Untrue. The phallic shape of the bat and some of the dinosaurs gave you ***** envy, and now you take dominance over other women in an attempt to become a man yourself. Wait, what? How? I... How do they not understand this? I don't even see what would confuse them here. Why would that be any different from a heterosexual who is abstinent? Have you heard any of their reasoning because I am honestly curious about the train of though that provoked this view. Also, have a truth-cookie.
well now thats not the correct arguement. your saying that that shape of the bat made her gay basicly. and no if she happens to want to have her own ***** that still doesnt not counter her arguement about how liking baseball and stuff thats normally a boy thing does not automaticaly make you gay. for that matter if she decided she wanted.to be the one doing the penetrating in a relationship she could have used.a strapon to peg a guy so ***** envy still did not explain why she wants.sex.with another girl. anyhoo i just wanted to say that
Your post gave me a giggle. Sad thing is however, I've had people make those arguements in all seriousness. I've also had people say 'why no choose to be straight' and my point is, I'm not upset with homosexuality or the idea of it like you are, I welcome all sorts of people into my life and I'm not going to be a certain way just to make you feel better. But just to clarify for others. I choose not to have sex, however I am attracted to many genders or people who identify as many or alternate genders. I just choose not to have sex for personal reasons.
I guess I fit into the definition of pansexuality as well. I'd rather pick bisexuality as a label for myself personally, though. I don't find is necessary to include in my label the fact that I don't care which gender you are and how you express it. Again, this it just for me personally. Other people call themselves pansexual - kewl. Now, DEMIsexuality, that's a world I shake my head at. I don't see why only being attracted to people you share a deep connection with warrants a label in itself.
I knew Birdie was joking, I thought the joke was witty and funny. OT: I find it funny (both funny as in conical and as ironic), that people can say, "I am not homophobic, but I believe marriage is just an union for only a man and a woman". No different to me then, "I am not racist, but I believe blacks shouldn't be around whites" or "I am not sexist, but I believe women should never work outside the house or hold office". That type of primitive thinking is what is keeping us behind as a society. You could get by with it a century ago, but wake up and realize we are in a new era. We are progressing, and those counter-productive thinking needs to vanish. Another stupid thought, "first we allow SSM, then we will allow humans to marry animals". Oh my Darwin, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. "Last I checked, when two men or two women are hoping to get married, they are both human, and are able to mentally process and use proper thinking logic to consent & approve their union. Almost make you wish the people's parents' marriage wasn't allowed instead. Sent from my Apple iPod touch named 'Apple Jack' cause I am the Realest BRonY in the mug, by Tapatalk.
^^ I have to agree. I'm straight personally, but I see no reason why same sex couples shouldn't get married if they wish to, it's not like it affects anyone else. To quote something my dad used to say, "If they want to be just as miserable as the rest of us, let 'em." Honestly, with the divorce rates the way they are now, what are straight people afraid of? That two men or two women just might be happier together in their marriage then they are? Basically my view on the issue is this: I'm not homosexual, so I shouldn't get a say in the matter because it's really none of my business who other people choose to love. There was this really neat quote that I read awhile back...I can't remember it verbatim but it went something like this: "When I die, I don't want to be remembered as someone who prevented two people from loving each other."
@ Frost: I remember that quote, and I hear the quote your dad use a lot as well. I also like what one straight celebrity said (I want to say it's Will Ferrell, but I am not sure): 'I use to be against SSM, but I've found out that my marriage won't be affected'. (Probably not verbatim). Another quote was: 'If all 50 states were to allow SSM, about 80% of the marriage will be hetero' so TM will still be the most common marriage and will still be legal. So what are heteros worried about? Sent from my Apple iPod touch named 'Apple Jack' cause I am the Realest BRonY in the mug, by Tapatalk.
I support traditional marriage. A marriage should be between a middle-aged man and a 13-years-old girl with a dowry of three cows. About the marriage to animals thing, Garfunkel & Oates did a song on it. With ducks. Except it's not exactly about marriage per se.
I don't think sexual orientation has much relevance in MLP:FiM, since romance isn't focused on all that much. Now Disney, on the other hand, need to pull their act together.
Indeed- and a rapist must marry his victim and pay the father 30 shekels or the family should kill the daughter to prevent shame to the family. As for the animal marriage thing; when animals can make decisions like people, be aware of the situation of marriage, sign a marriage license and be aware of the commitment- then fine, let people marry animals. But comparing a dog that is not of the same intellect as a human to two people in love. Or simply comparing homosexuality to beastiality is not just insulting but a very stupid and ignorant argument. Also, I had a christian stop me on the street trying to push "the good word" and we got on the topic of gay marriage and they tried to make an argument to me that letting gays marry would lead to incestual marriage eventually and I told them they shouldn't use that as an argument given there is plenty of incest, approved by god, in the bible. BTW Birdie, Your comments always bring me so much joy LOL
as a christian the way i look at it is regardleas of how the church feels by seperation of church and state the church doesnt really get to tell the government that they would rather no gay people marry. besides they have as much right as straight people to make their own decisions. if god gave me a straight christian the right to chose what i do be it wrong or right then a gay man christian or not has the same right to chose his path. in short regardless of if it is wrong in gods eyes or not to let them marry. i say they have a right to chose. so if you as a gay or lesbian coupke have love for eachother and wush to declare to the world you have decided to chose only that one then do so and the governing system shouldn't care anyway because they can still make money selling the marriage license. as for god well i believe he smiles anytime he sees 2 in love gay straight or strictly plutonic friends. as for marriage as i said if god likes it or not what you chose you still have a right to chose
Any time someone wants to shove a bible or something in my face and tell me to revolve my life around it, I'll politely ask them to do one of these three things: 1. Sell your oldest daughter into slavery. 2. Burn your mother alive for wearing cloths of a different thread/fabric/whateveryouwannacallit. Or, finally, 3. Go to a desert and go fast with no food or water for 40 days and 40 nights and see how long s/he can last. And then have them tell me that the Bible makes total sense and that I should follow it outright and give myself to a deity that may or may not exist but I choose not to worship it because I see no point when there is no proof.
Aw Anti, you're making me blush. Although I agree with you, what does this have to do with the topic? Am I missing a point somewhere?
My view is very simple and basic: >Let people act however they want with other people so long as nobody gets hurt. I'd make the same argument as everybody else here, but it'd honestly just come off as redundant and repetitious and so on and so forth. Take from it what you will, it's rather broad.
Ok, unpopular opinion time. I honestly believe everybody has the potential to be bisexual, but are steered one way or another because of various experiences in life. It's hard to explain I guess. Like, homosexuality has been more or less proven to be a natural thing, and the middle ground for either heterosexual or homosexual is obviously bisexual, or even pansexual if you want to get all iffy about it. My point is, it's this sort of neutral ground, so it kind of clicks for me to think it'd be a blank slate for human sexuality.
