ilovefuzz.com

Joe Gress wrote:Straight, but I have no problems at all with any sexual orientation. Your life, your choice.


I just don't like the assholes of the world.

I really don't believe you meant it this way, but when you say "your life, your choice"... It's absolutely not your choice to be gay.

Again, I don't think you meant to say it's a "choice", but that kind of thinking when people truly believe it is what halts progress for LGBT rights.

plhogan wrote:Oh phew, good to know you don't like assholes. Dodged a bullet there.

Don't worry, I still love ya buddeh.

McSpunckle wrote:

Joe Gress wrote:Straight, but I have no problems at all with any sexual orientation. Your life, your choice.


I just don't like the assholes of the world.

I really don't believe you meant it this way, but when you say "your life, your choice"... It's absolutely not your choice to be gay.

Again, I don't think you meant to say it's a "choice", but that kind of thinking when people truly believe it is what halts progress for LGBT rights.

Nah, not really choice. More like way of life, your doing, whatever. I didn't mean at all that its a choice you make to be gay, just that its the way you want to live, then go for it.

I dunno, I guess for me I could never see loving another man with the devotion that it would require. I love my family, I was in love with another girl. I love my friends, but not in the romantic or even mutual I'd do anything for you type of love, only in the they are there for me, so I am there for them. Love to me is what really matters in the end, and if you feel that strongly towards another person that by all means show them. To me there is no difference between those who are gay or straight, we're all people on this earth trying to survive and be loved by someone, and love someone in return. We're all in this together, and the fact that those who love someone of the same sex get unfair treatment by others is wrong.

Hope that clears it up. No offense intended at all.

Get the sand out of your gash, Joe.

We're monkeys who've overevolved to the detriment of our mindsets. Love is a construct. It's all about getting that D wet/Filling that slit/compensating for the fact that, as organisms, we should've never been asked to deal with relationships or "feelings" in the first place.

Fuck whoever you want, whenever you want (as long as it's consensual), and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

D.o.S. wrote:Get the sand out of your gash, Joe.

We're monkeys who've overevolved to the detriment of our mindsets. Love is a construct. It's all about getting that D wet/Filling that slit/compensating for the fact that, as organisms, we should've never been asked to deal with relationships or "feelings" in the first place.

Fuck whoever you want, whenever you want (as long as it's consensual), and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

Yeah, I can't man. As much as I've tried, I just can't. Maybe it's my upbringing, or maybe its just me.

McSpunckle wrote:Again, I don't think you meant to say it's a "choice", but that kind of thinking when people truly believe it is what halts progress for LGBT rights.

I still don't see why it should be a problem even if it were a choice.

D.o.S. wrote:Get the sand out of your gash, Joe.

We're monkeys who've overevolved to the detriment of our mindsets. Love is a construct. It's all about getting that D wet/Filling that slit/compensating for the fact that, as organisms, we should've never been asked to deal with relationships or "feelings" in the first place.

Fuck whoever you want, whenever you want (as long as it's consensual), and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

Love is indeed a construct, it's the construct that humans use to maintain a monogamous mating system. But humans are not the only species that uses monogamous mating systems. So although a pair of birds may not be "in love" in the sense that we mean between two people, there really isn't any functional difference just because we call it love when referring to ourselves, is there? So I don't think it can be considered a detriment or an overevolution, if many hundreds of different species evolved into that sort of mating structure.

bigchiefbc wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Get the sand out of your gash, Joe.

We're monkeys who've overevolved to the detriment of our mindsets. Love is a construct. It's all about getting that D wet/Filling that slit/compensating for the fact that, as organisms, we should've never been asked to deal with relationships or "feelings" in the first place.

Fuck whoever you want, whenever you want (as long as it's consensual), and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

Love is indeed a construct, it's the construct that humans use to maintain a monogamous mating system. But humans are not the only species that uses monogamous mating systems. So although a pair of birds may not be "in love" in the sense that we mean between two people, there really isn't any functional difference just because we call it love when referring to ourselves, is there? So I don't think it can be considered a detriment or an overevolution, if many hundreds of different species evolved into that sort of mating structure.

Yeah it's like monogamous relationships are a construct(i.e. how you ask someone out, get married, act around your partner/others) but monogamous mating is natural. The former is an informal manifestation or reflection of the other.

Of course I'm a firm believer that what's deemed natural isn't necessarily best (That statement isn't meant to insinuate anything other than it's face value, just an issue I have with some rhetoric).

snipelfritz wrote:

bigchiefbc wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Get the sand out of your gash, Joe.

We're monkeys who've overevolved to the detriment of our mindsets. Love is a construct. It's all about getting that D wet/Filling that slit/compensating for the fact that, as organisms, we should've never been asked to deal with relationships or "feelings" in the first place.

Fuck whoever you want, whenever you want (as long as it's consensual), and fuck anyone who says otherwise.

Love is indeed a construct, it's the construct that humans use to maintain a monogamous mating system. But humans are not the only species that uses monogamous mating systems. So although a pair of birds may not be "in love" in the sense that we mean between two people, there really isn't any functional difference just because we call it love when referring to ourselves, is there? So I don't think it can be considered a detriment or an overevolution, if many hundreds of different species evolved into that sort of mating structure.

Yeah it's like monogamous relationships are a construct(i.e. how you ask someone out, get married, act around your partner/others) but monogamous mating is natural. The former is an informal manifestation or reflection of the other.

Of course I'm a firm believer that what's deemed natural isn't necessarily best (That statement isn't meant to insinuate anything other than it's face value, just an issue I have with some rhetoric).

Oh I completely agree with you on that, natural =/= best. But I think that if something naturally evolved in multiple different species, it's hard to say that it's unnatural, or detrimental in an evolutionary sense. Quite the opposite.

devnulljp wrote:

McSpunckle wrote:Again, I don't think you meant to say it's a "choice", but that kind of thinking when people truly believe it is what halts progress for LGBT rights.

I still don't see why it should be a problem even if it were a choice.

i think its because the people who think it is a choice, think "why would you choose it despite the persecution"

obvious answer: hell fuckin no you wouldn't chose it.

therefore not a choice

oir w/e

bigchiefbc wrote:Oh I completely agree with you on that, natural =/= best. But I think that if something naturally evolved in multiple different species, it's hard to say that it's unnatural, or detrimental in an evolutionary sense. Quite the opposite.

The naturalistic fallacy is great fun on both sides of the spectrum: one the one hand you have the natural = good earthy-crunchies, who completely miss the point that arsenic, cholera, and being eaten by lions are all perfectly natural, but not necessarily all that good. On the other hand you have all those idiots saying Fuckin homos! It's not natural!, completely oblivious to the fact that homosexuality has been documented in 500 or so other species on the planet. I guess idiots are juts everywhere though.

devnulljp wrote:I guess idiots are just everywhere though.

That basically sums up most things.