The gay flag

[Exquiro]

EDIT: LMAO. Sorry XD

[Overlord Darth Fluffles]

I was talking about men loving men, woman loving woman. It does not deserve a flag. If that's the case why not give Sadists and Masochits flags? It's homosexuality. So yeah it is a sexuality.

[Sanosuke23]

If that's the case why not give Sadists and Masochits flags?

Homosexuality and Sadomasochism are two completely different things. Homosexuality is your sexual preference, while Sadomasochism is a fetish. A fetish is something in particular you enjoy doing, while your sexual preference is a biological response to a particular sex.

You might as well consider heterosexuality akin to Sadomasochism, but I'm sure that if someone made that connection straight people would get up in arms about it.




As for myself, I believe pro-gay organizations has every right to have a flag representing their organization and their cause, which as I recall was how the rainbow flag came about. It represents gay pride in the same way a school flag does school pride. Even if you don't go to that school but support their team, you wear the colors. If anyone blew it up into some universal homosexual cry for uniqueness it was conservatives that, fearing some sort of gay uprising, started to interpret it that way.

[Momokachan]

...dear God.
I honestly have seen seven-year-olds have more mature conversations. I figured I'd probably better add my own flame into this, but for the love of random deities, this is ridiculous.

On the subject of the gay pride flag: Homosexuals fly the gay pride flag to piss off the "Bible-thumpers" who are trying to convince them that "it's a choice, not a gene!" In places like San Francisco, I get the distinct feeling that they fly the flag in stores to alert other homosexuals to their presence, but I could be mistaken on that.

On bisexuality: Bisexuality is defined by the Kinsey Institute for Sexual Studies as a legitimate sexual orientation. (By the way, for those who might not have heard of the Kinsey Institute, they were the ones that invented the Kinsey Scale).

On homosexual scholarships: The only legitimate scholarship for homosexuals I've ever heard of was only about $400 Canadian. For those of you who don't have to worry about college costs, that might pay for a semester's worth of textbooks, if you buy them used. Plus, unless said college student has an excellent relationship with his/her parents, I doubt that scholarship would be awarded, because in order to get it, there must be an affidavit signed by the student and both parents that legally attests to the student's homosexuality.

As far as the flag goes, who honestly gives a crap? It's like hippies flying the peace sign flag, or stoners flying the pot flag, or veterans flying their army/navy/air force flags. Saying the gay pride flag is stupid is like saying having any individuality at all is stupid.

[Wio]

On the subject of the gay pride flag: Homosexuals fly the gay pride flag to piss off the "Bible-thumpers" who are trying to convince them that "it's a choice, not a gene!" In places like San Francisco, I get the distinct feeling that they fly the flag in stores to alert other homosexuals to their presence, but I could be mistaken on that.

First of all, the "I've heard 7 year olds blah blah blah" was cliche.

Secondly, the who, what, where, when, and why of sex are all choices unless the said sex was rape.
So whether or not you liked green eggs and ham, it was your choice to do it with a fox, in a box, or to someone of the same gender.

[Sanosuke23]

Secondly, the who, what, where, when, and why of sex are all choices unless the said sex was rape.

Yes, but the concept of a gay person regularly choosing to have sex with a member of the opposite sex is about as ridiculous as a straight person regularly choosing to have sex with a member of the same sex. It would take a lot of repression and probably intoxication to make themselves do it.

The "bible-thumpers" Momokachan are referring to are insistent on the fact that homosexuality is a choice and not something you're born into. This is a bit of a slippery slope here, because there are some people simply born gay, some are gay due to some trauma in their life "turning" them that way, and some people are hedonists, seeking their pleasure wherever they can find it. It's a matter of recognizing that all three are very real, and neither side is willing to do so because they fear leaving an opening in their argument.



Also Momokachan, the point is that having a scholarship exclusively for one particular demographic is indeed biased. The only exception I see is the family's income level, since that would affect how much each family can contribute to the cost of college themselves and so affect how much money the scholarship would grant them. Also, by flying the flag of a particular group you are allowing yourself to be assimilated into that group to some extent, so if anything flying a flag takes away more individuality than not.

I say let whoever wants to wave a flag around do it, so long as it isn't over the windshield of a moving car or some other potentially dangerous situation.

[Wio]

Yes, but the concept of a gay person regularly choosing to have sex with a member of the opposite sex is about as ridiculous as a straight person regularly choosing to have sex with a member of the same sex. It would take a lot of repression and probably intoxication to make themselves do it.

That is an opinion. Some people (I included) believe that having sex with anything other than pne of the same species and opposite gender is ridiculous, that sexual preference is irrelevant. Some people prefer to have sex with animals. Although it might be socially exceptable in '08, most people find it ridiculous now.

The "bible-thumpers" Momokachan are referring to are insistent on the fact that homosexuality is a choice and not something you're born into. This is a bit of a slippery slope here, because there are some people simply born gay, some are gay due to some trauma in their life "turning" them that way, and some people are hedonists, seeking their pleasure wherever they can find it. It's a matter of recognizing that all three are very real, and neither side is willing to do so because they fear leaving an opening in their argument.

I think all three of those choose to do what they do regardless. They could resist any temptation if they had the self-esteem or will power.

[BJRMuffin]

why must skittles taste like various fruits? Are skittles trying to be gay?

Anyway, its peoples choice whether they want to be gay or not, I don't think it should be anyone but there business.. So why do people make such a big deal out of it. As for the flag, I think it looks cool.. because its Rainbow and rainbows make me smile..

[Sanosuke23]

That is an opinion. Some people (I included) believe that having sex with anything other than pne of the same species and opposite gender is ridiculous, that sexual preference is irrelevant. Some people prefer to have sex with animals. Although it might be socially exceptable in '08, most people find it ridiculous now.

By that logic, being straight is a choice, so I ask you in the spirit of proving your point to go have sex someone of your same gender.

I think all three of those choose to do what they do regardless. They could resist any temptation if they had the self-esteem or will power.

Well see the operative word is "think." You're assuming it's simply about sex. There's much more to a relationship than sex. It's a matter of being capable of feeling romantic love for someone, for instance.

[Moon Helix Avatar]

I'm lesbian, I now and then frequent rallies and marches and such.

I'm not all "pro gay" though, it's not a massive pride thing for me. I'm proud of who I am, it's not what I am but who I am. As for my opinion on the flag, no big deal to me. I have two shirts that I bought on "Coming Out Day", I wear them on occasion but mostly because its a shirt lol. I wear them to events sometimes, but over all the flag doesn't mean much to me because I'm pretty neutral about it all. I'm more concerned with living my life and being happy, rather than be "all about" gay pride.

[Wio]

By that logic, being straight is a choice, so I ask you in the spirit of proving your point to go have sex someone of your same gender.

I'm not going to prove a point by doing something I think is immoral. You are right to say being straight is a choice in that it is your choice whether you have sex with people of the opposite sex or not.
There are people who have claimed to be gay but turned themself straight. There are polititions who have lived straight lives untill the power got to their head and they decided to have sex with someone of the same gender. These are examples of people who chose to live the life they lived.

Well see the operative word is "think." You're assuming it's simply about sex. There's much more to a relationship than sex. It's a matter of being capable of feeling romantic love for someone, for instance.

You can have an (intimate) relationship with just about anyone that is compatable, regardless of gender. But this is neither here nor there. HomoSEXUALITY is about sex, just as HeteroSEXUALITY is. While it is human to have a relationship with someone you're having sex with, it doesn't always happen.

[Sanosuke23]

There are people who have claimed to be gay but turned themself straight. There are polititions who have lived straight lives untill the power got to their head and they decided to have sex with someone of the same gender. These are examples of people who chose to live the life they lived.

The problem with your logic is as follows:

1) The majority of people who "turned straight" tend to go through some sort of mental conditioning to "fix" themselves; those that don't will usually admit to still feeling attracted to members of the same sex but refuse to act on it. THAT is the choice, the fact that you have those urges is not.

2) There is no way to back up the claim that they suddenly became gay because they had power. The only reason you know about it is because they're a public figure, but clearly the people they've done it with have been doing so without having some sort of power given to them. If anything evidence suggests that there's a larger "secretly" gay community out there than was once thought.

You can have an (intimate) relationship with just about anyone that is compatable, regardless of gender. But this is neither here nor there. HomoSEXUALITY is about sex, just as HeteroSEXUALITY is. While it is human to have a relationship with someone you're having sex with, it doesn't always happen.

Intimate, yes. Romantic, no. There is indeed a difference. Relatives will often have an intimate relationship, and most of the time no romance is involved.

Sexuality is in fact referring to the sex your body is biologically attracted to. Hetero is Greek for different, homo is derived from homos, the Greek word for same. The key word in all of that is "biologically." It isn't something you turn on and off like a switch, you are attracted to whomever you are attracted to. ACTING on those attractions is indeed a choice, however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion less natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you.



This part I will understand if you interpret as an attempt to insult you, but I assure you that's not my intent. Something has been bugging me though; You claim that homosexuality is a choice that you wouldn't act upon due to your morals. Does that mean that you find yourself attracted to members of the same sex, but refuse to act on those urges? Or do you not feel the slightest bit of physical attraction at all? I'm only asking because the way you've been wording things is suggesting the former rather than the latter, and I'm curious.

[genericusername2]

Do you like it? I don't. I think it sperates homosexuals from the rest of the world, like we're our own race or something. We're NOT! We just happen to like the same sex is all. Anyway, what do you guys think?

I think that's exactly why we should have a gay flag.

[Wio]

I'm going to have to neglect to address other parts of your post because they are too irrelevant to my original post which started out discussion. If I exclude anything that you really wanted answered than you can PM it to me and I'll be happy to respond.

[Sexuality] isn't something you turn on and off like a switch, you are attracted to whomever you are attracted to. ACTING on those attractions is indeed a choice...

The bold is more or less what I meant with my original comment, so there is no disagreement here.

It start with the following:

...however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion less natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you.

Something doesn't need to directly hurt a person for a person to be unsupportive of it. Things like homosexuality and promiscuity conflict with my values pertaining to family. While I won't drop dead if Bob and Fred play around in bed, I'll still think it is a ridiculous thing to do.

[Sanosuke23]

I'm going to have to neglect to address other parts of your post because they are too irrelevant to my original post which started out discussion. If I exclude anything that you really wanted answered than you can PM it to me and I'll be happy to respond.

As for the last part, I understand. The rest of it pertained to the topic at hand pretty closely. It may not directly answer the question of whether or not gay people should have a flag, but the topic has expanded since its original focus.

The bold is more or less what I meant with my original comment, so there is no disagreement here.

Yes, but I do so love how you disregard the part about how it's biologically unnatural to choose not to act on what you're attracted to, yet you focus on a minor concession I gave to your argument solely to set up the point that it's unnatural to choose against it.

Something doesn't need to directly hurt a person for a person to be unsupportive of it. Things like homosexuality and promiscuity conflict with my values pertaining to family. While I won't drop dead if Bob and Fred play around in bed, I'll still think it is a ridiculous thing to do.

While homosexuality may conflict with your values pertaining to family, I would have to point out that there are plenty of homosexuals that are more than capable of not only supporting a child or children, but that there are a large number of heterosexual couples with children that are in no way decent parents. While I can't call your personal values wrong, as they are opinion and also mostly unknown to me, I can say that from what I do know they seem fairly narrow-minded.

While you may not support their lifestyles or their flag or whatever, that alone isn't judging harshly. Please don't think I'm trying to label anyone who doesn't 100% omg love luv LOEV gay people as being judgemental, homophobic, or any other label you wish to use. What I don't agree with is the fact that you're claiming they shouldn't have a flag, or on a separate and partially related note I assume you disagree with legalizing gay marriage, because you disagree with their lifestyle. THAT is what I find is judging harshly. If you want no part of it that's one thing, but to form an opinion on what they do and do not deserve seems a little self-important.

...however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion less natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you.

I would fix this in the original post, but then your reply would seem off.

What it SHOULD say is
"...however following what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion more natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you."

[Wio]

As for the last part, I understand. The rest of it pertained to the topic at hand pretty closely. It may not directly answer the question of whether or not gay people should have a flag, but the topic has expanded since its original focus.

Ok, don't mind my being blunt then.

The problem with your logic is as follows:

1) The majority of people who "turned straight" tend to go through some sort of mental conditioning to "fix" themselves; those that don't will usually admit to still feeling attracted to members of the same sex but refuse to act on it. THAT is the choice, the fact that you have those urges is not.

2) There is no way to back up the claim that they suddenly became gay because they had power. The only reason you know about it is because they're a public figure, but clearly the people they've done it with have been doing so without having some sort of power given to them. If anything evidence suggests that there's a larger "secretly" gay community out there than was once thought.

The purpose of those examples was to prove that people can live a heterosexual life though they had gay urges. You didn't disprove that the persons in the examples lacked gay urges, nor did you disprove that they lived heterosexually, so you're either arguing for the sake of arguing or I missed something.

Intimate, yes. Romantic, no. There is indeed a difference. Relatives will often have an intimate relationship, and most of the time no romance is involved.

Romance isn't significant in every dating/marriage relationship. Some people are naturally not very romantic.

Yes, but I do so love how you disregard the part about how it's biologically unnatural to choose not to act on what you're attracted to, yet you focus on a minor concession I gave to your argument solely to set up the point that it's unnatural to choose against it.

If I haven't said that I don't care about whether something is 'biologically unnatural' or not, then I will say it now: I don't care whether something is biologically unnatural or not.

While homosexuality may conflict with your values pertaining to family, I would have to point out that there are plenty of homosexuals that are more than capable of not only supporting a child or children, but that there are a large number of heterosexual couples with children that are in no way decent parents. While I can't call your personal values wrong, as they are opinion and also mostly unknown to me, I can say that from what I do know they seem fairly narrow-minded.

I don't think every parent is a decent parent. I don't suport indecent parents. I know that a homosexual couple is capable of supporting children atleast in a financial sense.

While you may not support their lifestyles or their flag or whatever, that alone isn't judging harshly. Please don't think I'm trying to label anyone who doesn't 100% omg love luv LOEV gay people as being judgemental, homophobic, or any other label you wish to use. What I don't agree with is the fact that you're claiming they shouldn't have a flag, or on a separate and partially related note I assume you disagree with legalizing gay marriage, because you disagree with their lifestyle. THAT is what I find is judging harshly. If you want no part of it that's one thing, but to form an opinion on what they do and do not deserve seems a little self-important.

If I were to say I don't support marriages that contain more than two people, would I be judging harshly against polygamists?

I would fix this in the original post, but then your reply would seem off.

What it SHOULD say is
"...however denying what your body is telling you you should do is in my opinion more natural than denying it for a set of morals that would judge others harshly for acting on something that is in no way hurting you."

This doesn't make any more sense than the original (which I still barely comprehend.)

Simplifying it....
Denying X is more natural than denying X for Y.

For it to make sense you would need to say is something like:
Denying X for Y1 is more natural than denying X for Y2.

[Sanosuke23]

Ok, don't mind my being blunt then.

The purpose of those examples was to prove that people can live a heterosexual life though they had gay urges. You didn't disprove that the persons in the examples lacked gay urges, nor did you disprove that they lived heterosexually, so you're either arguing for the sake of arguing or I missed something.

My goal wasn't to disprove they lacked gay urges, not that they lived heterosexually. My goal was to point out that the examples you used were inherently flawed when used to prove your case. The burden of proof falls on you for those two examples. This isn't arguing for the sake of arguing, I am offering a counterpoint in what I took to be a calm debate over a fairly controversial topic. It seems you missed something, doesn't it?

Romance isn't significant in every dating/marriage relationship. Some people are naturally not very romantic.

Significant, no. Present, yes. Even people that don't have a taste for roses and candy can tell the difference between holding your mother and holding your lover.

I don't think every parent is a decent parent. I don't suport indecent parents. I know that a homosexual couple is capable of supporting children atleast in a financial sense.


If I were to say I don't support marriages that contain more than two people, would I be judging harshly against polygamists?

So you don't believe they're capable of offering the same parental support that a heterosexual adoptive couple can?

No, but you seem to have misread my post. The issue isn't you disagreeing with their lifestyle, it's claiming they shouldn't have something because of it when it isn't hurting anyone. Polygamists shouldn't get married to multiple people because it would be murder on tax laws when filing jointly, and polygamy is exploitative while homosexuality isn't.

This doesn't make any more sense than the original (which I still barely comprehend.)

Simplifying it....
Denying X is more natural than denying X for Y.

For it to make sense you would need to say is something like:
Denying X for Y1 is more natural than denying X for Y2.

I re-edited that, I forgot to fix part of it and apologize for the confusion.

[Wio]

My goal wasn't to disprove they lacked gay urges, not that they lived heterosexually. My goal was to point out that the examples you used were inherently flawed when used to prove your case. The burden of proof falls on you for those two examples. This isn't arguing for the sake of arguing, I am offering a counterpoint in what I took to be a calm debate over a fairly controversial topic. It seems you missed something, doesn't it?

You took my examples out of context and then proceeded to nitpick at them, then you neglected disputing the point they were created to support... actually you conceeded to the original point in your nitpicking of one of the examples. I'm sorry that I didn't feel it was necessary to address the 'flaws' of my examples...

Significant, no. Present, yes. Even people that don't have a taste for roses and candy can tell the difference between holding your mother and holding your lover.

There is a difference, but that doesn't mean your incapable of holding your mother as a lover.

So you don't believe they're capable of offering the same parental support that a heterosexual adoptive couple can?

There are things you can only really learn well from a father and things you can only really learn well from a mother. Thus it is optimal to have both. The fact that families are so broken up might be related to certain problems people claim to have today.

No, but you seem to have misread my post. The issue isn't you disagreeing with their lifestyle, it's claiming they shouldn't have something because of it when it isn't hurting anyone. Polygamists shouldn't get married to multiple people because it would be murder on tax laws when filing jointly, and polygamy is exploitative while homosexuality isn't.

That wouldn't be harmfull to anyone. It would just create some complications that would need to be fixed, and I'm sure there would be some if same sex marriage was legalized.

[_CTA_]

Because of the rainbow flag, it scared me to buy rainbow coloured clothing...

[Sanosuke23]

You took my examples out of context and then proceeded to nitpick at them, then you neglected disputing the point they were created to support... actually you conceeded to the original point in your nitpicking of one of the examples. I'm sorry that I didn't feel it was necessary to address the 'flaws' of my examples...

I neglected to dispute the point that being gay is a choice that people shouldn't make? How? I pointed out that in order to "overcome" their urges, most "turned straight" people tend to undergo mental conditioning, often using negative reinforcement to train their mind to be straight. That's pretty extreme and more than a little disturbing to me, and someone with more of a passion for this topic might even call it brainwashing. As for the politician thing, you claimed it was power that made them choose to have sex with men, when in fact that's a claim you're in no position to make. You may not have this problem, but a fair amount of people that choose to ignore their urges and wind up extremely unhappy with life, because all of it is a facade to them. That, in my opinion, is worse than maybe going out on a date with whoever you're attracted to to see if there's something more than a physical attraction.

There is a difference, but that doesn't mean your incapable of holding your mother as a lover.

Yes, but progressing down that line of reasoning, inbreeding increases the chances for complications during pregnancy and birth defects. That would be bringing a child with a severe handicap into this world.

There are things you can only really learn well from a father and things you can only really learn well from a mother. Thus it is optimal to have both. The fact that families are so broken up might be related to certain problems people claim to have today.

What about a man that was raised by women, and live their life as a woman? The only difference being the lack of a female reproductive system. you mean to tell me that menstruation equals the potential for good parenting?

That wouldn't be harmfull to anyone. It would just create some complications that would need to be fixed, and I'm sure there would be some if same sex marriage was legalized.

Wow. You can't see the inherent imbalance in one person having multiple spouses? Seriously? I take it your idea of marriage is the wife needs to walk three paces behind her husband when they're going somewhere.

[Finvarra]

I already posted here but,
Why is it a big deal?
Its just a colorful piece of cloth.

[I<3ShellShock]

I already posted here but,
Why is it a big deal?
Its just a colorful piece of cloth.

you're exactly right, it's almost stupid to let this effect everyone.

[Bean Bandit]

Closed becsause this is going no where and never has been.