My gay theory

[Gamblor]

Where "gay" comes from (mostly through personal experience and conversation with others).

Humans, like all animals of this planet, have societal structure that distinguishes, in a scale, between the extremely strong and extremely weak. Each person somewhere on this scale, say, from 0 to 100, has a related degree of self-confidence. These aren't necessarily only physical attributes, but also mental. (EDIT)The strong become leaders, the weak become followers.

In our modern world, the rules and laws have been somewhat altered to minimize these differences. Weak people often are capable of acting strong in our world due to laws and social conventions that prevent "calling them out". As an example, most often we don't really know who is who until we make eye contact with them. It's often as simple as who is the first to break the contact. Again, however, in our world of shared information, many people know that eye-contact is a sign of confidence and will maintain it even if their insides are churning while they are engaged in eye contact with someone.

However, in most, if not all, interpersonal interaction, there are clear dominant and submissive divisions. Between men and women, women and women, and men and men. Now. Natural selection dictates that the strong must have greater incentive to procreate than the weak, and that women must be more likely to procreate with the strong, while they ignore the weak. That's biological fact. That's natural selection working for women.

But what happens on the male side? I posit that the weaker one is on the social hierarchy, the "gay"er he is. Keeping in mind how hard it is to put someone on weak or strong in a non-violent, law-based world, we find that the strong are less interested in self-preservation and more interested in procreation simply because they believe they are capable of preserving themselves. The weak, however, are more interested in survival. They are approval seeking, they need others to like them as a primal tool to get other people to help protect them.

Since nobody really knows this is going on, we often find weak people with women and weak men using weak men as protection, but in my opinion these are less about animal drives than societal conventions. A weak man gets married because he feels he has to, even though somewhere deep down he feels something is not right.

Of course, people travel along this scale over the course of their lives. Different things cause them to travel different ways. Factors affecting confidence, sexual success, etc. etc. all affect the direction of your travel.

Personally, I'm just looking for a girl who is capable of saying "Problem? Let's solve it together!". And has big tits.

If you're gay:

I think you have a right to do whatever you want with your life.

I don't think being gay is conducive to the advancement of the human race.

It is not my right to attempt to influence you or change the way you live.

I'd prefer not to know if you blow dudes or not. I will be uncomfortable around you.

There is something wrong with it, I can't tell you what, but I believe it.

You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker. But if you earn my respect somehow and express your disapproval at being called any of those things, I will stop.

Your sexual orientation has no impact on your job performance or possible contribution to most causes.

To 2+2 please, please, be gentle.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you earn my respect somehow

[/ QUOTE ]

that part is funny.

[Paluka]

The time you put into this post would have been better spent stepping in front of a speeding train.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
The time you put into this post would have been better spent stepping in front of a speeding train

[/ QUOTE ]

NICE!

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
The weak become leaders, the strong become followers.


[/ QUOTE ]
i stopped right there.

[Gamblor]

typo

[Gamblor]

The time you put into this post would have been better spent stepping in front of a speeding train.

constructive. Care to explain what parts you disagree with and why? How about an alternative theory? Fuck man. I'm suggestible. Try me.

I'm expecting a response somewhere along the lines of "i can't argue with you you're a tool." It's my experience that people who post responses like "step in front of a speeding train", instead of a counter argument, will simply throw their hands up and say "what a tool" and whine about injustice in the world without bothering to suggest a way to explain and fix it. (nudge. wink.).

[Dead]

I think that you are both insecure and gay. There was no need for all of the gay slurs at the end of your post.

I have no problem with gay people's behavior. Why do you?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with gay people's behavior. Why do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which behavior? I have problemsa with some gay people's bahavior. Also some straight people.

[Gamblor]

There was no need for all of the gay slurs at the end of your post.

They're just words. If asked to, I am more than happy to use other ones. A word is a word.

Call me a "cunt-fucker" if you want, it's the same thing.

Who said I had a problem with it? I grew up at an all-boys school where 3 teachers in the last 2 years were indicted on sexual abuse charges and certain kids regularly were rumoured to be experimenting with each other.

[Dead]

Like anal sex and stuff I guess.

[turnipmonster]

your assertion that gay people are weaker seems very weird. just from a physical perspective, most gay people I know are obsessed with fitness and really buff.

[Dead]

Can't go by fitness as an indicator of sexual orientation, however.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
your assertion that gay people are weaker seems very weird. just from a physical perspective, most gay people I know are obsessed with fitness and really buff.

[/ QUOTE ]

How Butch!

[Dead]

And no calling someone a [censored]-[censored] is not the same thing as calling someone a faggot. When you call someone a faggot, you're saying that they aren't as masculine as you are. You're saying that they're not as much of a man, and that's why the term is often used to describe gay people. Because some men feel that gay men are more effeminate.

[turnipmonster]

of course not, but it just seemed like an odd comment. I thought of it because my friend was visiting nyc and the gay pride parade was that weekend, and my friend commented after seeing it what an effective army most of the gay community would make.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Because some men feel that gay men are more effeminate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Including them. Many of them go out of their way to be that way.

[andyfox]

"if you earn my respect somehow"

The world's a better place when you assume people are entitled to respect until they prove otherwise. Saying a person who does something in privacy that you're uncomfortable with has to earn your respect "somehow" is the essence of bigotry.

This post helps me understand your position on the Palestinians more clearly. There is something wrong with them, you can't tell what.

What is the "advancement" of the human race?

[Gamblor]

your assertion that gay people are weaker seems very weird. just from a physical perspective, most gay people I know are obsessed with fitness and really buff.

1) I did say that the strong/weak descriptors didn't necessarily denote physical strength. But I digress.

2) It might be possible that this reinforces the theory. If the "weak" are so approval-seeking, they would be more inclined to spend time on activities that give them a better physical appearance so as to attract attention and approval. In the urban world it's easy for any insecure, whiny individual to step into a gym 4 days a week.

I work 3 days a week and look at my posts!

(I work out for lacrosse tho).

[Gamblor]

I thought of it because my friend was visiting nyc and the gay pride parade was that weekend, and my friend commented after seeing it what an effective army most of the gay community would make.

Part of my theory comes from a high school lesson about the ancient spartans who used to force soldiers to have sex with each other to increase their emotional bonds and induce them to protect each other.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of my theory comes from a high school lesson about the ancient spartans who used to force soldiers to have sex with each other to increase their emotional bonds and induce them to protect each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really pounded it into him, but he just took it all! I really respect him now! /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[turnipmonster]

define weak and strong, in the context you're using them in.

--turnipmonster

[andyfox]

Yeah, it seems to have worked well for the Spartans.

Sound like an interesting high school.

[B00T]

borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring

Good thing I had a porno on in the background while reading this poor soapbox display to keep the [censored]/hetero equilibrium in balance

[Gamblor]

Saying a person who does something in privacy that you're uncomfortable with has to earn your respect "somehow" is the essence of bigotry.

No no no, it's not because they're gay that they aren't entitled to my respect.

There is something wrong with them, you can't tell what.

God andy, I wish you could live in Israel for a while. I have nothing against them just because they're Palestinians. People are people. The world in which they live, the way they view it, is different than you could ever imagine. That's the way it is for most Arabs. In their worlds, Jews are the enemy. They are the devil, and everything they know is what the government tells them, because they've never had access to any other information. They live in shanties with 30 kids and one pot of water and fire guns when they're angry, fire guns when they're happy, fire guns when they see Jews, fire guns for no reason at all.

Moroccan Arabs are fairly civilized. Yemeni, Kuwaiti, are as well. But the Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinian, Saudi, Egyptians are all dirt poor Jew-haters. You notice that these countries are have more dictatorial governments and are closer to Israel than the others?

THEY DO NOT HAVE SOME INHERENT "DISEASE" THAT MAKES THEM EVIL. THEY, LIKE ALL PEOPLE, ARE A PRODUCT OF THEIR RELIGION, CULTURE, VALUE SYSTEM, AND GOVERNMENT.

And those variables put them in a situation where the general population is violent, and places little value on human life.

The longer Israelis die, the higher chance of these values seeping into Israeli ethics. With some extremist Jewish groups, it has happened already; any Jew who plants a bomb in an Arab school, revenge for the death of their daughter (ms. Shalhevet Pass) or not, is both evil and crazy.

What is the "advancement" of the human race?

Further mastery of our own fates. Control over the natural variables that harm people. Healthy, sustainable population growth (no jokes about how gay people reduce population growth, please). Peace on earth, goodwill towards men.

Relevant point highlighted.

[Gamblor]

Oldest and most respected high school in Canada and amongst the top fewin North America.

www.ucc.on.ca (http://www.ucc.on.ca)

Either way, the success of the Spartan army is of no relevance to the veracity of the claim.

[M2d]

"Manly love" was a well documented part of many samurai's lives. not all practiced it, but it was accepted for those who did. These were men who were in dominant political and physical positions, due to birthright and caste. They were usually (always?) married to women who provided them with children (it was their duty to have kids), but they chose to seek their pleasures from the same gender some or all of the time.

[andyfox]

I'm not doubting the veracity of the claim that they forced the soldiers to have sex with each other. I'll take your word for it. I'm doubting the logic of the reasoning.

[Clarkmeister]

There's a massive difference between calling someone a faggot and saying something is gay.

[Gamblor]

Strong: Dominant personality, confidence, ability to evaluate many variables and contexts, but ultimately self-interested even if he is morally-aware.

Weak: submissive, insecure, one-track minded.
The kind of person who's always doing for everyone else, tries to be a nice guy so that people will like him, etc. etc.

It's a scale, it's not binary by any stretch.

It's so easy to hide your true self from the world. "We are all actors with strangers."

You get people who act very dominant at a party but go home and wonder if anyone really likes him.

You get people who sit in the corner quietly, but doesn't really care what the "common folk" think about anything. He's enjoyin himself.

Many people could easily confuse those two people's levels of confidence.

We usually don't spend enough time with each other to get an idea, but in a prehistoric world where clans roamed with each other 24 hours a day I think these differences were very obvious.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of my theory comes from a high school lesson about the ancient spartans who used to force soldiers to have sex with each other to increase their emotional bonds and induce them to protect each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spartans Rule!!!
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper439/stills/s2v48174.gif

[gaming_mouse]

Gamblor,

The problem with your theory is that there is no way to prove or disprove it. Basically, you are saying that gay people are weak without really defining what you mean by "weak", and then you give some vague and general sociological reasons for this. It's worth asking, How, even it theory, could someone refute or affirm your theory?

If you ask this, it should be clear that they cannot. It migh also be clear that the "theory" is nothing more than your own personal feelings toward gay people masquerading as a kind of scientific truth. It sounds like you have some deep-seated anger toward gay people, and asking yourself why that is might be a more fruitful line of inquiry than investigating your theory.

[andyfox]

"it's not because they're gay that they aren't entitled to my respect."

You could have fooled me. I've just read through your original post again to make sure and you still could have fooled me.

Maybe the Palestinians fire guns for no apparent reason, rather than for no reason at all. I don't deny the worldview you posit, but I do deny that it's all the other guys' fault.

I don't see how having gays among us is a deteriment to the mastery of our own fates, to control over natural variables that harm people (whatever that means), to healthy, sustainable population growth (what percentage of the world's population doesn't procreate because they're gay?), or to peace on earth or goodwill towards men (excepting homophobia).

[Gamblor]

Definitions (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1791566&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

It sounds like you have some deep-seated anger toward gay people, and asking yourself why that is might be a more fruitful line of inquiry than investigating your theory.

That is certainly possible. Most of my history with gay people (at least those I suspected to be gay) comes from here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1791504&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1).

[xadrez]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of my theory comes from a high school lesson about the ancient spartans who used to force soldiers to have sex with each other to increase their emotional bonds and induce them to protect each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever wonder why seemingly virulent straight men go into jail and all of a sudden partake in rape?

This is dominance/submission. It is an animalistic reaction to stressful situations and quite different from being homosexual. It is about determining who is the Alpha. It has nothing to do with sexuality. The ulimate humiliation to impose on someone who is NOT GAY, is to dominate them in this way. The fact that the person on the receiving end is utterly humiliated and unlikely to ever stand up to you again confirms your supremacy.

The story of the Spartans, might of been an attempt to train the soldiers to take orders, or to install a peking order within the corps. Who knows? But thats my guess.

People who lead homosexual lifestyles I believe are genetically predisposed to it from birth. Its not a choice, its just nature, they were born that way. Therefore, there is nothing "wrong" with them other than their genetic pair of dice came up different from the majority. Saying its "wrong" is just born out of a fear of something you perceive as different.

[J.A.Sucker]

A couple of thoughts.

First, you should respect fellow man until proven otherwise. After they do something to deserve a change in your attitude, they shouldn't garner your respect anymore.

Second, I'm willing to bet that you're a closet homosexual. Just a feeling.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of thoughts.

First, you should respect fellow man until proven otherwise. After they do something to deserve a change in your attitude, they shouldn't garner your respect anymore.

Second, I'm willing to bet that you're a closet homosexual. Just a feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that??? His Location is bangin' bitches, after all!

[Gamblor]

You could have fooled me. I've just read through your original post again to make sure and you still could have fooled me.

Why would I hate someone just because they have sex with men?

My original reply: Everybody has to prove themselves. How could you respect yourself?

New reply:

Nothing. Even I can see how ridiculous the original reply is.


I don't see how having gays among us is a deteriment to the mastery of our own fates, to control over natural variables that harm people (whatever that means), to healthy, sustainable population growth (what percentage of the world's population doesn't procreate because they're gay?), or to peace on earth or goodwill towards men (excepting homophobia).

control over natural phenomena that kill people, that hurt people, and otherwise don't allow us to do whatever it is that we want. Homophobia is very different than my problem. As i said in the original post, being gay does not prevent you in any way from contributing to 99% of society or 99% worthy causes. I don't want to rule anything out. I explicitly was thinking of a scenario in which 100% of men on earth were not attracted to women - thus ending the human race within a generation.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of thoughts.

First, you should respect fellow man until proven otherwise. After they do something to deserve a change in your attitude, they shouldn't garner your respect anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define respect. I think respect has to be earned. I'm generally neutral on someone until I get a reason to be otherwise.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Definitions (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1791566&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

It sounds like you have some deep-seated anger toward gay people, and asking yourself why that is might be a more fruitful line of inquiry than investigating your theory.

That is certainly possible. Most of my history with gay people (at least those I suspected to be gay) comes from here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1791504&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1).

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Given your definitions, my own experience is that there is no correlation between strong/weak and gay/straight. Assuming you do an experiment that measured confidence and other signs of dominance, I'm fairly sure that you find the proportion of "strong" people among the gay population to be equal to the proportion of strong people in the straight community.

It sounds like you had some bad experiences at that all male boarding school with gay people, and that's too bad. You should recognize your bias for what it is, though -- a prejudice, like any other -- and make an effort to get past it. Harboring anger towards gay people, or any other group, is no way to go through life. All it does is hurt you.

[Gamblor]

Second, I'm willing to bet that you're a closet homosexual. Just a feeling.

While I disgree, I'm interested in how you came to this conclusion. Seriously. If I'm repressing something I'd like to know right now, how and why.

When saying "I'm willing to bet" on this website you better be damn sure cause there's 20000 users ready to fade that.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of thoughts.

First, you should respect fellow man until proven otherwise. After they do something to deserve a change in your attitude, they shouldn't garner your respect anymore.

Second, I'm willing to bet that you're a closet homosexual. Just a feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I remember reading about a study into homophobes. They wired them up with a movement sensor around their penis, and showed them gay porn. 80% of them got aroused. I am not sure what the figure would be for "straight non homophobes", and that should really have been cited in the study. But still, it is an interesting theory, and one that I suspect has a large element of truth.

[xadrez]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I remember reading about a study into homophobes. They wired them up with a movement sensor around their penis, and showed them gay porn. 80% of them got aroused. I am not sure what the figure would be for "straight non homophobes", and that should really have been cited in the study. But still, it is an interesting theory, and one that I suspect has a large element of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foaming at the mouth Homophobes being secretely closeted is kind of like the strong=weak tell

Sorry for the poker content!

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
With some extremist Jewish groups, it has happened already; any Jew who plants a bomb in an Arab school, revenge for the death of their daughter (ms. Shalhevet Pass) or not, is both evil and crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, pretty much. Or maybe you could make it a little more clear as to when it's OK to bomb a school full of kids who have done absolutley nothing?
-James

[sthief09]

hmm I think this makes you a bad person

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
I explicitly was thinking of a scenario in which 100% of men on earth were not attracted to women - thus ending the human race within a generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that's false. Have you David Crosby and Ellen are a prime example, but with medicinal technology these days, the world could be 100% homosexual, and children would still be born.

[Gamblor]

Interesting. I remember reading about a study into homophobes. They wired them up with a movement sensor around their penis, and showed them gay porn. 80% of them got aroused. I am not sure what the figure would be for "straight non homophobes", and that should really have been cited in the study. But still, it is an interesting theory, and one that I suspect has a large element of truth.

That experiment is meaningless without a control group.

Literally meaningless. It's entirely possible that while those people were not interested in men sexually, the images evoked imagined sensations, a recollection of how that would have felt had a woman done it to them, or even a desire to have a man do that, that aroused them.

[MMMMMM]

That's a pretty gay theory.

[Gamblor]

Or maybe you could make it a little more clear as to when it's OK to bomb a school full of kids who have done absolutley nothing?

it should have been obvious from the part that said "...whether for revenge... or not..." that the answer is never.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I remember reading about a study into homophobes. They wired them up with a movement sensor around their penis, and showed them gay porn. 80% of them got aroused. I am not sure what the figure would be for "straight non homophobes", and that should really have been cited in the study. But still, it is an interesting theory, and one that I suspect has a large element of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foaming at the mouth Homophobes being secretely closeted is kind of like the strong=weak tell

Sorry for the poker content!

[/ QUOTE ]

vnh

[andyfox]

"Most of my history with gay people (at least those I suspected to be gay) . . ."

Suspicion is a dangerous thing.

[andyfox]

It's a gay theory, but there's nothing pretty about it.

[BusterStacks]

Sounds pretty much like you're a jackass.

[partygirluk]

Btw - how much time have you spent in Palestine, because your words in this thread distort the truth on the ground.

And I find it ironic that your views on homosexuality would fit nicely into certain Arab socieites, but certainly not Israeli mainstream.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The time you put into this post would have been better spent stepping in front of a speeding train.

[/ QUOTE ]


How about an alternative theory? Fuck man. I'm suggestible. Try me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Speeding bus.

[Gamblor]

in other words "i can't argue with you, you're a tool"

Thanks for that validation.

[Gamblor]

I've never been to anything called a Palestine.

because your words in this thread distort the truth on the ground.

Really? the truth on the ground? Considering I've lived in Israel for a chunk of my life as well as completed basic training in the IDF I'd argue your ability to correctly determine the facts on the ground.

Every word I said is accurate for any and all Arabs in the main cities and refugee camps.

Arabs outside the reach of the tentacles of the PA progapanda machine and "Palestinian" political organizations, basically small village residents and farmers, are in fact among the nicest, most hospitable and well-meaning people I've ever met. Especially hospitable.

What really distorts the truth on the ground is the bullshit news you get from the Guardian and BBC and the newspapers that admit to avoiding covering topics that paint the Arabs in a bad light for fear of retribution from terrorist groups. All you read about is how dangerous it is and how Israel murdered another 30 six-year-olds when some commander ordered his soldiers to line up a kindergarden class against a wall so his snipers could get in some practice time away from the base. And here you are defending Israel's tolerant society!

My views on homosexuality:

I don't know where it came from, or why it happens. I just threw out a guess. I have no problem with you if you want to be gay, that's your choice. good for you. I'm sure you're a good person and maybe we'll meet one day and we'll become friends. I'll just have to get past worrying that you might be having thoughts. It's no different from a girl who catches some guy leering at her; even though she doesn't want him, she still doesn't like it.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The time you put into this post would have been better spent stepping in front of a speeding train.

[/ QUOTE ]


How about an alternative theory? Fuck man. I'm suggestible. Try me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Speeding bus.

[/ QUOTE ]

well done

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
My views on homosexuality:

I don't know where it came from, or why it happens. I just threw out a guess. I have no problem with you if you want to be gay, that's your choice. good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be fooling yourself. The theory you posted, and the fact that you posted it to begin with, are not consistent with a live and let-live attitude. If you really had a live and let-live attitude, I don't think you'd be devoting so much time thinking about the subject, or creating theories that are clearly disparaging.

[Gamblor]

I think you may be fooling yourself. The theory you posted, and the fact that you posted it to begin with, are not consistent with a live and let-live attitude. If you really had a live and let-live attitude, I don't think you'd be devoting so much time thinking about the subject, or creating theories that are clearly disparaging.

I hate the attitude. For some people being gay is all they are and they let you know it. I see those guys in leather chaps and cowboy vests and handkerchiefs walking and I want to kick their asses- Morality obviously precludes actually doing it. But for some people being a person comes first, and if they happen to be gay, so be it. I respect that.

Perhaps not knowing any gay people for whom being gay is the first thing you learn about them, i've fallen to conventional stereotypes, assuming ALL gays are this way.

IMO, the epitome of gay is Will from Will and Grace. I want to kick Jack's ass, but Will is a good guy. It's the "I'm gay so fuck you" attitude I don't like.

I think the show is hilarious, plus Grace is high-school girl next door cute. No boobs though. put karen's tits on grace's body and boom!

None of this changes the original bioevolutionary theory though.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate the attitude. For some people being gay is all they are and they let you know it. I see those guys in leather chaps and cowboy vests and handkerchiefs walking and I want to kick their asses-

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. C'mon, man, do you not see that you have some serious anger issues with gay people? When you hate people that you do not know, you should always ask yourself why -- because hatred reveals something about you, not about the other person.

Do you also hate, say, black people for whom being black is the major factor of their identity? The kind who dress in traditional African garb, say? If so, then maybe your issue is with a kind of personality that likes to flaunt themselves. But I don't thinks so. It definitley seems like you specifically hate gay people, in a very deep way, and you should really look into it.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps not knowing any gay people for whom being gay is the first thing you learn about them, i've fallen to conventional stereotypes,

[/ QUOTE ]

You should realize that you have met many gay people and have not known they were gay.

[ QUOTE ]

None of this changes the original bioevolutionary theory though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really is not a bioevolutionary theory. It is a vehicle for your feelings, which would be better addressed directly.

[The-Matador]

Ayn Rand called. She'd like her dildo back.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
your assertion that gay people are weaker seems very weird. just from a physical perspective, most gay people I know are obsessed with fitness and really buff.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything that furthers his point.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


Interesting. I remember reading about a study into homophobes. They wired them up with a movement sensor around their penis, and showed them gay porn. 80% of them got aroused. I am not sure what the figure would be for "straight non homophobes", and that should really have been cited in the study. But still, it is an interesting theory, and one that I suspect has a large element of truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I call bullshit. This is an urban legend. Please produce said scientific study.

[[censored]]

While I don't agree with your opinion I find it retarded that some people are so afraid of questioning anything about homosexuality that they are compelled to react with juevenile and angry rants. You people are the ones with problems.

Good posts Andy, Modest Moose and a few others as usual.

[thatpfunk]

Id prefer not to know you sice youre a jew.

[Gamblor]

Id prefer not to know you sice youre a jew.

If I wore it on my sleeve, was incapable of talking about anything else, and threw it in everyone's face all day every day how Jewish I am and how everyone has to love me because I'm Jewish, I'd feel the same way.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Id prefer not to know you sice youre a jew.

If I wore it on my sleeve, was incapable of talking about anything else, and threw it in everyone's face all day every day how Jewish I am and how everyone has to love me because I'm Jewish, I'd feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, though, your image on 2+2 is defined almost entirely by your being a Jew and being very outspoken about it.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
If I wore it on my sleeve, was incapable of talking about anything else, and threw it in everyone's face all day every day how Jewish I am and how everyone has to love me because I'm Jewish, I'd feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're making extremely broad generalizations about a group of people in which you're sample size is obviously insufficient.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Id prefer not to know you sice youre a jew.

If I wore it on my sleeve, was incapable of talking about anything else, and threw it in everyone's face all day every day how Jewish I am and how everyone has to love me because I'm Jewish, I'd feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]


To be fair, though, your image on 2+2 is defined almost entirely by your being a Jew and being very outspoken about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I thought the same thing when he posted that.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a massive difference between calling someone a faggot and saying something is gay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said there wasn't a massive difference. But look at Gamblor's post. He uses the word faggot alone with many other slurs. How would people react on here if he used the n-word? They'd probably be all over him. How is it any different?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Ayn Rand called. She'd like her dildo back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... nice hand.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Id prefer not to know you sice youre a jew.

If I wore it on my sleeve, was incapable of talking about anything else, and threw it in everyone's face all day every day how Jewish I am and how everyone has to love me because I'm Jewish, I'd feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, though, your image on 2+2 is defined almost entirely by your being a Jew and being very outspoken about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of Jews would consider him an embarassment. Most Jews have no problem with homosexuality or gay people in general. In fact in the Reform sect of Judaism, gay civil union ceremonies are performed and gay rabbis are allowed.

And in Israel, which has the largest percentage of Jewish people of any country in the world, gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the Israeli Defense Forces. They also granted widowers same-sex benefit rights.

So your religion is fair game on here because I think that you are perverting it.

I happen to be of the Jewish faith, I like Israel, and I have no problem with gay people.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Id prefer not to know you sice youre a jew.

If I wore it on my sleeve, was incapable of talking about anything else, and threw it in everyone's face all day every day how Jewish I am and how everyone has to love me because I'm Jewish, I'd feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, though, your image on 2+2 is defined almost entirely by your being a Jew and being very outspoken about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of Jews would consider him an embarassment. Most Jews have no problem with homosexuality or gay people in general. In fact in the Reform sect of Judaism, gay members are welcomed into the congregations and gay rabbis are allowed.

And in Israel, which has the largest percentage of Jewish people of any country in the world, gay men are allowed to serve openly in the Israeli Defense Forces. They also granted widowers same-sex benefit rights.

So your religion is fair game on here because I think that you are perverting it.

I happen to be of the Jewish faith, I like Israel, and I have no problem with gay people.

[JackWilson]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're gay:

I think you have a right to do whatever you want with your life.

I don't think being gay is conducive to the advancement of the human race.

It is not my right to attempt to influence you or change the way you live.

I'd prefer not to know if you blow dudes or not. I will be uncomfortable around you.

There is something wrong with it, I can't tell you what, but I believe it.

You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker. But if you earn my respect somehow and express your disapproval at being called any of those things, I will stop.

Your sexual orientation has no impact on your job performance or possible contribution to most causes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, thanks. I really feel better now.

These types of threads are pointless btw. It always turns into a discussion about whether it's okay to be gay or not, whether it's okay to call something gay etc.

Oh, and btw, your theory sucks. A theory needs to be able to be summed up in one paragraph. I still fail to see what you're suggesting. You're mixing and matching talking about weak/strong men and natural selection and yada yada yada.

If I'm reading this correctly (not easy mind you), you're saying weak men are/become gay because nature doesn't want them to reproduce?

So why on earth isn't George Bush (this might be a bad example) gay? According to your theory, nature wants him to reproduce. I'd be inclined not to trust nature anymore.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate the attitude. For some people being gay is all they are and they let you know it. I see those guys in leather chaps and cowboy vests and handkerchiefs walking and I want to kick their asses

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this really shouldn't bother you.

Why do you think about it?

Do you really see people in leather chaps and cowboy vests that often? If so, you're probably hanging out in the wrong places.

How can this possibly bother you? Are you scared of being sexually assaulted?

That would seem to go against your theory, since gays are weak /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I think you got some issues, son.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ayn Rand called. She'd like her dildo back.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... nice hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty

[sam h]

Dumbest post ever.

[Gamblor]

So you're making extremely broad generalizations about a group of people in which you're sample size is obviously insufficient.

Now that I think about it, that is correct.

Still, everyone is still all over me for being homophobic and hating gays when

1) that is not in fact true.

2) maybe 4 total posts have actually addressed the question of whether or not people who are gay are predisposed to staying at the back of the hunting pack.

[Gamblor]

I have no problem using the word nigger.

But, I know that merely hearing that word will offend someone - right or wrong - and as such I generally avoid using it.

However, among my friends, both black and white, it is acceptable language.

[KJS]

So confidence is a measure of strength to you, unless someone is projecting something you don't like/approve of?

Sounds like something is clouding your thinking.

KJS

[Clarkmeister]

" maybe 4 total posts have actually addressed the question of whether or not people who are gay are predisposed to staying at the back of the hunting pack."

It's been quite a while since I've seen a hunting pack. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The modern day corrolary is that they make less money on average than hetero males, since money is how success is defined today. I don't know if that's true, but somehow I doubt it.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem using the word nigger.

But, I know that merely hearing that word will offend someone - right or wrong - and as such I generally avoid using it.

However, among my friends, both black and white, it is acceptable language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you use it as an adjective to describe other blacks that you do not know?

[Gamblor]

To be fair, though, your image on 2+2 is defined almost entirely by your being a Jew and being very outspoken about it.

If that is true then I'm probably guilty of the same thing. I didn't register for the purpose of staking my claim to the title of "Token Jew of 2+2".

At the same time, I've seen so much misinformation and bullshit about Jews and Israel that I felt compelled to at least attempt to correct it.

In the same vein, I would fully expect, and if I could demand that any gay members of 2+2 give me personal experiences and lifestyle examples that refute my theory.

There's not much worse than having your head up your ass, and if I do, I'd like someone to let me know.

Regarding the previous sentence, I await unfunny, smartass comments from the more mature members of 2+2 so we can move on with the discussion.

[Wakko]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You kiss your father with that mouth?

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been to anything called a Palestine.

because your words in this thread distort the truth on the ground.

Really? the truth on the ground? Considering I've lived in Israel for a chunk of my life as well as completed basic training in the IDF I'd argue your ability to correctly determine the facts on the ground.

Every word I said is accurate for any and all Arabs in the main cities and refugee camps.

Arabs outside the reach of the tentacles of the PA progapanda machine and "Palestinian" political organizations, basically small village residents and farmers, are in fact among the nicest, most hospitable and well-meaning people I've ever met. Especially hospitable.

What really distorts the truth on the ground is the bullshit news you get from the Guardian and BBC and the newspapers that admit to avoiding covering topics that paint the Arabs in a bad light for fear of retribution from terrorist groups. All you read about is how dangerous it is and how Israel murdered another 30 six-year-olds when some commander ordered his soldiers to line up a kindergarden class against a wall so his snipers could get in some practice time away from the base. And here you are defending Israel's tolerant society!

My views on homosexuality:

I don't know where it came from, or why it happens. I just threw out a guess. I have no problem with you if you want to be gay, that's your choice. good for you. I'm sure you're a good person and maybe we'll meet one day and we'll become friends. I'll just have to get past worrying that you might be having thoughts. It's no different from a girl who catches some guy leering at her; even though she doesn't want him, she still doesn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm just back from the cinema (Sideways) and am drunk and tired, but your categerisation of Arabs is racist, pure and simple. I dont give a damn if you did basic training for the IDF or you lived in Israel. How many actually Palestinians did you talk to? How much time did you spend in the West Bank and Gaza? Who are you to tell me what I read? FYI I haven't read the Guardian for a long long time. My main source of information on what is going on the ground in Israel is from my brother, who when he actually wanted to live in Israel didn't chicken out and do basic training, but did 18 months service, saw war (he bombed Hezbollah) and served in the West Bank. I have also spent time in the West Bank and the people I met there are friendly, tolerant and peace loving, as is human nature. People like you make me ashamed to be Jewish. Go live in an Arab country where racism and homophobia are commonplace. Oh, but it is fine for you to be racist against Arabs, but not for some Arabs to be anti-semetic. I understand now.

[The-Matador]

Gamblor, you are a real piece of sh[/i]it.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Gamblor, you are a real piece of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahaha. that made me crack up. im now a fan of the matador.

[Gamblor]

Scenario.

Me and my friend "Tyrone" are out doin whatever, maybe hit the batting cages.

Tyrone: Look at that guy swing the bat man.

Me: Yeah that nigger's probably been breaking store windows for years.

And he laughs. And I laugh. And that's it. It's over. We go get food.

[thatpfunk]

What about in a derogatory manner?

[Gamblor]

Um, anti-semitism, and violence are NOT inherent characteristics of the Arab "race" and I've clearly expressed that in my post.

As a racist, I would have had to believe that somehow their ethnicity is an issue. 99% of Arabs, just like 99% of most people aren't political at all and don't care about much more than their next paycheque and next vacation.

I left the service when I moved back to Canada for university. When I go back, if I go back, I'll finish it.

I'll say it again: most people don't have a government TV station blaring daily how evil the Jews are and how one must be willing to die to further the Arab cause.

You better get some rest from jumping to all those conclusions.

It's too late, because I've already been branded an anti-Arab homophobe in your mind, which is interesting when nowhere in my original post did I suggest that Arabs should die, or they were genetically inferior.

Most importantly, I have not suggested that in some way they all must be grouped together such that the faults of the few are projected onto the faults of the many.

Although, thanks for helping me realize that I was doing that regarding gay people. Bah, you're an idiot anyway, you just want to be right.

[Gamblor]

Why would I ever need to be derogatory toward someone because of skin colour or sexual orientation?

To quote my original post, Sexual orientation has no bearing on the ability... to do pretty much anything, except maybe have sex.

(seriously)

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]

Most importantly, I have not suggested that in some way they all must be grouped together such that the faults of the few are projected onto the faults of the many.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

[ QUOTE ]
Every word I said is accurate for any and all Arabs in the main cities and refugee camps.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Gamblor]

Allow me to further classify: Any and all Arabs in the cities and refugee camps controlled by the Palestinian Authority and whatever other government organizations Arab countries have that have direct strategic conflicts with Israel hate Jews.

[BreakEvenPlayer]

So let's get this straight.

- Gamblor admits to having problems with homosexuality and spouts of with: "You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker."

- He admits to calling black people the n-word but not in any "demeaning" way.

- His location is: "Bangin bitches," so we don't have to imagine his conceptualization of women strictly in terms of their ability to drain testicles.

- I won't even get into his incredibly biased views on the Israeli-Palestinian situation.


Basically kid, you've been flamed a million times on these boards, and you're so ignorant and stubborn that after the masses come down against you, time and again, you still think you're the one with the truth.

Because your brain can't handle the possibility that you could be wrong, you conceptualize yourself in some kind of epic struggle against the masses, where you must educate people on the right way to think.

When this kind of thinking fails, you fall back again, and profess lines like: "Oh, yeah, well I've lived in Israel," or "I'm from an incredible all boys school in Canada." The fact of the matter is, the 2+2 masses are a pretty damn well educated and well traveled bunch. You might be able to play that card when you argue with friends, but you can't with us.

After reading all your drivel, the TRUTH is that you have some deeply rooted bigotry towards many different groups in the world today. You are one of many people who make our world suck when it could be getting better. You claim that our goals should be "Healthy, sustained population growth," when your conceptualization of what is "healthy" is jaded by your bigoted and chauvenistic worldview.

I don't know about you, but of a bunch of people listed my name in a thread asking "Do you wish anyone would go bust and then have their life spiral into [censored]," I would probably reanalyze some of my views on the world.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The modern day corrolary is that they make less money on average than hetero males, since money is how success is defined today. I don't know if that's true, but somehow I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, Clarkmeister.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make even more (on average).

[Fabian]

Very nice post.

FWIW I don't think Gamblor quite deserves all the flaming in this thread. The "you should look into that hidden anger" posts seem more appropriate.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Dumbest post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen worse but it's close.

[Gamblor]

- Gamblor admits to having problems with homosexuality and spouts of with: "You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker."

They're words. I don't beat up gay people. I don't discriminate against gay people. I would hire the person most qualified to do the job regardless of sexual orientation. I readily admit I am slightly uncomfortable around them, but that's my issue, not theirs.

- He admits to calling black people the n-word but not in any "demeaning" way.

Only in America, and perhaps the UK, do words matter so much. A politician opens his mouth a little too wide and his career is over, even if he has spent the last 50 years helping people of minority groups. He was misquoted, he didn't mean it that way, etc. etc. It's still over.

It's a word. I harbour no ill will towards anyone for anything other than their deeds, so why would I demean them? For all the times I've opened my mouth too wid, I've learned I would rather be judged by my actions than words, and I afford other people that same benefit of the doubt.

- His location is: "Bangin bitches," so we don't have to imagine his conceptualization of women strictly in terms of their ability to drain testicles.

It's an inside joke.

- I won't even get into his incredibly biased views on the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Biased? What do you know? Where is neutral? Just because you don't choose a side doesn't make you right. Just because I have chosen a side, doesn't make me wrong. I am on one side because I believe it to be the party whose solution more positively impacts my life and the lives of everyone else.

Just choosing "peace" as the answer only works in movies and fairy tales. And in Ramallah and Jenin and Kalkilya and Jerusalem there is no fairy tale, only reality. I watch Arabs cheer when 5000 people died on Sept 11. I watch and hear Arabs riot in the streets and party and fire guns because the 19th suicide bomber of the day actually got through to his target and slaughtered 15 children on a bus. And I watch them cheer when one stops a car in the middle of a highway, and riddles the children with bullets first just so the parents can die in misery.

It's one thing to claim you watched the news or read that they cheered in some New York Times article, and it's another entirely to watch it happen with your own two eyes.

And you'll never know. Ever.

When this kind of thinking fails, you fall back again, and profess lines like: "Oh, yeah, well I've lived in Israel," or "I'm from an incredible all boys school in Canada." The fact of the matter is, the 2+2 masses are a pretty damn well educated and well traveled bunch. You might be able to play that card when you argue with friends, but you can't with us.

I'm well aware that they're educated, I personally have more respect for this group of people than most I have encountered. But you are NOT entitled to tell me my opinion, you are only entitled to present me with facts that prove it wrong, and I have on multiple occasions admitted to being wrong here. My school is of no import to any question outside those involving all boys schools in Canada and sexually abusive teachers, and my life in Israel is of no import to any question outside all those involving the rationale of Israeli foreign policy and what life is like there.

[Deftoner]

Its dumb to make generalizations about any group of people. Its the very thing that racism and prejudice are based on. You make a sterotype about a whole group of people based on the few you've interacted with. How can you not see that?

If I were to say all blacks are criminals I'd be considered racist. Yet you think its okay to believe all gays are weak. You are the bottom of society and the one holding "the advancement of human race" back. Its the 21st century jackass, open your mind already.

[jojobinks]

he is, you know

[Deftoner]

Oh, and also, words are our primary form of communcation. Don't diminish their value. We express our feelings and thoughts through our words moreso than our actions, just because you'd hire a black person if he was qualified doesn't mean you can call him a nigger without it being racist. You wouldn't call a white person a nigger.
Should I be able to call your wife a bitch and say "hey man, don't get pissed, its just a word. Whats your problem?"

[thatpfunk]

pretty accurate.

hes the type of person that i enjoy making fun of with my friends.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Gamblor, you are a real piece of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

"For some people being gay is all they are and they let you know it. I see those guys in leather chaps and cowboy vests and handkerchiefs walking and I want to kick their asses-"

Yeah, I know that feeling. For some people being Jewish is all they are and they let you know it. I see those guys with their yarmulkes and long beards and pais walking and I want to kick their asses.

Seriously, Gamblor, you don't see anything wrong with this attitude?

[andyfox]

Have you ever read any Dr. Wogga?

[TimM]

I have a cousin who is gay. He hated and still hates our late grandfather, who used to tease him and call him a sissy relentlessly, even before he was old enough to know he was gay.

Maybe someday you will meet your girl with big tits, and have some kids. Maybe one of them, or their kids, will be gay. That would be fitting I think.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I see those guys in leather chaps and cowboy vests and handkerchiefs walking and I want to kick their asses

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Stop hanging out at the blue oyster bar (bad 80's reference)
B) Those people wearing leather chaps and cowboy hats are called cowboys

I think it's funny when people get all pissed off about gays flaunting their sexuality but wouldn't consider anything similarly wrong with, for example, all the "who's hotter" posts or having part of their moniker be "bangin bitches."

[Gamblor]

I think it's funny when people get all pissed off about gays flaunting their sexuality but wouldn't consider anything similarly wrong with, for example, all the "who's hotter" posts or having part of their moniker be "bangin bitches."

Bangin bitches is an inside joke unrelated to my sexual preference.

I have a problem with the Who's hotter posts as well, that's why I never post in them.

[Gamblor]

For some people being Jewish is all they are and they let you know it. I see those guys with their yarmulkes and long beards and pais walking and I want to kick their asses

Give me a break. Those beards and payos and kippas are religious, they truly believe that they are serving God by that outfit. they don't wear them because they feel like it.

You don't see a problem with someone wearing the chaps etc. just for shock value OR to broadcast their sexual preference to the world? Do they believe that it's somehow stylish?

I for one am entirely unconcerned with fashion and generally wear what feels comfortable. I sincerely doubt that a leather vest and chaps with nothing else is comfortable.

I can't question that? I wouldn't deny anyone the right, but I'm not allowed to question it?

[Gamblor]

Should I be able to call your wife a bitch and say "hey man, don't get pissed, its just a word. Whats your problem?"

If I treat her with respect, she would understand that it doesn't have the same connotation it normally does.

I joke around with girlfriends all the time, calling them bitches, sluts, etc. They understand I'm being somewhat facetious.

Likewise with black friends. They know I'm friends with them for the kind of people they are. If I call him a nigger, he knows I'm not expecting him to call me "Massa".

One of these days, I'll meet some gay guy who doesn't weird me out and I'll call him a pillowbiter to his face. And he'll call me a pussy licker. And we'll go out and have a beer.

[Gamblor]

Maybe one of them, or their kids, will be gay. That would be fitting I think.

If he's a good kid I think I could deal.

[TimM]

You would really hate the "clothing" my cousin designs.

[Clarkmeister]

"I for one am entirely unconcerned with fashion and generally wear what feels comfortable. I sincerely doubt that a leather vest and chaps with nothing else is comfortable. "

So that makes it despicable to wear, right? Damn them for wearing uncomfortable clothing! Damn them straight to hell.

[Gamblor]

Damn them for wearing uncomfortable clothing! Damn them straight to hell.

Why the hell is everyone so insistent on taking my opinion and totally distorting it?

It's their choice. If someone wants to wear a diaper and bonnet, they have a right I don't like it, and I won't do it.

What difference does that make?

[heavybody]

[ QUOTE ]

Where "gay" comes from (mostly through personal experience and conversation with others).

Humans, like all animals of this planet, have societal structure that distinguishes, in a scale, between the extremely strong and extremely weak. Each person somewhere on this scale, say, from 0 to 100, has a related degree of self-confidence. These aren't necessarily only physical attributes, but also mental. (EDIT)The strong become leaders, the weak become followers.

In our modern world, the rules and laws have been somewhat altered to minimize these differences. Weak people often are capable of acting strong in our world due to laws and social conventions that prevent "calling them out". As an example, most often we don't really know who is who until we make eye contact with them. It's often as simple as who is the first to break the contact. Again, however, in our world of shared information, many people know that eye-contact is a sign of confidence and will maintain it even if their insides are churning while they are engaged in eye contact with someone.

However, in most, if not all, interpersonal interaction, there are clear dominant and submissive divisions. Between men and women, women and women, and men and men. Now. Natural selection dictates that the strong must have greater incentive to procreate than the weak, and that women must be more likely to procreate with the strong, while they ignore the weak. That's biological fact. That's natural selection working for women.

But what happens on the male side? I posit that the weaker one is on the social hierarchy, the "gay"er he is. Keeping in mind how hard it is to put someone on weak or strong in a non-violent, law-based world, we find that the strong are less interested in self-preservation and more interested in procreation simply because they believe they are capable of preserving themselves. The weak, however, are more interested in survival. They are approval seeking, they need others to like them as a primal tool to get other people to help protect them.

Since nobody really knows this is going on, we often find weak people with women and weak men using weak men as protection, but in my opinion these are less about animal drives than societal conventions. A weak man gets married because he feels he has to, even though somewhere deep down he feels something is not right.

Of course, people travel along this scale over the course of their lives. Different things cause them to travel different ways. Factors affecting confidence, sexual success, etc. etc. all affect the direction of your travel.

Personally, I'm just looking for a girl who is capable of saying "Problem? Let's solve it together!". And has big tits.

If you're gay:

I think you have a right to do whatever you want with your life.

I don't think being gay is conducive to the advancement of the human race.

It is not my right to attempt to influence you or change the way you live.

I'd prefer not to know if you blow dudes or not. I will be uncomfortable around you.

There is something wrong with it, I can't tell you what, but I believe it.

You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker. But if you earn my respect somehow and express your disapproval at being called any of those things, I will stop.

Your sexual orientation has no impact on your job performance or possible contribution to most causes.

To 2+2 please, please, be gentle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was going to say ...but just a little different.

heavily bodied

[Utah]

I disagree. I found the post fascinating. It was fun watching Gamblor struggle with his homosexuality throughout the post and it was fun seeing more and more of his gayness shine through.

You start the post thinking, "hmm....I wonder if Gamblor is gay" and you end the post with, "man. That dude is pretty gay!".

I then see the "bangin bitches" tag on his name and that erases any doubt of how gay he is.

[Clarkmeister]

Well, when you write: "You don't see a problem with someone wearing the chaps etc. just for shock value OR to broadcast their sexual preference to the world?", it's pretty hard to misunderstand or distort it.

I'm pretty sure that you don't get similarly outraged at some hot chick dressing all slutty at some random bar. And she's pretty much doing that either for shock value or to broadcast her sexual preference (and habits) to the world.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The modern day corrolary is that they make less money on average than hetero males, since money is how success is defined today. I don't know if that's true, but somehow I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, Clarkmeister.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make even more (on average).

[/ QUOTE ]

They do make more on average. It's been studied. But it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Gamblor]

I'm pretty sure that you don't get similarly outraged at some hot chick dressing all slutty at some random bar. And she's pretty much doing that either for shock value or to broadcast her sexual preference (and habits) to the world

I'm not outraged, but I do have a total lack of respect for her.

Same for the alternative.

[Dead]

First, you're not half the mack you think you are.

Also, you're racist, anti-semitic(Arabs are semites too), homophobic, sexist and misogynistic.

This thread is an embarrassment.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that you don't get similarly outraged at some hot chick dressing all slutty at some random bar. And she's pretty much doing that either for shock value or to broadcast her sexual preference (and habits) to the world

I'm not outraged, but I do have a total lack of respect for her.

Same for the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're only banging the non-slutty bitches? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[[censored]]

I'll be honest the leather chaps and vest thing would freak me out. I would definently not interact with someone dressed like unless his profession was cowboy, lawman, or cattle rustler.

That said I can't say as I have ever seen someone dressed like that outside of TV so I have my doubts as to how big of an issue it is.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that you don't get similarly outraged at some hot chick dressing all slutty at some random bar. And she's pretty much doing that either for shock value or to broadcast her sexual preference (and habits) to the world

I'm not outraged, but I do have a total lack of respect for her.

Same for the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you're completely shallow as well? You crack me up.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that you don't get similarly outraged at some hot chick dressing all slutty at some random bar. And she's pretty much doing that either for shock value or to broadcast her sexual preference (and habits) to the world

I'm not outraged, but I do have a total lack of respect for her.

Same for the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude. It's cool. No respect? Wtf? You don't like seeing it?

[Deftoner]

[ QUOTE ]
First, you're not half the mack you think you are.

Also, you're racist, anti-semitic(Arabs are semites too), homophobic, sexist and misogynistic.

This thread is an embarrassment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Cant put it any better.

[BreakEvenPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
They're words. Only in America, and perhaps the UK, do words matter so much.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think words are pretty damn important in Israel my friend.

[Eurotrash]

this thread is flaming.

[Wayfare]

[ QUOTE ]
Where "gay" comes from (mostly through personal experience and conversation with others).

Humans, like all animals of this planet, have societal structure that distinguishes, in a scale, between the extremely strong and extremely weak. Each person somewhere on this scale, say, from 0 to 100, has a related degree of self-confidence. These aren't necessarily only physical attributes, but also mental. (EDIT)The strong become leaders, the weak become followers.

In our modern world, the rules and laws have been somewhat altered to minimize these differences. Weak people often are capable of acting strong in our world due to laws and social conventions that prevent "calling them out". As an example, most often we don't really know who is who until we make eye contact with them. It's often as simple as who is the first to break the contact. Again, however, in our world of shared information, many people know that eye-contact is a sign of confidence and will maintain it even if their insides are churning while they are engaged in eye contact with someone.

However, in most, if not all, interpersonal interaction, there are clear dominant and submissive divisions. Between men and women, women and women, and men and men. Now. Natural selection dictates that the strong must have greater incentive to procreate than the weak, and that women must be more likely to procreate with the strong, while they ignore the weak. That's biological fact. That's natural selection working for women.

But what happens on the male side? I posit that the weaker one is on the social hierarchy, the "gay"er he is. Keeping in mind how hard it is to put someone on weak or strong in a non-violent, law-based world, we find that the strong are less interested in self-preservation and more interested in procreation simply because they believe they are capable of preserving themselves. The weak, however, are more interested in survival. They are approval seeking, they need others to like them as a primal tool to get other people to help protect them.

Since nobody really knows this is going on, we often find weak people with women and weak men using weak men as protection, but in my opinion these are less about animal drives than societal conventions. A weak man gets married because he feels he has to, even though somewhere deep down he feels something is not right.

Of course, people travel along this scale over the course of their lives. Different things cause them to travel different ways. Factors affecting confidence, sexual success, etc. etc. all affect the direction of your travel.

Personally, I'm just looking for a girl who is capable of saying "Problem? Let's solve it together!". And has big tits.

If you're gay:

I think you have a right to do whatever you want with your life.

I don't think being gay is conducive to the advancement of the human race.

It is not my right to attempt to influence you or change the way you live.

I'd prefer not to know if you blow dudes or not. I will be uncomfortable around you.

There is something wrong with it, I can't tell you what, but I believe it.

You are a faggot, queer, pillow-biter, ass-pirate, [censored], polesmoker. But if you earn my respect somehow and express your disapproval at being called any of those things, I will stop.

Your sexual orientation has no impact on your job performance or possible contribution to most causes.

To 2+2 please, please, be gentle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you are gay, but were you sexually abused / harassed by a gay person as a child?

If so, get counseling.

If not, I hope a gay arab takes a [censored] in your hat.

[nothumb]

Wrong forum.

NT

P.S. I hope a gay Arab shits in your hat too

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
My gay theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, your theory is quite gay.

[MMMMMM]

Gamblor,

I don't think you are gay (although it seems that many other posters in this thread now do), but I do believe you are insecure about your masculinity at a subconscious level.

I think you ought to spend a week in a quality whorehouse somewhere, then find a nice Jewish girl and settle down. I think both would do you a world of good (just be sure to get them in the right order;-)

[spamuell]

I don't think your theory is true and I don't think gay people are "weaker". However, that's no more valid than what you think. I would like to look at your definitions, though:

[ QUOTE ]

Strong: Dominant personality, confidence, ability to evaluate many variables and contexts, but ultimately self-interested even if he is morally-aware.

Weak: submissive, insecure, one-track minded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, I don't see why you include the attributes together that you do. Do you think there is a particular correlation between someone being submissive and them lacking the "ability to evaluate many variables"?

The contrast of "ability to evaluate many variables" as opposed to "one-track minded", does this pretty much mean intelligent/stupid. If not, what's the difference?

Also, do you not think that it's necessary for dominant and submissive personalities to exist in harmony with one another? If all people were dominant, it would be extremely difficult for relationships to work.

I think that I have two main objections to what, in the way I have understood what you have written, you seem to be suggesting as fact:

1. You imply that a submissive personality is connected to a lack of understanding of "variables and contexts" and that submissive people are more "one-track minded", essentially saying that those with a submissive personality are less intelligent. Is this what you're trying to say?

2. You say that "the strong must have greater incentive to procreate than the weak." Why must they have this? In a relationship between intelligent humans, it would make more sense that both a relationship of dominant and a submissive partner would be more "natural" than two partners of the same group.

I also just wanted to point out that, although you do say that there's a scale, I think it's far more complicated than you suggest to know whether someone has a "dominant/strong" or "submissive/weak" personality. I know both people who are socially very outgoing and dominant but sexually submissive and people who are generally shy and socially submissive but sexually aggressive and dominant.

[Gamblor]

Re: ability to reason and evaluate situations.

This does not refer to intelligence. I find that women and effeminate men act more on emotion than reason, and I used the wrong words to convey this point. I think the more confident/"strong" one is, the more likely they are to avoid making emotional decisions, much as the most confident poker players avoid tilt because they know they'll still win. These people make logic-based decisions based on their ability to evaluate variables, while the "weak" act more impulsively without considering consequences.

Phil Hellmuth, for example, in my opinion, has a complete lack of confidence and it shows. While this doesn't necessarily mean gay, it's a scale, remember.

This is so general i wonder if it's even worth saying.

I know both people who are socially very outgoing and dominant but sexually submissive and people who are generally shy and socially submissive but sexually aggressive and dominant.

I posted about this, about the boisterous guy at the party who goes home and wonders if anyone actually likes him, and the quiet wallflower who knows he's better than the commonfolk who are drinking and carrying on.

[Gamblor]

So you're only banging the non-slutty bitches?

Sex is one thing. I've had sex with a girl I didn't actually like because I wanted to have sex.

But I don't like slutty girls. A girl with self-respect and class is way hotter than any miniskirt/tubetop-wearing suck-dick-to-get-attention sorority whore.

[Gamblor]

I'll be honest the leather chaps and vest thing would freak me out. I would definently not interact with someone dressed like unless his profession was cowboy, lawman, or cattle rustler.

That said I can't say as I have ever seen someone dressed like that outside of TV so I have my doubts as to how big of an issue it is.

Come to downtown Toronto.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I joke around with girlfriends all the time, calling them bitches, sluts, etc. They understand I'm being somewhat facetious.

Likewise with black friends. They know I'm friends with them for the kind of people they are. If I call him a nigger, he knows I'm not expecting him to call me "Massa".

[/ QUOTE ]

God damn, you sound like a real fun guy to hang out with.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I found the post fascinating. It was fun watching Gamblor struggle with his homosexuality throughout the post and it was fun seeing more and more of his gayness shine through.

You start the post thinking, "hmm....I wonder if Gamblor is gay" and you end the post with, "man. That dude is pretty gay!".

I then see the "bangin bitches" tag on his name and that erases any doubt of how gay he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[spamuell]

I've been thinking about your theory and trying to actually see the crux of what you're saying, rather than picking random points about dominance or weakness or whatever.

Is the following what you're saying?

Gay people are weaker and more submissive which is why they don't feel the need to reproduce. Submissive people are approval seeking and "need others to like them as a primal tool to get other people to help protect them" which is why they (weak/gay men) have relationships with one another.

[andyfox]

"You don't see a problem with someone wearing the chaps etc. just for shock value OR to broadcast their sexual preference to the world?"

Uh, no. I see tons and tons of heterosexuals wearing clothes for shock value or to broadcast their sexual preference to the world. (After all, I live in L.A.) Why should it bother me? People dress to please themselves. What I believe is stylish or not is irrelevant.

It's not the broadcasting of sexual preference that you object to. It's the sexual preference.

[andyfox]

"I find that women and effeminate men act more on emotion than reason"

Quite a finding. Concersely, I find that women act more on reason than emotion. Many men are immature, and think that joking about niggers and bangin' bitches is fun and funny.

Glad to hear you're not certain that Phil Hellmuth is gay.

[Gamblor29]

Uh, no. I see tons and tons of heterosexuals wearing clothes for shock value or to broadcast their sexual preference to the world. (After all, I live in L.A.) Why should it bother me? People dress to please themselves. What I believe is stylish or not is irrelevant.

See the Aftermath thread.

I have just as big a problem with people who have excessive tattoos or odd piercings.

You have a tattoo of something that means something to you, go ahead. Do it in taste.

[Gamblor]

Gay people are weaker and more submissive which is why they don't feel the need to reproduce. Submissive people are approval seeking and "need others to like them as a primal tool to get other people to help protect them" which is why they (weak/gay men) have relationships with one another.

I think this is a simple version, but yes this would be the thesis.

I don't know why a man would be attracted to another man. It's a guess, that's all. It's nature's way of passing along the genes of the strong, rather than passing on the genes of the weak.

Dude I'm so sick of all the bull here I dont even care anymore.

[Gamblor]

I consider myself enjoyable.

I'd imagine others do as well.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. I see tons and tons of heterosexuals wearing clothes for shock value or to broadcast their sexual preference to the world. (After all, I live in L.A.) Why should it bother me? People dress to please themselves. What I believe is stylish or not is irrelevant.

It's not the broadcasting of sexual preference that you object to. It's the sexual preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Andy, I find loud people (whether it is voices, clothes, demeanor, or other sorts of things) to be offensive to my sensibilities. I think they have poor taste and a lack of consideration for others to some degree (more so with loud voices than with loud clothes, of course).

Being deliberately and conspicuously obtrusive is actually somewhat obnoxious in my opinion (it's not as bad as talking at loudly at length on a cell phone in public, but it is in the same general direction).

I think you are probably right that Gamblor primarily objects to the sexuality and not the clothes, but there is also something to be said for being low-to-moderate key in general. Hell, I think it is only being polite and respectful of others. So I consider "flaming" or "loud" gay dressers to be somewhat inconsiderate or rude--just as I consider many straight people to be boorish, loud and crass. And I do object to it, though silently.

The lastr thing we need is millions more people screaming "Hey, look at me! Listen to me!" Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are likely to get.

[Gamblor]

I think you are right that Gamblor primarily objects to the sexuality and not the clothes

This is wrong. This is exactly wrong.

Your whole post here is exactly what it is I am talking about.

As I said before, I like Will from Will and Grace.

I hate Jack from Will and Grace.

I view Jack as gay. I view Will as a guy who happens to be gay.

[MMMMMM]

Well Gamblor I just edited it to say "probably right that"--before I even read this post.

I don't know anything about Will and Grace, but I do find many TV personalities to be obnoxiously obtrusive. If that's what you are objecting to in general--the obnoxious obtrusiveness some people project--then I agree with you.

[Dead]

The irony of this is that your views would fit better in a fundamentalist Islamic society than in a mainstream Jewish society.

You know, the anti-gay, anti-woman, we're better than everyone else garbage.

[Wayfare]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are right that Gamblor primarily objects to the sexuality and not the clothes

This is wrong. This is exactly wrong.

Your whole post here is exactly what it is I am talking about.

As I said before, I like Will from Will and Grace.

I hate Jack from Will and Grace.

I view Jack as gay. I view Will as a guy who happens to be gay.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you hate loud obnoxious people that are defined by a single issue?

That used to define you to a T, but now you've expanded into homophobia.

[Gamblor]

The irony of this is that your views would fit better in a fundamentalist Islamic society than in a mainstream Jewish society.

You know, the anti-gay, anti-woman, we're better than everyone else garbage.

What the hell is this?

When did I say all this? When did I say "Women are worthless" or "gay people should die" or anything remotely close to that?

Are you some sort of PC-Police officer?

[Gamblor]

So you hate loud obnoxious people that are defined by a single issue?

Yes.

That used to define you to a T, but now you've expanded into homophobia.

I didn't come here intending to be the resident Jew.

I saw a bunch of posts that falsely accused people I know of being murderers and terrorists and I responded with the facts as I see them, as an Israeli citizen.

If I'm that guy, then of course I'd expect people to hate me, but I never saw myself as that guy. I play poker. I had some life experience to add to the political conversation. I don't walk around poker rooms wearing my army uniform or carrying a torah.

If I'm that guy, I guess I'm that guy /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Dead]

This crap about lots of women being sluts. How about your banging bitches location? To you, they're just objects that should be f'ed and then cast aside. And how about using a whole string of gay slurs in your post on the first page.

You and your ilk make me embarrassed to be a Jew.

[Dead]

And give it up while you're behind.

Go back to "banging bitches" or whatever it is that you do.

What are your responses to my post on the 2nd page:

"A lot of Jews would consider him an embarassment. Most Jews have no problem with homosexuality or gay people in general. In fact in the Reform sect of Judaism, gay civil union ceremonies are performed and gay rabbis are allowed.

And in Israel, which has the largest percentage of Jewish people of any country in the world, gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the Israeli Defense Forces. They also granted widowers same-sex benefit rights.

So your religion is fair game on here because I think that you are perverting it.

I happen to be of the Jewish faith, I like Israel, and I have no problem with gay people. "

[MMMMMM]

I think Gamblor's Bangin' Bitches location is just a joke.

[Dead]

It may be amusing to him but I don't think that he considers it a joke.

I think that he really does harbor a hatred of gay people, and a hatred of women deep down inside.

[andyfox]

You hate Jack because he is "too" gay, too flamboyant for you. Will "just happens to be" gay: he isn't as effeminate, he doesn't flaunt it as much.

Can't you see the problem here? It's the same thing as somebody saying Andy fox just happens to be Jewish: he doesn't flaunt it, he doesn't where a yarmulke, he dresses conservatively. But those Chasidim, they're "too" Jewish, I hate them. You refuse to accept that Jack's clothing and bearing are a much a part of him and what he is as the lifestyle of the Chasids who believe they are serving God.

It's OK by you is somebody happens to be gay, but you hate somebody who's more obviously (to you) gay. You can't see why so many here find this ugly?

[andyfox]

That's the nature of TV. The most famous characters on TV--The Fonz, Kramer, Monk, Lucy Riccardo, Archie Bunker, Hawkeye, to name a few--were over the top. It's entertainment, seeing something unique and different from our everyday lives.

[Gamblor]

How about your banging bitches location? To you, they're just objects that should be f'ed and then cast aside. And how about using a whole string of gay slurs in your post on the first page.

Bangin bitches is an inside joke with some friends who post mainly in the SSNL strategy forum.

The string of slurs was to drive home the point that I don't care if you're gay or not, but if you turn out to be a good person, and the words happen to bother you, I'd be glad to call you whatever you want. In fact, I'd be most likely to call you by your name.

[Gamblor]

You refuse to accept that Jack's clothing and bearing are a much a part of him and what he is as the lifestyle of the Chasids who believe they are serving God

This is interesting. If you'll recall, there was an episode where Jack's antics even get the best of Will. He actually goes so far as to say, "You're so gay."

Of course, will ends up learning a lesson and apologizing to him, but Jack learns a lesson too - that the in-your-face attitude isn't conducive to friendship.

I don't follow your point. Haredim, of which Chassidim are a subgroup, dress the way they do specifically to avoid attention. It's for modesty reasons. They dress in drab, modest colours to avoid stares, except in North America such modesty is unfortunately the expection, not the rule, and as such has an opposite effect.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You hate Jack because he is "too" gay, too flamboyant for you. Will "just happens to be" gay: he isn't as effeminate, he doesn't flaunt it as much.

Can't you see the problem here? It's the same thing as somebody saying Andy fox just happens to be Jewish: he doesn't flaunt it, he doesn't where a yarmulke, he dresses conservatively. But those Chasidim, they're "too" Jewish, I hate them. You refuse to accept that Jack's clothing and bearing are a much a part of him and what he is as the lifestyle of the Chasids who believe they are serving God.

It's OK by you is somebody happens to be gay, but you hate somebody who's more obviously (to you) gay. You can't see why so many here find this ugly?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're now stereotyping people as to how they should act if they fit into a certain category. There's no reason someone should be obnoxious just because he's gay. I dislike straight people that are obnoxious as well. And yes, if Andy wore a pink squined yarmulke and kept talking really loudly and continuously about being Jewish so no one ever knew anything about him except that he was jewish, that would be obnoxious.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

That's the nature of TV. The most famous characters on TV--The Fonz, Kramer, Monk, Lucy Riccardo, Archie Bunker, Hawkeye, to name a few--were over the top. It's entertainment, seeing something unique and different from our everyday lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes, but some manage to be obnoxiously obtrusive without really being obnoxiously obtrusive--or something like that;-)

Some actors are greats, whereas other are just great assholes. By the way, I thought baseball star Pete Rose seemed obnoxiously obtrusive and crass. Ditto for Mike Tyson but even more so.

I guess I just don't like being around crass people--which could be why I play almost entirely online now.

[andyfox]

I don't watch the show, I know the personas of the characters somewhat.

My point: it's the in-your-faceness of the more openly or flamboyant gays that you object to. So long as they don't let you know they're gay, it's, apparently, not a problem for you. This is your version of "keeping them in their place." So long as you don't see them (as gay), no problem. But as soon as they become assertive in their identity, it's a problem for you.

In the same way, my Jewishness is not a problem for other people (most of the time). But if I more openly asserted my Jewishness in my dress or appearance, it would be a problem for some other people.

My point is that it shouldn't be. Those for whom it would be are bigots.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Gay people are weaker and more submissive which is why they don't feel the need to reproduce. Submissive people are approval seeking and "need others to like them as a primal tool to get other people to help protect them" which is why they (weak/gay men) have relationships with one another.

I think this is a simple version, but yes this would be the thesis.

It's nature's way of passing along the genes of the strong, rather than passing on the genes of the weak.


[/ QUOTE ]

Submissive people are attracted to dominant people. Dominant people are attracted to submissive people. If all gay men were submissive/weak, there could be no successful gay relationships, thus your theory must be incorrect.

[Bulbarainey]

I dont really think your theory makes sense... I don't know what you mean by social heirarchy, but the average gay makes more money, is more likely to be educated, and usually is just more well-mannered... IMO, and I'm straight. But anyhow, back in the late 80s/early 90s my dad bet everything he had on this small apartment complex, and then the economy went pretty sour and we were living pretty down and out. Then the gays moved into the neighborhood in droves... when there use to be only some. Property values benefit tremendously when the gays move in... they keep their yards clean, paint their houses, frequently remodel, have higher avg incomes than straights, and commit less crime. Thus rent proceeded to go up, and we were able to live somewhat of an average life. Our neighborhood is now becoming even more gay: I'd say 5 years ago it was about 25% gay, now its half or more, lesbians included, and property values have raised as it has everywhere else in LA, but signifigantly higher than average, and I think they heavily contributed to this.
So, even though I dont love their lifestyle, they generally are good people, and more helpful to the economy than your average straight.