The LGBT Thread

[Ruldra]

I do happen to know someone who suffers from gender dysphoria (the guy I mentioned in the first page).

When I was a kid, I used to visit my grandma a lot and play with the other kids in the neighborhood. There was this one boy who, even at the age of 6, was extremely effeminate. He spoke and behaved like a girl. He never spent time with us, he was often seen talking and playing with the girls.

As he got older, he let his hair grow, removed all body hair, started wearing women's clothes and took up singing as his main hobby. His family watched all that and would say it was just a phase, something he would grow out of...

...until he came home one day with pictures from a photoshoot he did. As I was told, "the house came crashing down" that day. The family disowned and kicked him out. I don't know how he's doing nowadays. Very nice fellow and was very happy to embrace his feminine side.

These people have it worst. Not only are they uncomfortable in their own bodies, but society is extremely harsh on them. I heard even at the gay community they are looked down upon. As a parent, your child really needs all your support. Disowning and kicking him out is the absolute worst thing you can do.

[Moniker]

Wow, Arizona and Uganda. Never expected to reference those two with the same breath.

I can't believe Arizona 1) passed such egregious shit in its legislature or that 2) the governor didn't dismiss it outright.

It's one thing for people refusing to perform certain services as part of their religious beliefs, e.g. Catholic pharmacists refusing to sell birth control or morning-after pills. It's quite another to refuse service to a *person* who doesn't gel with your religious beliefs. The hell happened to 'love the sinner, hate the sin?' This is so far gone I just don't even.

[nasty_wolverine]

I am always for equality, but you should read up on the LGBT status in India, while we arent on a witch hunt, but yeah, society does discriminate.
I have had a few gay friends and a lesbian friend too.

But you should be afraid of transgenders in India. Well they are organized and because of their 3rd gender status, they demand special privileges. You cannot deny them money if they ask you, or they ll flash you in public, or grab your balls. But its the cultures fault really, they were ostracized from society, so they banded together, now they have become some sort of organized mob.

In the end, people are people, dont fuck with them if you dont want them to fuck with you, but if its consensual fucking, do it out of sight please.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

It's no surprise we haven't really made much social progress with respect to transgenderism. Just look at what happens to hermaphrodites: we have a history of surgically "correcting" their genitals when they're young to look like one or the other to supposedly protect them from social stigmatization, even though they may well be born with both a penis and a vagina that they'd be fine with as adults.

I remember reading that somewhere that studies have consistently shown that people who identify as transgender that get treatment (hormonal, surgical) integrate better and live more fulfilling lives with vastly reduced suicide rates. No, science isn't really at the stage where you can surgically change something as ingrained like your chromosomes yet, and I'm sure transgender people are well-aware of this more than anyone, but if cosmetic surgery and social support helps them come close as it's currently physically possible to being whatever gender they feel they are and want to be, then I'm all for it. It's not only important for the sake of their happiness, but when you consider the alternative of not providing them support and then having to deal with the socioeconomic costs of treating depression, drug abuse, suicide, and all that fun stuff related to being generally miserable about yourself, really, you could argue even with bigoted folks that getting transgendered people treatment is probably better from an economic standpoint too!

There's a really awesome book of animal biology by a cool guy named Bruce Bagemihl I happen to own that's a neat read. Biological Exuberance is mostly giant reference lists of various species and what they've been observed doing in terms of gay/lesbian, even transgenderism or transvestism (in terms of animal behaviour) has been observed, but biology's been so prudish that apparently a lot of the observations were ignored or dismissed as they thought the animals must've been diseased or mentally retarded. Seriously, the only species the book doesn't cover in serious detail are insects and reptiles, mostly because there isn't as much observational data for them, though one of the more popular reptiles as an example is this one cool species of lizard that's entirely female and reproduces by parthenogenesis and has tons of lesbian sex which apparently helps get the eggs made without any genetic transfer. Also, dolphins like to fuck each other's blowholes. Yup.

tl;dr animals do tons of gay shit all the time, so anyone who says homosexuality isn't natural is a moron

[antron]

I hear male sheep are gay 50% of the time. That must get really confusing.

[GaijinPunch]

or they ll flash you in public, or grab your balls.

For free?

[nasty_wolverine]

or they ll flash you in public, or grab your balls.

For free?

trust me you wouldnt like
also, they might even slap or bite you. if you see them, give them money. there was a time where a lot of them use to street walk, you never knew what you were picking up (I do night shifts at times, and sometimes see them on my way back)

that said, some of the ones that are not on the streets are really pretty, you would genuinely confuse them for girls, you can see them in clubs or pubs most often. I was once in a club, the club was famous for being a hangout for the northeast girls (they look asian, like chinese/japanese asian), i saw one of them, drunk to the core with a miniskirt on, she jumped up on the DJ's table and started to dance, and it was hot.

[glitch]

...biology's been so prudish that apparently a lot of the observations were ignored or dismissed as they thought the animals must've been diseased or mentally retarded.

or when a male butts head with a female it's "courting behaviour" but when a male mounts another male he's "asserting dominance".

is this nsfw?


shot from a deep sea research sub. researchers were delighted to have caught first-ever footage of the mating behaviour of elusive deep-sea octopuses, and took it to a marine biologist for detailed analysis. i wish they also had footage of their faces when the marine biologist informed them that not just are both of these octopuses male, they're also different species. yeah, that's deep-sea inter-species gay tentacle sex what you're looking at.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I remember that octopus video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOx9DxHsMyc

[BIL]

Damn, that's a right good tentacled rogering. Urotsukidoji tier. My boss saw and terminated my contract on the spot.

[Specineff]

SB-1062 was ultimately vetoed. Now if we could only get the doofus(es) who crafted it in the first place and beat them up with tungsten (or osmium) pipes...

[GaijinPunch]

that said, some of the ones that are not on the streets are really pretty, you would genuinely confuse them for girls, you can see them in clubs or pubs most often. I was once in a club, the club was famous for being a hangout for the northeast girls (they look asian, like chinese/japanese asian), i saw one of them, drunk to the core with a miniskirt on, she jumped up on the DJ's table and started to dance, and it was hot.

Cool... huge cock?

that's deep-sea inter-species gay tentacle sex what you're looking at.

You think the little guy on top gave him a reach around after he finished.

I remember that octopus video.

Best line in the video: This third arm is the male's reproductive organ.

[nasty_wolverine]

that said, some of the ones that are not on the streets are really pretty, you would genuinely confuse them for girls, you can see them in clubs or pubs most often. I was once in a club, the club was famous for being a hangout for the northeast girls (they look asian, like chinese/japanese asian), i saw one of them, drunk to the core with a miniskirt on, she jumped up on the DJ's table and started to dance, and it was hot.

Cool... huge cock?

couldnt make out cock.

[Moniker]

So.. the mayors of Boston & New York, as well as Guinness and other beer companies pulled their sponsorship of the St. Paddy's day parades because said parades wouldn't allow paraders to openly identify as LGBT or sport LGBT-related messages.

On the one hand, I'm thinking, gay pride is pretty well off-topic for a St. Patrick's day parade. The ban on the openly identify part is clearly stupid, but the second part of the ban may be sorta justified.

Then again, what exactly is 'on-topic' w/r/t St. Patrick's Day? The holiday clearly no longer celebrates the spread of Christianity to Ireland. At best it's an Irish pride affair.. which hasn't really been relevant or necessary for quite some time now, at least not in the US. At worst, and most accurately, it reaffirms the connection b/w being Irish and drinking a lot. Yeah, mostly just an excuse to get wasted on a Monday.

For my part, the fraction of my bloodline that is Irish is gleefully and areligiously getting hammered. Good on ye, St. Patrick.

[Krooze L-Roy]

They say everyone is Irish on St. Patrick's Day, but it's really the day after when you get the real experience. Personally, I like to take the day off and let everybody else do the heavy lifting for a change. Today, I'm Italian, and it's not bad.

[undamned]

I can't believe Arizona 1) passed such egregious shit in its legislature or that 2) the governor didn't dismiss it outright.

It's one thing for people refusing to perform certain services as part of their religious beliefs, e.g. Catholic pharmacists refusing to sell birth control or morning-after pills. It's quite another to refuse service to a *person* who doesn't gel with your religious beliefs. The hell happened to 'love the sinner, hate the sin?' This is so far gone I just don't even.

Bringing in the LGBT stuff creates an instant emotionally charged issue out of a non-issue. Any service provider (business owner/landlord/etc.) should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason. And when I say that, I have noone in mind that I wish to reject. I'm just saying, as a business owner, I should be obligated to serve noone.

And the people who raise a stink need to put down their sense of self-entitlement and go find someone who is willing to serve them. If someone refuses me service for any reason, as silly or serious that reason may be, I'll move along. It's not worth my time to "make a point" or wag my finger about how mean or intolerant this person/business is. I can find another service provider in less time than it takes to make a scene over the previous one.

animals do tons of gay shit all the time, so anyone who says homosexuality isn't natural is a moron

Your reasoning is "if animals do it, it's ok for people, too." Is it ok if I kill your kids? Is it ok if I eat mine? Is it ok if I murder you and steal your spouse? You could probably populate the list of "unacceptable" animal behavior better than I.

[Re: St. Patrick's Day] Yeah, mostly just an excuse to get wasted on a Monday.

This. I grew up in a college town. People always looking for an excuse to party. Green beer.
-ud

[trap15]

animals do tons of gay shit all the time, so anyone who says homosexuality isn't natural is a moron

Your reasoning is "if animals do it, it's ok for people, too." Is it ok if I kill your kids? Is it ok if I eat mine? Is it ok if I murder you and steal your spouse? You could probably populate the list of "unacceptable" animal behavior better than I.

That's not his reasoning at all. His reasoning is that it's natural because it happens in nature, which seems like a pretty sane argument.

Whether you want to consider it "ok" is somewhere else, but calling it unnatural is provably false.

[undamned]

That's not his reasoning at all. His reasoning is that it's natural because it happens in nature, which seems like a pretty sane argument.

Whether you want to consider it "ok" is somewhere else, but calling it unnatural is provably false.

If "natural" is defined by "that's which is observable in nature" then yes, it is fine to say "homosexuallity is natural." In the context of discussions such as this thread, that statement is being used to make a claim that "if homosexuality is natural, it is therefore ok." This claim is no more reasonable than saying that necrophilia (observable in nature) or tearing a childs throat out with your teeth (also observable in nature) is ok.

People just need to get real and say "I do what I want," rather than try and make some appeal to nature to justify their actions.
-ud

[trap15]

How about we flip the argument then... what's wrong about homosexuality? I mean, you can say tearing out a child's throat is bad because you're killing someone, obviously.

Or is it just "eww that's gross, you can't do that"

[undamned]

How about we flip the argument then... what's wrong about homosexuality? I mean, you can say tearing out a child's throat is bad because you're killing someone, obviously.

Or is it just "eww that's gross, you can't do that"

Well, from a secular standpoint, I would say that at the end of the day what matters is that we continue as a species. There are 2 major points where homosexuality fails this goal:

1. Can't make babies (baring artificial insemination and whatnot)

2. Disease transmission. Sure STDs can spread through anyone engaging in sex, but when you look at the stats for number of sexual partners for homosexuals, it's undeniably high compared to numbers for heterosexuals (I'm not saying there aren't monogamous homosexuals and hypersexual heteros). Here's a study from the CDC to get you started: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIV ... ission.htm

Between those two points, not only do homosexuals not yield children to ensure the future of the species, but they endanger future generations with staggering disease transmission.

That's just two glaring issues that jump out at me. I'm sure there's more.
-ud

[trap15]

I am pretty damn sure we don't need any more people on this planet. We're already vastly overpopulated. In that respect, homosexuality is better then heterosexuality

[Mortificator]

And how does homosexual disease transmission affect future generations when the disease is transmitted among homosexuals, who aren't going to be having procreative sex anyway? Do you think gay disease victims go out looking for straight guys to infect, like they're zombies?

[Moniker]

Well, from a secular standpoint, I would say that at the end of the day what matters is that we continue as a species. There are 2 major points where homosexuality fails this goal:

1. Can't make babies (baring artificial insemination and whatnot)

2. Disease transmission. Sure STDs can spread through anyone engaging in sex, but when you look at the stats for number of sexual partners for homosexuals, it's undeniably high compared to numbers for heterosexuals (I'm not saying there aren't monogamous homosexuals and hypersexual heteros). Here's a study from the CDC to get you started: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIV ... ission.htm

Between those two points, not only do homosexuals not yield children to ensure the future of the species, but they endanger future generations with staggering disease transmission.

That's just two glaring issues that jump out at me. I'm sure there's more.
-ud

Any service provider (business owner/landlord/etc.) should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason.

First of all, chortle. Secondly, point by point.

1. Yeah, so let's also invoke outrage against confirmed bachelors, spinsters (is that a mean word?), the infertile, birth control, and those couples who just decide they don't want kids.

2. Yeah, don't really have a funny quip there, but seriously. 1987 just called and wants its absurd rationalizations back.

3. Actually they shouldn't (nor should I, as a small town retailer consigliere). I mean, go ahead and refuse service to proven thieves and maybe militant nudists. But honestly, wasn't this covered when Jim Crow was judged to be not such a good thing?

[Xyga]

And how does homosexual disease transmission affect future generations when the disease is transmitted among homosexuals, who aren't going to be having procreative sex anyway? Do you think gay disease victims go out looking for straight guys to infect, like they're zombies?

World War Gay Zombies !

(Starring Matt Damon)

[Moniker]

And how does homosexual disease transmission affect future generations when the disease is transmitted among homosexuals, who aren't going to be having procreative sex anyway? Do you think gay disease victims go out looking for straight guys to infect, like they're zombies?

World War Gay Zombies !

(Starring Matt Damon)

The (Gay) Zombie Apocalypse. Don't say you weren't warned.

[Kino]

Any service provider (business owner/landlord/etc.) should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason.

Your reasoning is "if animals do it, it's ok for people, too." Is it ok if I kill your kids? Is it ok if I eat mine? Is it ok if I murder you and steal your spouse?

In the context of discussions such as this thread, that statement is being used to make a claim that "if homosexuality is natural, it is therefore ok." This claim is no more reasonable than saying that necrophilia (observable in nature) or tearing a childs throat out with your teeth (also observable in nature) is ok.

Well, from a secular standpoint, I would say that at the end of the day what matters is that we continue as a species. There are 2 major points where homosexuality fails this goal:

1. Can't make babies (baring artificial insemination and whatnot)

2. Disease transmission. Sure STDs can spread through anyone engaging in sex, but when you look at the stats for number of sexual partners for homosexuals, it's undeniably high compared to numbers for heterosexuals (I'm not saying there aren't monogamous homosexuals and hypersexual heteros). Here's a study from the CDC to get you started: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIV ... ission.htm

Between those two points, not only do homosexuals not yield children to ensure the future of the species, but they endanger future generations with staggering disease transmission.

That's just two glaring issues that jump out at me. I'm sure there's more.
-ud

Location: Phoenix

[glitch]

2. Disease transmission. Sure STDs can spread through anyone engaging in sex, but when you look at the stats for number of sexual partners for homosexuals, it's undeniably high compared to numbers for heterosexuals (I'm not saying there aren't monogamous homosexuals and hypersexual heteros). Here's a study from the CDC to get you started: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIV ... ission.htm

2. Yeah, don't really have a funny quip there, but seriously. 1987 just called and wants its absurd rationalizations back.

let me help you to that quip then.
STD transmission is highest between gay men. it's lowest between lesbian women. what the data shows is that STD transmission increases with the number of males per coupling. the logical conclusion is that if we want to reduce STD transmission, we should keep men away from sex.

"homosexuallity is natural." In the context of discussions such as this thread, that statement is being used to make a claim that "if homosexuality is natural, it is therefore ok."

oh come on. it's just the counter to the attack that "homosexuality is wrong cause it's unnatural". which is actually a double bullshit argument, cause:
1. homosexuality is natural.
2. just like "natural" does not imply "good", "unnatural" does not imply "wrong".

i think most people defending homosexuality don't really search for ammunition for the claim that homosexuality is ok, because, you know, it's people loving one another, what proof do you need? the focus for defenders is on showing the flaws in arguments that claim homosexuality is wrong. gay animals do part of the work there. same in this thread. explicitly so:

tl;dr animals do tons of gay shit all the time, so anyone who says homosexuality isn't natural is a moron

[ACSeraph]

Any service provider (business owner/landlord/etc.) should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason. And when I say that, I have noone in mind that I wish to reject. I'm just saying, as a business owner, I should be obligated to serve noone.

I understand your logic, but it is flawed. The free markets only impose the will of the mob, and cannot be relied upon to protect minorities. The free markets didn't end racial discrimination in the South now did they?

The laissez-faire approach does an excellent job of promoting the will of the majority, but it doesn't give a damn if the will in question is reprehensible. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Well, from a secular standpoint, I would say that at the end of the day what matters is that we continue as a species. There are 2 major points where homosexuality fails this goal:

Nope, sorry, but as stated before, there's literally thousands of species out there other than humans that have gay and lesbian pairings in the species, and they haven't suddenly gone extinct. If anything, its prevalence throughout biology suggests that it must have some kind of evolutionary advantage, if not be simply neutral with respect to populations (not every single individual needs to successfully reproduce to maintain a population, this would result in overpopulation!), or else natural selection would not make it be so widespread throughout biology.

Your reasoning is "if animals do it, it's ok for people, too." Is it ok if I kill your kids? Is it ok if I eat mine? Is it ok if I murder you and steal your spouse? You could probably populate the list of "unacceptable" animal behavior better than I.

Putting aside that being homosexual as opposed to heterosexual isn't a conscious choice on an individual's part, this is quite possibly one of the dumbest attempts at a slippery slope argument I've ever seen. The point is that homosexuality is not 'unnatural' because we see it all the time in nature, but nobody is arguing therefore that anything we see in natural must be ethical and okay to do. Seriously, there's a complete lack of judgment on your part to even think anyone is going to take that argument seriously if you're going to say that being gay is somehow going to lead to a breakdown of societal ethics where murder and cannibalism are okay.

Any service provider (business owner/landlord/etc.) should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of world undamned dreams of.

[Xyga]

The idea that our species will go extinct because the gayness would spread to the entire humanity like a disease is an old absurd religion biased one, based on absolutely no scientific facts (as usual).

Gays have always been there and our numbers continue to grow - dramatically fast. When's the extinction supposed to begin ?

People whose values are based on religion can't stand gays because what they do goes against their morals and laws.
So they made up that very pitiful excuse to scare the people and keep the hate against gays alive.

It's as simple as that; a non-debate that has been going on and on for ages, boring as shit.

The AIDS excuse is also very funny, like AIDS was specifically targeting gays. Lol.
That would mean most people who have AIDS are or have been gay at some point. Lol².