Sexuality ....lets debate.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 7:42 AM GMT
    ok..We all know why the majority of conservative Americans talk out against gay rights and homosexuality. They just down right believe that it’s wrong and it’s a sin. Now we as men being gay don't see it that way. We see it as normal, an alternate normal way of life that's not threatening. That is all agreed on right? Ok here is where it gets tricky. I have once heard one specific reason for not allowing gay rights in any form.
    1- If gays get rights then what’s to stop all the other freaks (or better yet- alternative lifestyles participants) from demanding rights. (These freak or alps) consist of individuals who take part in bestiality,Necrophilia,Mechaphilia,Fruitiphilia,Technosexuality, etc. I know the terms might be weird to read but they do all have actual meanings and yes people who indulge in these acts willingly accept the fact that they do these things and feel that it’s normal. Now I was just lying in bed. Couldn’t sleep as I’m still running on Jack3d and i was thinking....if i might be a hypocrite. Now i just saw a documentary a while channel surfing. It’s about bestiality and how it’s common in Columbia and Brazil. I’m a nerd so i couldn't past up a chance to watch.. i am very much into documentaries. Anyways while i watched i felt sick to my stomach as here are animals who are being fucked by men and women who might i add believe that it’s totally normal to do so, So my question to the forum is. Am i being a total hypocrite if i think it’s totally wrong, perverted for a grown man to fuck a dog, car, melon or a dead corpse? Am i just like one of those conservatives who feel hate towards the gay lifestyle, but in this case i feel a distaste for the above mentioned lifestyles? I see those lifestyles as sickening especially Necrophilia. Now am i wrong to cast judgment? And if i believe that being gay is normal, but i see bestiality as wrong then what is really the right type of lifestyle? Is it safe to assume that heterosexuality is wrong too?
    [url][url]



  • noviceprime

    Posts: 136

    Jan 11, 2012 8:47 AM GMT
    hmm where do i start..ok i totally get what your asking and after looking at it...i can def see that as a gay man myself..i just cant look at humans having sex with animals or corpses to be normal. So i guess i am being a hypocrite, ..boy this is a really good topic to do a debate on...there is much to be said on the topic and it make us look into our own sexuality and logic behind what we see as normal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 3:18 PM GMT
    Homosexuality involves love between living human being to living human being, just like heterosexuality. Passing judgement on a man that has sex with another man as you would judge a man that has sex with a kumquat is like comparing apples to oranges.
  • Generaleclect...

    Posts: 504

    Jan 11, 2012 6:36 PM GMT
    Homosexuality is different from all those... philias because it is practiced by two consenting men or women. Children, animals, corpses, and melons, cannot consent. None of those things are orientations like hetero/bi/homosexuality.

    Homosexuality is only negative and abnormal because people make it out to be that way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 6:46 PM GMT
    All of the "alternative lifestyles" you mentioned are frowned down upon in the Amuricas simply because it is not well known in our culture to commit acts of necrophilia and bestiality as it is in other countries.

    The population of gays here far out numbers the cases in which people like having sex with corpses and animals... so when something lacks consistency towards the majority, we outcast it and deem it an illness, as do some straight people see gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 6:59 PM GMT
    just four replies?..people..i swear..i think guys on here rather debate whos cuter or who they'd rather be under than have a real thought out debate...or is it that there's only a small percentage of educated gay men on here?
  • Generaleclect...

    Posts: 504

    Jan 11, 2012 7:05 PM GMT
    tereseus1 saidjust four replies?..people..i swear..i think guys on here rather debate whos cuter or who they'd rather be under than have a real thought out debate...or is it that there's only a small percentage of educated gay men on here?


    But... I really wanna say what I'd do if I were to wake up next to the guy above me! icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 9:26 PM GMT
    back to topic..i need feedback for something im writing.
  • Import

    Posts: 7190

    Jan 11, 2012 9:30 PM GMT
    Its definitely not the same.

    Animals do not have a free will to fuck a human.
    A human can just fuck any animal he/she wants without consent.

    Where as 2 men are human beings and consensually fuck eachother.
    It's 2 adults saying "yes, u can fuck me" and "yes, I choose to fuck you"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 10:22 PM GMT
    Import saidIts definitely not the same.

    Animals do not have a free will to fuck a human.
    A human can just fuck any animal he/she wants without consent.

    Where as 2 men are human beings and consensually fuck eachother.
    It's 2 adults saying "yes, u can fuck me" and "yes, I choose to fuck you"


    but cant consent be seen as an action? If the animal does the action isnt that considered consent? Unlike a corpse...an animal can deliver a action...anyways you guys dont seem to be in the debative mood so im going to have to really search the net for a forum where i can pose this question and get quality responses.
  • Generaleclect...

    Posts: 504

    Jan 11, 2012 10:47 PM GMT
    tereseus1 said
    Import saidIts definitely not the same.

    Animals do not have a free will to fuck a human.
    A human can just fuck any animal he/she wants without consent.

    Where as 2 men are human beings and consensually fuck eachother.
    It's 2 adults saying "yes, u can fuck me" and "yes, I choose to fuck you"


    but cant consent be seen as an action? If the animal does the action isnt that considered consent? Unlike a corpse...an animal can deliver a action...anyways you guys dont seem to be in the debative mood so im going to have to really search the net for a forum where i can pose this question and get quality responses.


    Consent can be action, but action isn't always consent. Rape is an action but never seen as consent. Or even in a case with the horse and that guy "Mr. Hands" (look it up if you wish), it'd be tricky to call that consent.

    But anyway, slippery slope arguments rarely hold any real weight. Not too long ago people thought interracial marriage would lead to a whole bunch of societal ills. Irrational fear drives a lot of these suspicions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 11:24 PM GMT
    Great post

    Over the years I have often thought about this very topic. Who am I to judge. I don't get some of the "phelias" that you listed, yet having grown up in the eighties and seen and endured hatered and contempt by the majority against my sexual preference I began to think some time ago how dare I judge others even though I find some of the broader spectrum sexual behaviours disgusting and perverse.
    I also agree that theres a difference between 2 adult humans of the same sex getting together as opposed to a live adult and a dead one who cant give consent, but Im sure the Necro can justify his or her actions in much the same way as I can.
    Beastiality has always intrugued me, NOT SEXUALLY, but the how and where and the desire to have intercourse with another species. I find it fascinating the justifications people use when justifying this behaviour and even though I dont agree and find it revolting I am contstanly amazed by the commitment these people have and the true belief that what they are doing isnt "wrong". Much like Peadophiles suggesting that in the future their love for children will be seen in much the same way as Homosexuals are now. Creepy and wrong (now) but will society ever change its stance? I mean Im sure the gay community of the 1950's and 60's would have never dreamed that their perverted mental illness would be more accepted or at least tolerated 50 or 60 years down the track.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 11:39 PM GMT
    What is sex?

    A very prominent religious leader once told me that "SEX" was an act of love between 2 people. This was his comment in my question as to why Catholics would only have sex to make babies.....that's how they are supposed to be in true life.....this man was a Mormon....

    So I think sex can be an act of love or an act of lust or pleasure too....the duel propose of our existence......

    Sex can also be more that 2.....so? It's what you make of it!!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2012 12:21 AM GMT
    I think you are looking at this from the wrong side. Gays don't ask for special rights, but just the same rights that should have been ours all along, like the right to get married. When you look at it as a partnership of equals, consenting adults, none of your examples (bestiality, Necrophilia, Mechaphilia, Fruitiphilia, Technosexuality) even have the partnership component, they are all about sexual gratification.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2012 4:40 AM GMT
    AMoonHawk saidThe difference is .... what love can a dog, car, melon or a dead corpse give to a person .... none ... so it is not normal ... it is however a fettish and in the case of animals, a case of animal cruelty, because an animal cannot defend itself to such an act and does not have the intellectually knowledge to know right from wrong.


    I somewhat agree with your comments, however if we use the term NORMAL ( which I hate to use but will in this instance) then none of us as gay men are considered to be having NORMAL sexual identities, when we are in the minority. Therefore its a moral judgement we are imposing on the majority that we say is true and right to have same sex relationships and perform sexual acts with each other.
    And as the OP suggests there are cultures that find certain sexual acts quite NORMAL therefore within that culture it is an intellectual decision based on NORMAL behaviour... isnt it?.


  • abelian

    Posts: 30

    Jan 12, 2012 9:53 AM GMT
    Some of you are confusing sexual identity with whom one chooses to marry.

    Suppose, for sake of argument, you have two individuals with no genitalia. Is marriage between these two individuals still a sexuality issue? Although this is highly improbably of an assumption, it motivates us to question what marriage really is. Are we really suggesting it's SOLELY a product of sexuality?

    In the most general sense, marriage is a social union between two individuals. It is in a sense a contract. It can be a "social" contract (in which case it carries no legal connotation), a legal contract, or both.

    In our society, at least, it is a legal and social union. People don't have to be in love to get married nor do they have to be attracted to each other. Although, attraction and emotion are primary motivators for marriage. As long as the union isn't violating other established laws (i.e. pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, bestiality), then it should be a non-issue for others. Being a homosexual is not a crime.

    All in all, it depends which context you really look at marriage under. Looking at it under a legal standpoint and which rights are attached to it, two men should be allowed to marry each other; two women should be allowed to marry each other, and a man and a woman should be allowed to marry each other. Otherwise, you are restricting certain gender pair unions rights that other pairs (under a union) have. Again, when considering the legislated rights/privileges that come with marriage, sexuality or emotion is not a factor in marriage at all. In this sense, any argument against the marriage between two consenting individuals is fundamentally flawed, because it is ultimately based on the idea of "sexual perversion" or deviation from a societal norm, which is NOT necessarily a proper legal norm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    How about we all just don't give a shit about our differences?
    Oh wait, we can't...because conservatives exist.

    (Odd, how this comment is a paradox in itself...icon_confused.gif )