts every single other thing that I’ve learned about decency and morality. So I choose to reject that. But I have no more room to say that you’re “wrong” for believing in a strict interpretation of the Biblical “laws,” than I would to say that Orthodox Jews are “wrong” for adhering to their dietary laws.
- Whatever the case, Biblical laws are not the same as societal laws. At least in the United States, we have a clear separation between Church and State, designed specifically to allow people of differing belief systems to live in the same society without their belief systems interfering with the rights of others.
I identify myself as Christian, and I feel that the Biblical restrictions on homosexuality are irrelevant. You have to understand that there are millions of people for whom the whole question is even more irrelevant. Buddhists, muslims, hindus, atheists, agnostics, and many more who simply do not accept the Bible as the authority. The New Testament states that only through Christ can humans reach salvation – do you therefore believe that muslims are “wrong”? More importantly, do you believe that they should not have the right to marry or adopt because of it?
Ostensibly, this thread was at one point about same-sex marriage and by extension, societal acceptance of homosexuals. In my ideal world, no one would believe that homosexuality is “wrong” and would not judge my worth as a person based on whom I love. In my ideal world, I would be able to talk to everyone and make them understand that I am a moral, just, and honest person – with many flaws, of course, but that my homosexuality is not one of those flaws.
But the ideal world will have to wait. Until then, we have to live in the world we’ve got, and we’ve got to make that world fair to everyone. And in this world, you cannot base social policy, especially policy that denies people’s right to happiness, on anything other than solid data and completely secular evidence.
I think a lot of you are being too harsh on SHAKES, he doesn’t seem like he’s really argued much at all about this, just based his opinions on his experiences and not thought it through. Treating him with animosity over ignorant opinions isn’t fair to him, nor the cause of fighting ignorance.
However, outta all the weird ridiculous things he’s said, one thing does seem a bit interesting, about gay doctors / police officers.
If we have rules in place about a man examining / searching a woman (ie : requiring another woman to be present) then shouldn’t we have the same thing for a gay man? I think it’s an unfair double standard, if gay doctors can be trusted enough not to get their rocks off on male patients, then hetero doctors should be trusted enough not to get their rocks off on female patients.