12 Aug 2007, 2:41 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
It specifies both masculine-personality gay men and feminine-personality gay men, and condemns them both on the basis of gay sexual activity.
It's funny you mention this, you just remind us about the gender roles that existed at that time, and how women were viewed and were suppose to be, and how men were suppose to be.
Are you saying there's no difference between men and women?
Then what the hell are we discussing here?There are no differences that are universal to EVERY man or EVERY woman. You can't say X, Y and Z apply to every woman. Everyone as an INDIVIDUAL is different.
Then you don't absolutely-only want to be with a woman, case closed.
BS.
The only people I ever like are women. I don't claim to like EVERY woman. I also don't like ANY men like that either.
12 Aug 2007, 2:44 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
It specifies both masculine-personality gay men and feminine-personality gay men, and condemns them both on the basis of gay sexual activity.
It's funny you mention this, you just remind us about the gender roles that existed at that time, and how women were viewed and were suppose to be, and how men were suppose to be.
Are you saying there's no difference between men and women?
Then what the hell are we discussing here?There are no differences that are universal to EVERY man or EVERY woman. You can't say X, Y and Z apply to every woman. Everyone as an INDIVIDUAL is different.
Then you don't absolutely-only want to be with a woman, case closed.
BS.
The only people I ever like are women. I don't claim to like EVERY woman. I also don't like ANY men like that either.
I am really amazed by that logic! (Ragtime's quote)
12 Aug 2007, 2:46 pm
greenblue wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
It specifies both masculine-personality gay men and feminine-personality gay men, and condemns them both on the basis of gay sexual activity.
It's funny you mention this, you just remind us about the gender roles that existed at that time, and how women were viewed and were suppose to be, and how men were suppose to be.
Are you saying there's no difference between men and women?
Then what the hell are we discussing here?There are no differences that are universal to EVERY man or EVERY woman. You can't say X, Y and Z apply to every woman. Everyone as an INDIVIDUAL is different.
Then you don't absolutely-only want to be with a woman, case closed.
BS.
The only people I ever like are women. I don't claim to like EVERY woman. I also don't like ANY men like that either.
I am really amazed by that logic!
Yeah, I accept that women share qualities and faults that men have, so therefore I must want to have sex with men as well. LOL What an idiot.
12 Aug 2007, 2:47 pm
12 Aug 2007, 2:51 pm
12 Aug 2007, 2:52 pm
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
It specifies both masculine-personality gay men and feminine-personality gay men, and condemns them both on the basis of gay sexual activity.
It's funny you mention this, you just remind us about the gender roles that existed at that time, and how women were viewed and were suppose to be, and how men were suppose to be.
Yeah, who cares whether they man is feminine or masculine?
God.
I didn't know God was sexist, I suppose the God from the bible might be.
I think the Creator of the sexes had some reason for making two instead of making us all the same. (And, by the way, it's not possible for God, being God, to be sexist. I'm always so glad, greenblue, that you think better in real life than you do in arguments
for safety's sake! You can temporarily become alarmingly ret*d.)
12 Aug 2007, 2:53 pm
Ragtime wrote:
You can temporarily become alarmingly ret*d.)
LOL That's coming from you?
12 Aug 2007, 2:56 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
You can temporarily become alarmingly ret*d.)
LOL That's coming from you?
LOL
12 Aug 2007, 2:59 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
As I've mentioned, I have been mentally gay before, and it seemed VERY natural at the time. I was quite enthusiatic about it, too. So yes, I can WELL imagine it, thank you very much. However, I'm not anymore, and thinking about men-on-men makes me physically sick.
Then you were never gay to begin with.
By the way, that's what the Bible says about "Christians" who stop believing -- that they were never Christians to begin with. I didn't know being gay was a religion.
12 Aug 2007, 3:02 pm
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
As I've mentioned, I have been mentally gay before, and it seemed VERY natural at the time. I was quite enthusiatic about it, too. So yes, I can WELL imagine it, thank you very much. However, I'm not anymore, and thinking about men-on-men makes me physically sick.
Then you were never gay to begin with.
By the way, that's what the Bible says about "Christians" who stop believing -- that they were never Christians to begin with. I didn't know being gay was a religion.
No real response as usual...
12 Aug 2007, 3:02 pm
12 Aug 2007, 3:02 pm
12 Aug 2007, 3:02 pm
12 Aug 2007, 3:03 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
It specifies both masculine-personality gay men and feminine-personality gay men, and condemns them both on the basis of gay sexual activity.
It's funny you mention this, you just remind us about the gender roles that existed at that time, and how women were viewed and were suppose to be, and how men were suppose to be.
Are you saying there's no difference between men and women?
Then what the hell are we discussing here?There are no differences that are universal to EVERY man or EVERY woman. You can't say X, Y and Z apply to every woman. Everyone as an INDIVIDUAL is different.
Then you don't absolutely-only want to be with a woman, case closed.
BS.
The only people I ever like are women. I don't claim to like EVERY woman. I also don't like ANY men like that either.
So, the women you like -- there could never be a man like them? In what ways, specifically? Is it a vagina thing or what?
12 Aug 2007, 3:06 pm
12 Aug 2007, 3:10 pm
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
As I've mentioned, I have been mentally gay before, and it seemed VERY natural at the time. I was quite enthusiatic about it, too. So yes, I can WELL imagine it, thank you very much. However, I'm not anymore, and thinking about men-on-men makes me physically sick.
Then you were never gay to begin with.
Then why did I enjoy the thoughts so much?
Then you mustn't be straight either.
Shut up, you're just making sh** up now.
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Why is this, shall I say, "doctrine of gay permanence so important to you? It just doesn't make any sense. It's entirely theoretical! I mean, you believe everyone has a gay/straight ratio, right? Well, if someone was 63% gay, why on Earth would you assume they'll always be 63%? Haven't you ever heard of latent homosexuality? Those are people who practiced, felt, and thought totally straight until middle age. (Note: sex hormone balances change greatly as a person ages.)
It's important to me because people who don't accept it try to suggest that you can then stop being gay by choice. Which completely undermines all the sh** some people go through in school because of it.
Well, it might help a certain cause, but that's no reason to preach it as proven fact when it's not. I guess all research on homosexuality is complete and definitive, because that's what you're implying.
Sopho wrote:
And yes, I've heard of latent homosexuality. Not the definition you gave though. And latent homosexuality is often linked to homophobia. And I also know hormone balances change as someone gets older.
Actually, "homophobia" is linked to being straight. That's because "homophobia" as it's defined by the word's users doesn't just mean fear, but resistance. Anyone who resists gayness is labeled a "homophobe".
Nice manipulation tactic.
