Are you okay with gays?

[Why Me]

I don't think that this is very funny.

[blue_tetris]

Are you kidding me? That's xkcd-quality humor right there.

[KinGAleX]

Although I'd like to spend this whole post agreeing that Evil_Sire was most probably born with an ass for a face, I do have an interesting point to consider. It may seem against my libertarian tendencies at first but here me out.

Thing is, I do somewhat agree with those who say that they wouldn't like gay men to hit on them, but only because I would consider it as rude and unacceptable as Denny Crane's primarily heterosexual sexual advances from Boston Legal. I would not be offended if I had the inkling that I was being chat up in the same sense as I would talk to a nice-looking girl down the pub, however in the same way I wouldn't go up to the girl, begin humping her leg, and ask her to fellate me, I would be offended if a gay man were to approach me with the same sort of crass sexual advances that I'm sure our favourite blue_tetris has practiced plentifully in his time.

Of course, one's gayness is no reason for me to judge them in any way other than I would usually judge a person.

[Kablizzy]

Although I'd like to spend this whole post agreeing that Evil_Sire was most probably born with an ass for a face, I do have an interesting point to consider. It may seem against my libertarian tendencies at first but here me out.

Thing is, I do somewhat agree with those who say that they wouldn't like gay men to hit on them, but only because I would consider it as rude and unacceptable as Denny Crane's primarily heterosexual sexual advances from Boston Legal. I would not be offended if I had the inkling that I was being chat up in the same sense as I would talk to a nice-looking girl down the pub, however in the same way I wouldn't go up to the girl, begin humping her leg, and ask her to fellate me, I would be offended if a gay man were to approach me with the same sort of crass sexual advances that I'm sure our favourite blue_tetris has practiced plentifully in his time.

Of course, one's gayness is no reason for me to judge them in any way other than I would usually judge a person.

Last time I humped your leg and asked you to fellate me, it went off without a hitch. Had a ring picked out and everything. Insensitive prick. What about my needs?

[SkyPanda]

at Tanner:
Nice diagram, but i'm sure you could have demonstrated your complete lack of humour and intellect without going to all the trouble of drawing a picture.

[scythe]

Are you kidding me? That's xkcd-quality humor right there.

Hey, there's no reason to damn rennaT's contributions with faint praise, Dave.

Anyway, it appears some people want to boycott Utah over this mess. It could turn out pretty well for Colorado and Wyoming-but I can't really participate since I've never wanted anything to do with Utah to begin with.

[Tanner]

at Tanner:
Nice diagram, but i'm sure you could have demonstrated your complete lack of humour and intellect without going to all the trouble of drawing a picture.

It's actually two pictures.

Meanie.

[SkyPanda]

It's actually two pictures.

Meanie.

Ahahaha. nice.
But you were being mean to me first ;_____;

[Radium]

I love the spelling, "secks"

Hahah.

[Gods_Reaper]

Yes im ok with gays. i have like 3 gay friends. just because your gay doesn't mean that your attracted to every guy you see. hell it might be lil ocward
hanging around them, knowing that they like guy but what the hell. I dont care if your gay in my book.

[blue_tetris]

Yes im ok with gays. i have like 3 gay friends. just because your gay doesn't mean that your attracted to every guy you see.

As a straight man, I am attracted to every woman I see and several of the men.

[Condog]

Two alternate outlooks:

1) Our sexual orientation is a point on a sliding scale of straight vs gay. No one is entirely straight or gay, it just depends on your point on the scale.

2) The concept of duality, ie: yin-yang. Every straight person is a little gay, and every gay person is a little straight.

[SkyPanda]

1) Our sexual orientation is a point on a sliding scale of straight vs gay. No one is entirely straight or gay, it just depends on your point on the scale.

The sliding scale theory doesn't sound unreasonable, but how do you figure that no-one can be entirely straight or gay?

[fingersonthefrets]

no i'm completely with this, i still often find guys attractive, though i am definitely heterosexual, i guess it depends on how you define what gay straight and whatever is. i'll explain this later if i can be bothered.

[jean-luc]

1) Our sexual orientation is a point on a sliding scale of straight vs gay. No one is entirely straight or gay, it just depends on your point on the scale.

The sliding scale theory doesn't sound unreasonable, but how do you figure that no-one can be entirely straight or gay?

it's not necessarily that it's impossible, it's just that it's extremely unlikely. imagine a bell curve - the number of people that are completely hetero- or homosexual is very small, practically nill (the line becomes infinitely close to 0 at either end). That said, many individuals that are not really completely heterosexual consider themselves heterosexual due to societal pressures. Many individuals that consider themselves heterosexual are thus probably actually bisexual, which works out for the bell curve.

as I think I mentioned earlier, Kinsey liked to notate this scale as numbers from 0-6, 0 being completely heterosexual and 6 being completely homosexual. This scale doesn't really have that many points though (and Kinsey didn't allow for floating point numbers, only integers from 0-6), so most researchers have dropped the 'kinsey scale' in favor of a 0-100 scale. it's extremely unlikely that any given individual is <10 or >90 on this scale. the mean of the population's 'true' sexual orientation (that is, before societal pressure) should be 50.

[SkyPanda]

it's not necessarily that it's impossible, it's just that it's extremely unlikely. imagine a bell curve - the number of people that are completely hetero- or homosexual is very small, practically nill (the line becomes infinitely close to 0 at either end). That said, many individuals that are not really completely heterosexual consider themselves heterosexual due to societal pressures. Many individuals that consider themselves heterosexual are thus probably actually bisexual, which works out for the bell curve.

I find it odd that societal pressures don't seem to count when it comes to determining a persons sexuality. Societal pressures may be more reversible than genetic factors, but they still affect the end result.

Or is this bell curve only for genetically determined sexuality, is there another that factors in societal pressures?

[Atilla]

the mean of the population's 'true' sexual orientation (that is, before societal pressure) should be 50.

Assuming that < 50 is heterosexual and > 50 is homosexual, I really doubt that. There are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and I don't think that's purely because of social pressures.

[blue_tetris]

I think it makes more sense that biologically there would be more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

But determining that a group is a minority doesn't really have any impact on whether we should respect that group or not.

[jean-luc]

it's not necessarily that it's impossible, it's just that it's extremely unlikely. imagine a bell curve - the number of people that are completely hetero- or homosexual is very small, practically nill (the line becomes infinitely close to 0 at either end). That said, many individuals that are not really completely heterosexual consider themselves heterosexual due to societal pressures. Many individuals that consider themselves heterosexual are thus probably actually bisexual, which works out for the bell curve.

I find it odd that societal pressures don't seem to count when it comes to determining a persons sexuality. Societal pressures may be more reversible than genetic factors, but they still affect the end result.

Or is this bell curve only for genetically determined sexuality, is there another that factors in societal pressures?

Well, when you discuss sexuality in any real sense, this bell curve doesn't exist, because social pressures result in the majority of individuals being heterosexual. this bell curve only exists in a theoretical model.

I don't imply that the effect of social pressures is bad - indeed, if 50% of individuals were homosexual the world population would steeply decline (although perhaps that's not a bad thing at this point...).

And, of course, Kinsey isn't necessarily right. There have been other experiments that have suggested that homosexuality arises in response to overpopulation - when a group of rats were overpopulated, the number of homosexual rats increased proportionally. Sexual orientation isn't something that we understand terribly well.
Kinsey's explanation is, to my knowledge, the better supported right now. That may change as research proceeds.

[SkyPanda]

Well, when you discuss sexuality in any real sense, this bell curve doesn't exist, because social pressures result in the majority of individuals being heterosexual. this bell curve only exists in a theoretical model.

I don't imply that the effect of social pressures is bad - indeed, if 50% of individuals were homosexual the world population would steeply decline (although perhaps that's not a bad thing at this point...).

And, of course, Kinsey isn't necessarily right. There have been other experiments that have suggested that homosexuality arises in response to overpopulation - when a group of rats were overpopulated, the number of homosexual rats increased proportionally. Sexual orientation isn't something that we understand terribly well.
Kinsey's explanation is, to my knowledge, the better supported right now. That may change as research proceeds.

Okay, much thanks for all of your information. That concludes SkyPanda's curiosity on the topic of sexuality. :)

[Atilla]

Well, when you discuss sexuality in any real sense, this bell curve doesn't exist, because social pressures result in the majority of individuals being heterosexual. this bell curve only exists in a theoretical model.

It doesn't exist even without social pressures, since it seems highly likely that humanity is predominately heterosexual by biology.

I don't imply that the effect of social pressures is bad - indeed, if 50% of individuals were homosexual the world population would steeply decline (although perhaps that's not a bad thing at this point...).

Which wouldn't occur in the absence of social pressure because, as stated, there is no reason to believe that half the population is in the closet due to social pressure.

[blue_tetris]

I think intellectualism and social opinions about child-bearing are having a stronger effect on the decline in the population growth rate. And I think that's a good thing.

[bobaganuesh_2]

what's wrong with gays? they're very nuce people

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I don't imply that the effect of social pressures is bad - indeed, if 50% of individuals were homosexual the world population would steeply decline (although perhaps that's not a bad thing at this point...).

Which wouldn't occur in the absence of social pressure because, as stated, there is no reason to believe that half the population is in the closet due to social pressure.

There's no reason not to believe it, so you must at least accept the possibility.
Also, God.

As a christian i am expected to have a problem with homosexual people, however i have no problem

This confuses me.
You believe that God is smarter than you, right? He knows why He created homosexuality, and He's telling you that you'd better hate on 'em or you're not going to Heaven.
Given also that nothing you do in your finite, mortal life is of any comparable importance, why are you damning yourself?
Because you appear to be challenging God's morality, and that says to me that you think you know better than God.

Therefore, a gay is as normal as anyone else just with a different orientation

Sure, and a pine tree is just as human as anyone, just with different DNA.

[blue_tetris]

Therefore, a gay is as normal as anyone else just with a different orientation

Sure, and a pine tree is just as human as anyone, just with different DNA.

Gay is as normal as Pacific Islander or intellectual prodigy. It's a rare type of human. I would call both of those groups normal, for the most part.