|
|
#1
02-24-2005, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Gay Theory: The Aftermath
I was reading all these posts whining about people using the word "gay" and I began to wonder what makes people gay.
I mean, wanting to have sex with a woman, that makes sense. There's logic to it. If a species is to grow and increase population, there has to be some incentive to procreate. Having sex with a girl is supposed to feel good. And I think it does. I haven't had a lot of girlfriends, but I know I like it. I couldn't come up with a logical reason for gayness. What would attract a man to another man, so much that he would prefer his company? A man is supposed to go and hunt, kill, and compete for women. The theory itself was my best attempt, given no sexual attraction to men or even a single outed-gay friend, at explaining it. Through some shrewd manipulation of the words in my post, and some crafty distortion of subsequent posts, it's taken me about 20 hours to become the 2+2 resident racist homophobe. Rest assured I have no ill-will towards gay people who are simply gay. If anything, the thread helped me realize that it is various aspects of the stereotypical gay personality that I dislike; I had always assumed these personalities were more prevalent in gay people, likely due to television stereotypes, my upbringing in an all-boys school, and multiple childhood teachers arrested for abusing little boys. Ultimately, everyone has the right to do what they want, and just because I have a random emotional impulse to exert physical dominance (i.e. beat the piss out of) over a person, doesn't mean I ever would - some things you just don't do. 2+2ers love a good argument more than most. But 95% of you are really sick people. To anyone who actually evaluated what I wrote (right or wrong) instead of searching for something to flame, thanks. I always said, if I ever met a racist or someone with other social malfunctions, I'd be much better off explaining to him why he's wrong rather than screaming like a fool. To anyone who immediately shouted "homophobe" and "tool" and "racist" and otherwise labeled me or was judgemental, were close-minded when I tried to clarify, or showed intolerance for other views: you can eat balls. But I'm also convinced anyone who did that has already made their judgement, will close this post, and think "What a jerk, I don't care what he says, I know he's still a racist homophobe." Oh well. I wouldn't want to be friends with someone like that anyway. BTW, yes I was banned for all that swearing. Hey, I think it's funny that's the only reason I was banned. 
|
|
#2
02-24-2005, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gay Theory: The Aftermath
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't come up with a logical reason for gayness. What would attract a man to another man, so much that he would prefer his company? A man is supposed to go and hunt, kill, and compete for women. The theory itself was my best attempt, given no sexual attraction to men or even a single outed-gay friend, at explaining it. [/ QUOTE ] First off, as you may be aware, homosexuality is not specific to humans. Second, the point of reproduction is to continue the surivial of your genes. Gay members of a species can help continue the surival of their genes by helping care for their siblings, or their siblings children. This is a trait that has been observed in homosexual members of other species. This leads to one theory explaining homosexuality, as you have a lot of genes in common with your siblings and their children. [ QUOTE ] BTW, yes I was banned for all that swearing. Hey, I think it's funny that's the only reason I was banned. [/ QUOTE ] You are a douchebag and you should be banned forever.
|
|
#4
02-24-2005, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gay Theory: The Aftermath
What swearing, I don't recall any.
|
|
#6
02-24-2005, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gay Theory: The Aftermath
You seem to complain about the numerous ad hominem responses. However, you invited ad hominem responses by your inclusion of derogatory terms for homosexuals at the end of your post. Despite your position that those are just words, they are not JUST WORDS because you framed them in a certain context.
Ignoring the merits of your argument (assuming, arguendo, there are any) the real problem with your THEORY is your fundamental lack of compassion for your subject. You state a number of times, "they are humans, etc." but your post is really devoid of any acknowledgement of "their" humanity. If your true purpose was to better understand what makes homosexuals, homosexual, it is neigh impossible when you start with the premise that they are walking freak shows.
|
|
#9
02-24-2005, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gay Theory: The Aftermath
[ QUOTE ]
"Your account has been banned or locked due to: circumventing profanity filter" [/ QUOTE ] Why not just say [censored] off. People know what you mean and you don't violate the rules?
|
|
#10
02-24-2005, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gay Theory: The Aftermath
However, you invited ad hominem responses by your inclusion of derogatory terms for homosexuals at the end of your post.
Probably a bad idea, I just included any term I could think of that described them, derogatory or not. the real problem with your THEORY is your fundamental lack of compassion for your subject I have no emotional connection to the subject. I don't know any outed gay people beyond the odd casino dealer and one friend of a friend. If your true purpose was to better understand what makes homosexuals, homosexual, it is neigh impossible when you start with the premise that they are walking freak shows. I don't see why, but I can't deny that I do see them that way (to a degree). But I view them the same as I view people with pierced nipples or extreme tattoos; as someone who at some point has made a choice to do something with their lives that I don't approve of. Even if I don't personally approve of it, that has no bearing on whether they ought to be allowed to do it. What right do I have to tell someone else what choices to make with their lives? It's none of my business.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
