Page 13 of 189 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363113 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 4724

Thread: Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tisub Lord of Kummi View Post
    Official terms and concepts should aim to be exact as possible for the important things they define without being superfluous.

    One easy to understand example: if two guys go down on each other and they want to call what they are doing "cunnilingus". In colloquial speech they can call it whatever they want. And you can also talk about gay marriage and use that term as like you .
    However, officially we know that for cunnilingus to take place female genitalia must exist in one of the (receiving) parties involved. Would it sound realistic to make "gay cunnilingus" a technical term in that sense? And similarly, for marriage (a word with the root that means mother) to be an exact term as it is known, it requires two (or more) people with different genitalia to get officially together. No need to call it "grand marriage" and be superfluous, just say it marriage and invent another official term for union between people of the same sex.
    You just repeated the same exact argument for the third time, albeit with a different comparison, with no more support than before. The applications of words are not restricted to what they mean and our lives come before the precision of the words describing them. I believe their want to have equitable and synonymous ceremonies with the heterosexual people that they know, right down to describing it with the same term, is quite a bit more substantial of a goal than making sure words are applied consistantly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tisub Lord of Kummi View Post
    Mere words don't matter, it's the power and influence behind them that are at stake.
    I don't even think you really care about how the words are applied. So far behind the assumption that things ought to be the way they are described in words (which can guide our thoughts, they have quite a bit of power of their own) what I get is that you don't really think these words matter, and actually you're just arguing in the context of a power struggle, when this is not a power struggle at all for gay rights activists, but a struggle to marry in the way that esteems them merely the same way as heterosexual couples.
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 21st November 2011 at 6:23 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  2. #302
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hiatus
    Posts
    7,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henryJSB View Post
    i am genuinely shocked at some of the comments in this thread. i'm a new member, i see a lot of you people have been here for a while. how on earth do you deal with this without going insane?

    there is so much wrong with what people have said here i don't know where to begin.
    Tolerance and acceptance, kid. Tolerance and acceptance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tisub Lord of Kummi View Post
    The difference between sexes comes from nature. It is not a social construct, it is not something based on law or any human mandate+. At least for the vast majority of higher animals there are only two different sexual organs that are possible barring any minute occurrence of mutations. Let's called these biological differences A and B. Those who have A, we call males/men, and those who have B we call females/women.

    In our most basic form of human language it is possible to differentiate them by giving each their own term. We don't say, "man with a B" to define females if we can just called them "women" in which ever language.

    Extending that to human relations, humanity has developed terms for a specific kind of union that at its most basic unit consists of someone who has an A and someone who has a B. In English we call this marriage. At least currently.

    Then comes along certain people wont fit in this A+B union, and want to change its definition to suit their interests. I agree that they can have their A+A or B+B unions. Live and let live is my personal point of view. But what they are doing is trying to go against logic by saying A+B = A+A. Let's break it down semantically and etymologically.

    relationship = union of people, regardless of sex
    marriage = official union that emerges from the individuals having a different sex
    gay/homosexual marriage = official same sex union that emerges from the individuals having a different sex

    The only solution to this is then, change the whole meaning of marriage to decouple it from its original attribute relating to the difference between male/female. Ending the ties of the term to the important biological basis of human relations.
    I enjoy that you refuse to even back up why they're different at all. I personally don't see how homosexual marriage is different from heterosexual marriage, besides the obvious related to sex. But if that matters, then certainly black marriage is different from white marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tisub Lord of Kummi View Post
    Mere words don't matter, it's the power and influence behind them that are at stake. A tiny minority should not force the innate perception of people in a direction that suits itself. Especially when it's something anyone with eyes can clearly see: a union between a man and a woman is different from that of a man and a man, or woman and a woman, hence it deserves it separate term and axiom.
    How so? You can keep repeating your argument over and over, but it's not any more true the fourth time than it was the first time. Support your admittedly-strange way of thinking and stop repeating yourself. It's getting old, and you're losing as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tisub Lord of Kummi View Post
    Official terms and concepts should aim to be exact as possible for the important things they define without being superfluous.

    One easy to understand example: if two guys go down on each other and they want to call what they are doing "cunnilingus". In colloquial speech they can call it whatever they want. And you can also talk about gay marriage and use that term as like you .
    However, officially we know that for cunnilingus to take place female genitalia must exist in one of the (receiving) parties involved. Would it sound realistic to make "gay cunnilingus" a technical term in that sense? And similarly, for marriage (a word with the root that means mother) to be an exact term as it is known, it requires two (or more) people with different genitalia to get officially together. No need to call it "grand marriage" and be superfluous, just say it marriage and invent another official term for union between people of the same sex.
    If this debate is really about minor issues like word choice and how word definitions shouldn't be changed, I expect you to follow up this ridiculousness with arguments for changing back words like "dumb" and "gay" and "dork" to their original meanings. Are you an anti-homosexual marriage debater or an English language purist? It sounds a lot like the latter at the moment. SUPPORT. SUPPORT. SUPPORT. No more of this technicality bullshit, please.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tisub Lord of Kummi View Post
    Official terms and concepts should aim to be exact as possible for the important things they define without being superfluous.

    One easy to understand example: if two guys go down on each other and they want to call what they are doing "cunnilingus". In colloquial speech they can call it whatever they want. And you can also talk about gay marriage and use that term as like you .
    However, officially we know that for cunnilingus to take place female genitalia must exist in one of the (receiving) parties involved. Would it sound realistic to make "gay cunnilingus" a technical term in that sense? And similarly, for marriage (a word with the root that means mother) to be an exact term as it is known, it requires two (or more) people with different genitalia to get officially together. No need to call it "grand marriage" and be superfluous, just say it marriage and invent another official term for union between people of the same sex.
    Except for words are rarely static. I'm sure you do need not look further than Shakespeare or (if you want to go really extreme) Beowulf to understand that. Sure, Daddy will never refer to the female parent in the household, and will probably refer to the (or a) male parent in the household. That doesn't mean its definition is static. Take the example of Sugar Daddy: here the word Daddy has a different enough meaning than the word a toddler would use for Daddy.

    In the same way, marriage has changed subtly. Never once, in any definition, has it meant anything less than a union between two people. But the specifics sure has changed. Back when childbirth and child mortality where high, women were betrothed to a man of the father's choosing. And once the wedding was had, the two went off and produced offspring for the next generation. Effectively, it was baby-making mechanism in society. However, no longer we do define marriage as a baby-making mechanism. We define it as a union between two people who love each other (and sometimes more precisely than that).

    Point is, though, is that words are not static, and never have been. So appealing to definition really isn't a strong argument.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hiatus
    Posts
    7,751

    Default

    So, since Tisub hasn't come up with a response yet... I have a question that maybe someone can shed some light upon.

    So, my friend has been straight all his life, he says. He is attracted to girls, always has been. He and I have been sexually active for years, because I find him attractive and because he thinks of it as "just sex." However, when I recently started getting involved with another boy, he became intensely jealous. I stopped hanging out with the other boy when my friend said he wanted to date me.

    Which is confusing. He says he might actually be bisexual, but I'm not so sure. He's always classified himself as heterosexual, and the only male he finds attractive is me, he says.

    I don't understand him. Naturally, anybody would just think "oh, he's bisexual or something," but what if he isn't? Would it be possible that he's heterosexual, but due to always having sex with another male, he's sort of tricked himself into finding me attractive? I feel like that would explain not finding other males attractive, but at the same time, given my beliefs, I'm not sure that sort of thing is really possible.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    I think we wore out Tisub. I'm doubt I'm the person to shed light on this, but I'll try. It sounds like he actually is bi or gay. Have you seen the heterosexual side of him, even? If not, whiile he likes you, maybe he just wants the status that comes with claiming heterosexuality, so he's not willing to admit it's an actual gay relationship. Being jealous would entail he wants to be exclusive, but he doesn't want to look at himself as gay.

    Either that, or we've got to question this entire paradigm of 'bisexuality' and look more at the acts and the positive reinforcement that comes with them that makes people's sexualities more unique and fluid than just saying 'everyone's a little bit straight and gay'. Remember I posted a devil's advocate question nearer to the beginning of the debate; why do we seem to imply in several ways that straight people can be potentially gay by saying straight people can a) experiement with being gay, b) be bisexual, c) have hormonal phases making them gay for a time, and on an on, but gay people seem to be talked about as concretely and unquestionably gay and nothing else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grei View Post
    So, since Tisub hasn't come up with a response yet... I have a question that maybe someone can shed some light upon.

    So, my friend has been straight all his life, he says. He is attracted to girls, always has been. He and I have been sexually active for years, because I find him attractive and because he thinks of it as "just sex." However, when I recently started getting involved with another boy, he became intensely jealous. I stopped hanging out with the other boy when my friend said he wanted to date me.

    Which is confusing. He says he might actually be bisexual, but I'm not so sure. He's always classified himself as heterosexual, and the only male he finds attractive is me, he says.

    I don't understand him. Naturally, anybody would just think "oh, he's bisexual or something," but what if he isn't? Would it be possible that he's heterosexual, but due to always having sex with another male, he's sort of tricked himself into finding me attractive? I feel like that would explain not finding other males attractive, but at the same time, given my beliefs, I'm not sure that sort of thing is really possible.
    Even though your friend enjoys having sex with you, you still think he's straight?
    Jackpot!

    I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grei View Post
    So, since Tisub hasn't come up with a response yet... I have a question that maybe someone can shed some light upon.

    So, my friend has been straight all his life, he says. He is attracted to girls, always has been. He and I have been sexually active for years, because I find him attractive and because he thinks of it as "just sex." However, when I recently started getting involved with another boy, he became intensely jealous. I stopped hanging out with the other boy when my friend said he wanted to date me.

    Which is confusing. He says he might actually be bisexual, but I'm not so sure. He's always classified himself as heterosexual, and the only male he finds attractive is me, he says.

    I don't understand him. Naturally, anybody would just think "oh, he's bisexual or something," but what if he isn't? Would it be possible that he's heterosexual, but due to always having sex with another male, he's sort of tricked himself into finding me attractive? I feel like that would explain not finding other males attractive, but at the same time, given my beliefs, I'm not sure that sort of thing is really possible.
    If your friend enjoys having sex with you, then how'd you come to the conclusion that he's straight?
    Last edited by ~Lati~; 28th November 2011 at 8:58 AM.
    I have claimed Taillow! Fear me!

    Quote Originally Posted by razorrozar7
    Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, "Love thy neighbor as long as they are straight, white, Christian, morally responsible individuals."

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    mostly in my mind
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Well, I think that sexuality is both a spectrum, and, to a degree, fluid. He may well be straight, except when it comes to you. It's happened before. And maybe it's just you, and will always be just you. Or, maybe, this is a road of self-discovery that will show him what pansexuality or bisexuality are all about. Who can really say?
    Or, he could be a possessive creep who doesn't want anyone else touching what he sees as his casual sex. Or anywhere in between.
    Quote Originally Posted by snare View Post
    Roll over ya twinks, we're taking over.
    Quote Originally Posted by mapache View Post
    lol, xD the thread need a name change. The Gay/Lesbian/Bear Alliance Club
    Quote Originally Posted by Slash4life View Post
    Every discussion here ends up at either bears or musical theatre. What is this, the gay club?!


    Oh wait...

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    307

    Default

    See, I'm not sure that single-target sexuality exists. I suppose it's possible, but none of the gay people I know (including myself), have been attracted to just one member of the opposite sex.
    I have claimed Taillow! Fear me!

    Quote Originally Posted by razorrozar7
    Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, "Love thy neighbor as long as they are straight, white, Christian, morally responsible individuals."

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    mostly in my mind
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    I once dated a guy who was bisexual. I use the term bisexual liberally here, because he didn't generally have any real sexual attraction to males. And yet we had sex (ironically, never when we were dating, but after). He seemed to be into it mostly because it was a way to get his rocks off nsa, but some real attraction developed between us. We never dated again, however, probably mostly due to age differences. And I moved.
    Quote Originally Posted by snare View Post
    Roll over ya twinks, we're taking over.
    Quote Originally Posted by mapache View Post
    lol, xD the thread need a name change. The Gay/Lesbian/Bear Alliance Club
    Quote Originally Posted by Slash4life View Post
    Every discussion here ends up at either bears or musical theatre. What is this, the gay club?!


    Oh wait...

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Your Mom
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Gay thread! Yay!

    Anyway, I want to ask the people of SPPF something. Do you think that there should be a romantic and a sexual difference between sexual identification? For Instance you are a man and you enjoy anal sex with another man but, it's impossible to develope romantic feelings for a man, does that still make you homosexual or bisexual or even heterosexual? Does the act of sex between someone of the same person make you gay? Or does the emotion along with the sex make you gay.

    FYI I am a gay man.

    In my opinion you can have sex with someone of the same gender however, of you don't have romantic feelings for that person you are not considered gay.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flame Chrysalis View Post
    In my opinion you can have sex with someone of the same gender however, of you don't have romantic feelings for that person you are not considered gay.
    I don't think that follows. If a man has one-night stands with women they don't have feelings for because they just want sex, does that mean they aren't straight?

    Sexual feelings do indeed qualify someone for a sexual orientation. The way I see it, 'homosexuality' is the entire spectrum of same sex love and sexual desire just like heterosexuality is the spectrum of opposite sex love and sexual desire.
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 30th November 2011 at 4:49 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flame Chrysalis View Post
    \

    In my opinion you can have sex with someone of the same gender however, of you don't have romantic feelings for that person you are not considered gay.
    I sort of agree. I only feel attraction towards other men, but I don't desire sex. What does that make me?
    I have claimed Taillow! Fear me!

    Quote Originally Posted by razorrozar7
    Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, "Love thy neighbor as long as they are straight, white, Christian, morally responsible individuals."

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Impel Down
    Posts
    3,001

    Default

    The one thing I just don't get is why people inherently think that homosexual relationships are several times more sexual than a heterosexual relationships. It's like the first thing they think about when someone mentions homosexuality is two guys pounding each other or two girls going at it.

    As far as I'm concerned its as normal as any other relationship. Why the oversexualization of it?
    My deviantArt




    U mad bro?

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Amid vast pastures.
    Posts
    81

    Default

    That's because all gay men are whores. Facebook doesn't lie.

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gergovia View Post
    That's because all gay men are whores. Facebook doesn't lie.
    Yeah, I highly doubt that Facebook is an accurate research site. Either that, or you don't know any gay people. Or both, you never know.
    I have claimed Taillow! Fear me!

    Quote Originally Posted by razorrozar7
    Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, "Love thy neighbor as long as they are straight, white, Christian, morally responsible individuals."

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Cool Cool River
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    I thought gays just went from club to club hooking up having intense no-strings attached sex before getting AIDS and dying.

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist View Post
    I thought gays just went from club to club hooking up having intense no-strings attached sex before getting AIDS and dying.
    Nah, that was in the 80s. When bath houses were still around. Oh, and it's not only gay people that get AIDS, or is it not just your perception of gays that's stuck in the 80s?
    I have claimed Taillow! Fear me!

    Quote Originally Posted by razorrozar7
    Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, "Love thy neighbor as long as they are straight, white, Christian, morally responsible individuals."

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    183

    Default

    I think (or at least hope) SC and Gergovia were being sarcastic, lucian
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Harvest View Post
    Using UU/RU Pokemon in ways that doesn't actually take advantage of some REAL niche in OU is like letting a horse poop on your chest; then when people ask why you let it do that you defend yourself by saying "well now I have all this horse poop", ignoring everyone who tries to reason with you that this isn't really a good thing either.
    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak94 View Post
    Best. Analogy. Ever.

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gergovia View Post
    That's because all gay men are whores. Facebook doesn't lie.
    That's the story my moms always told me, that gay men are some of the most sexual people you can find. They're given me all sorts of common wisdom that's proven to be errored or overly typical though.

    I feel the like it's a discrimination that is accepted by the gay community itself. Not only is it assumed that gay people like the same sex, but it's also assumed that they're in it for the sex. And now we have these stories of people just having partners for sex and nothing else. Are we validating this idea, or what? Is homosexuality actually a full compliment to hetersexuality in the way that it's a different kind of love, or is it just a different kind of sex people want to have, and romance just happens to be involved once and a while?

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  21. #321
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Your Mom
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC View Post
    I don't think that follows. If a man has one-night stands with women they don't have feelings for because they just want sex, does that mean they aren't straight?

    Sexual feelings do indeed qualify someone for a sexual orientation. The way I see it, 'homosexuality' is the entire spectrum of same sex love and sexual desire just like heterosexuality is the spectrum of opposite sex love and sexual desire.
    Sorry, maybe I worded it wrong.

    So take a straight guy for example, happens to be the straightest guy you know, has sex with women all the time. However he tried out being with a guy and he enjoyed the sex BUT, he cannot develope feelings for the guy over three months as they are dating.....so he breaks it off. Is he straight because he likes having sex with women and can develope romantic feelings for them or is he bisexual for having sex with a man eventhough no romantic feelings developed in a 3 month relationship.

  22. #322
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Amid vast pastures.
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Yeah, I highly doubt that Facebook is an accurate research site. Either that, or you don't know any gay people. Or both, you never know.
    I am gay you dolt. I wouldn't throw my own kind under the bus if there wasn't an element to truth to what I said. Further more, the comment wasn't even meant to be taken that seriously. Go you!

    However, I'll further elaborate on my point since tongue in cheek comments just won't do for you. Men, in general, naturally have higher sexual libidos than their female counter parts. Do both men and women cheat? Yes. Is it usually the guy? Yes. Do both men and women watch porn? Yes. Is it usually guys that watch porn? Yes. And so on and so forth.

    Now, what happens when the sexual orientation flips? And instead of a man with a woman, you put a man with a man? Bingo. You have a hot recipe for promiscuity. Are all gay men skanks? Ofcourse not! As a general rule, are they much more promiscuous? I believe so. It makes me wonder why every single gay person I happen to know on facebook, is mutual friends with every single gay person within the next 750 mile radius. Oh right, that's because they've probably all fucked eachother. Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but not really.

    If you're gay and you're honestly oblivious to this realization, you're either ignorant, sheltered, or just plain in denial about how the gay community works.

    I thought gays just went from club to club hooking up having intense no-strings attached sex before getting AIDS and dying.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Marry me. Oh wait, I can't. It's not legal in Minnesota. *sigh*
    That's the story my moms always told me, that gay men are some of the most sexual people you can find. They're given me all sorts of common wisdom that's proven to be errored or overly typical though.

    I feel the like it's a discrimination that is accepted by the gay community itself. Not only is it assumed that gay people like the same sex, but it's also assumed that they're in it for the sex. And now we have these stories of people just having partners for sex and nothing else. Are we validating this idea, or what? Is homosexuality actually a full compliment to hetersexuality in the way that it's a different kind of love, or is it just a different kind of sex people want to have, and romance just happens to be involved once and a while?
    If you read the above, it's not so much to do with the fact that they're gay, but rather that they're men. Just because you're gay doesn't make you any less of a naturally functioning man. The testosterone, sexual drive, ability to conduct hookups without feeling emotionally attached (Women can do this also, but it's much harder due to Oxycontin levels, so don't even scream sexism.) is all still there.

  23. #323
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NW Oregon
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gergovia View Post
    I am gay you dolt. I wouldn't throw my own kind under the bus if there wasn't an element to truth to what I said. Further more, the comment wasn't even meant to be taken that seriously. Go you!

    However, I'll further elaborate on my point since tongue in cheek comments just won't do for you. Men, in general, naturally have higher sexual libidos than their female counter parts. Do both men and women cheat? Yes. Is it usually the guy? Yes. Do both men and women watch porn? Yes. Is it usually guys that watch porn? Yes. And so on and so forth.

    Now, what happens when the sexual orientation flips? And instead of a man with a woman, you put a man with a man? Bingo. You have a hot recipe for promiscuity. Are all gay men skanks? Ofcourse not! As a general rule, are they much more promiscuous? I believe so. It makes me wonder why every single gay person I happen to know on facebook, is mutual friends with every single gay person within the next 750 mile radius. Oh right, that's because they've probably all fucked eachother. Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but not really.

    If you're gay and you're honestly oblivious to this realization, you're either ignorant, sheltered, or just plain in denial about how the gay community works.
    Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. Good point about the libido too, I'd never really thought about that.

    And I'm gay too, but I don't know many other gay people in the area, mainly because my soon-to-be stepfather is in complete denial about me being gay. Also, the only gay people I do know aren't promiscuous.
    I have claimed Taillow! Fear me!

    Quote Originally Posted by razorrozar7
    Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say, "Love thy neighbor as long as they are straight, white, Christian, morally responsible individuals."

  24. #324
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    dere in the sheets
    Posts
    9,002

    Default

    Here's a question, how come some (actually a lot of) gay males change the sound of there voice to that flamboyant voice? I mean it's cool your gay and all but are the bright pink shirts and the tight half jeans needed? I'm not trying to come of as rude but I don't have the balls to ask the people I grew up with this question.

  25. #325
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Your Mom
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jb08045 View Post
    Here's a question, how come some (actually a lot of) gay males change the sound of there voice to that flamboyant voice? I mean it's cool your gay and all but are the bright pink shirts and the tight half jeans needed? I'm not trying to come of as rude but I don't have the balls to ask the people I grew up with this question.
    Most of the time....that's their natural voice. I'm actually a bass meaning the lowest voice part and I'm gay....gay =/= high pitched voice

Page 13 of 189 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363113 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •