You may think as you please, but if you express your ignorant, bigoted thoughts towards the targets of your prejudice, then you must expect conflict. Unlike your fundie message boards, the mods here don’t ban you for posting anything that might spark a debate. Post away to your heart’s content; just don’t expect that no contradictory thoughts will be posted. I’m a happy, proud gay man, and I will confront anti-gay bullshit when it is posted.
Who knows, if you debate here you might even learn to think for yourself and throw off the intellectual shackles of fundiedom.
Criminy, drama queen much? One is quite capable of being a loving, caring person to one’s family and friends and also a homophobe/racist/Islamophobe/bigot. So knock off the excluded middle fallacy and the hysterics, please.
If the thought of putting your penis into a vagina makes you sick; makes you shudder; gives you the ‘creeps’; is disgusting; … then you are a heterophobe , and thereby unloving , unkind, and fundamentalist in your reactionary feelings about sex.
Ewwww… MY penis…
In a vagina …ewwwwww…
You, therefore, HATE women and heterosexual sex.
You are dangerously close to perpetrating a (thought) hate-crime against males who wish to put their penis into a vagina.
Ewwwwwwwwwww…
You HATE sex with women, don’t you?
You think it is disgusting.
You would NEVER put your penisin 'there.'
The very fact that homosexuals choose an anus rather than a vagina to put their penis into must mean that they HATE women.
Lock 'em up.
Some kind of ‘hate’ crime must be happenin’ here…???
Laurie, get off your thought-control cross, and grow out of your persecution complex.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. In case you didn’t realise, on the SDMB we engage in reasonable debate and argument. We try to answer difficult factual questions, gain insight from each other on cosmic topics, exchange views on mundane things, and lean on each other when we need help.
You CAN think whatever you want. But when you post it here, don’t expect no-one to question you on it. And when an idea is questioned, the test of that idea is whether it can be defended. Whether a case can be made for it.
Some things aren’t worth arguing over. A thread in IMHO might be filled with “I like pomegranates” and “Eww, those seeds are so icky!” There is room, after all, for the simple exchange of opinion.
But then you get people who say “You homosexuals are all deranged/defective/sinful.” And these people aren’t just exchanging an opinion, they’re taking a moral stance. And morality isn’t sacred. It’s what we debate here. It’s why we debate here. THe SDMB is about saying “You think THIS? Really? How come?” And the “How Come” is the most important part, because there’s no room in the minds of reasonable people for founding their morality on ideas which they pulled form thin air. Morality is important enough that it needs to be questioned. If we’re going to live according to some ‘Right Way’, we should take every effort to see that that way really is particularly good.
And then we get people, like you, Laurie, who make assertions like “Homosexual sex cannot be consensual”. People who state this as a fact. And on the SDMB, where “How Come” is at the root of finding answers, you have to expect people to call for you to back this assertion up. This isn’t like so many message boards where people just chime in with rants and ideas and just expect to flame each other when they disagree.
We’re here to learn, and to question each other. We’re not telling you how to think. We’re telling you to support your statements with facts or at least some kind of arguments.
So cut the “They’re all out to get me” act, and start actually thinking about your opinions, and telling us why you hold them. We’re here to learn form each other, not to just each declare an opinion and staunchly cross our arms and say “That’s just what I think! I have a right to my opinion, and you just hate me if you disagree.”
And, of course, you should expect people to get offended when you call them liars, defects, sinners, or inherently harmful to society.
No one who ever called you a homophobe called you that because you don’t find gay sex exciting. They called you that because you asserted that gay sex can never be consensual, and that gays are all the result of childhood abuse.
Gays are able to enjoy gay sex without thinking straight people are all messed up in the head. Apparently, some straight people aren’t capable of the same thing.
I don’t find hetero sex disgusting or creepy in the slightest; it’s just not for me. More to the point, even if I did, that would not justify discriminating against those who practicce it. Again with the analogy I used above, even if you do not care for Twizzlers, you are not justified in belittling, discriminating against, or harming those who do.
My boyfriend loves tuna mixed with mayo, which I find utterly repellent, yet somehow I love him anyway. I guess that’s because the two have nothing to do with each other.
How do you come to that conclusion? I say, more power to my hetero brothers in getting penises into vaginas because it makes them happy and has nothing to do with me.
That’s a good precis of my opinion of your posts thus far.
If YOU think that 12 or 13 or 14 year-old boys choose to have another male affirm their attachment to the love of the feelings their penis gives them…and attribute that to another male…and that it does NOT make a difference in their sexual choices…SUE ME!
Sorry – are you saying that sexual orientation is established in adolescent boys on the basis of whichever gender happens to stimulate their penises first? Because it kind of sounds that way.
Okay, maybe I’m not versed in abstract expressionist poetry, but I really am having a hard time making sense of what you’re saying…
Your clarification of
is
Uh… so you’re saying that… well, what are you saying?
My guess is you’re saying that “homosexual sex” == “12-14 yr old boys being baptised into homosexuality by molestation”.
Is that it? Or, what do you mean?
Because you’ll have no trouble finding gays on this board who will tell you that they weren’t molested, didn’t turn to gayness in response to trauma, and in fact have consensual sex with other people their age and not at all with pre-teens.
Then comes another post:
Well, you really aren’t getting your point across. I’m having less and less success making sense of what you’re trying to say. We’re not rejecting ‘empirical evidence’, we just can’t figure out what you’re saying.
First of all, you seem to have a strange fixation on penises, and a highly unothodox definiton of ‘truth’.
Second, if you don’t want to have gay sex, that’s fine. The world will go right ahead and judge you as someone who doesn’t want to have gay sex.
Now, if you go making claims like “gay sex can’t be consensual” and such, well, then expect us to show you why we think you’re wrong, and ask for you to tell us why you think you’re right.
This is totally unrelated to the issue at hand, but the thought just occurred to me that Laurie seems to have taken lessons on debating style and message formatting from John P. Boatwright of Usenet fame.
Here’s my take on the issue. If your opinion is that homosexuals are defective, sinful, or warped by some sort of molestation trauma (which I think is Laurie’s point), that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. However, I am also entitled to my opinion. And in my opinion, you’re a total asshole.
actually, that is not an opinion. it would be a matter of factual data (or not). The claim (if it is indeed her idea) that homosexuals are ‘made’ becuz an older homosexual creates them when they ‘prey’ upon a young, inexperienced person cannot be true (where then, did the first one come from?).