The Nuge Does Not Approve.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:09 pm

From here.

Edited By GORDON on 1150925726

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Um, so are you saying that the guy was hitting on the other male contestents or on Ted? Because unless I've misunderstood you, you're saying the basic problem isn't that he's gay but that he's promiscuious, and I'm wondering how that fact may have came up on that particular show.

Post by **Cakedaddy** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:26 pm

I call bullshit. If Gordon wasn't married, he'd be trying to bang everything that moved. Female wise. Most guys would. Gay guys just have the advantage over straight guys as their targets want to bang everything too. So, it's easier for gays to bang alot. But straights would bang just as much if females would stop being so. . . female'ish.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed May 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Um, so are you saying that the guy was hitting on the other male contestents or on Ted? Because unless I've misunderstood you, you're saying the basic problem isn't that he's gay but that he's promiscuious, and I'm wondering how that fact may have came up on that particular show.

I tried to leave in that room for misunderstanding.

Ted may have been talking about the gay guy's "flamboyance," or he may have been mistaking biological urge for lifestyle.

The gay guy, however, absolutely mistook biological urge for lifestyle by saying he had no choice over his lifestyle.

One always has a choice on how one lives one's life.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:00 pm

I call bullshit. If Gordon wasn't married, he'd be trying to bang everything that moved. Female wise. Most guys would. Gay guys just have the advantage over straight guys as their targets want to bang everything too. So, it's easier for gays to bang alot. But straights would bang just as much if females would stop being so. . . female'ish.

Though, some would disapprove of that kind of heterosexual promiscuous lifestyle, too.

Biological urge is not a lifestyle. The gay guy said he had no control over his lifestyle. Absolutely wrong.

There is no bullshit here. Your call of bullshit is misguided.

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:13 am

I would agree that the use of the word "lifestyle" is one of the things that is most counterproductive to the homosexual ... agenda ...

heh, I can't help but chuckle whenever I use the phrase "homosexual agenda". As if there's this pink war room somewhere where frilly generals are discussing their next method of attack wherein they will continue to gay up the United States.

hehe

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:16 am

But back on topic, I think the idea of homosexuality being a choice is about stupid.

Think back to the first time you looked at a girl and got a chubby. Do you remember choosing to be straight? Do you remember choosing to like girls instead of boys? I know I didn't, and if you really do think being gay is a choice then the implication is that you are only straight by choice.

Stupid.

(Yes, I know this is agreeing with you, Gordon. I'm not trying to argue with you on this one)

Post by **Leisher** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:32 pm

Let's slow down here boys and girls and look at the big picture of what you're implying.

I obviously do not agree that ALL homosexuals were born that way or at least those that call themselves homosexuals. Ditto for heterosexuals, bisexuals, and other assorted groups.

First of all, define what makes someone what they are.
-If a gay guy screws a woman before he comes out, is he bi? I mean, how'd his dick get hard for that?
-If a straight guy goes to prison and fucks and sucks other men without being forced to is he gay or bi?
-If a straight woman makes out with her college roommate, is she bi or gay?

(I actually think we should throw "bi" out the window, but that's a different subject.)

Anyway, all those examples involve people who nature designated to be one way, according to you, getting all freaky with people they shouldn't be attracted to.

Take the following questions:

Being straight men, would you get turned on by the image of a naked man? Probably not right?

Now if you were tied down (to make this scenario "safe") and a man started fondling your genitalia would it become erect? Very likely. Female rape victims can get wet, it doesn't mean they like what's happening.

Now what if you were blindfolded and received a blow job only to have the blindfold removed and find out it's a guy?

Do the last two examples make you gay? No. The fondling thing is about your body's physical reaction. The blindfold thing just means you're too trusting.

My point here is that it IS possible to choose to act gay or staight. I know a girl who pretended for years to be a butch lesbian. She dated only women, slept with them, mocked guys who approached her, etc. Then finally admitted that she was living a lie and went back to being straight. Oh and don't forget about the most famous example of this type of behavior: Anne Heche.

Similarly, how many gay people fake being straight only to come out years later? Example: Tom Cruise

I know one of you will now argue that these people are faking it for personal gain and that's not what you meant by definition.

Fine.

But let's take it a bit farther. There are cases of a girl getting raped before she's ever been with a guy and then becoming a lesbian. Isn't it possible that she made a choice?

I know girls and guys who will only date black guys or white girls or whateever. Is that "natural"? In some cases yes, it is their natural preference, although how that preference came about is a whole other argument. However, I know a white girl who only dated black guys because she was once raped by a white guy. Oddly, I know another white girl who only dates white guys because she was raped by a black guy. I have known more than one black guy who only date white girls for various reasons (one said they give head, another claimed they made good trophy wives, etc.).

Are those choices natural?

And I also have to ask if it's possible for a person to grow up in an environment that he believes makes him or her gay (or straight) when they really aren't?

Now let's take it a step further.

If it's natural to be attracted to your own sex, then it must be natural for some to be attracted to children or animals or inanimate objects, right? And don't you feel bad for people naturally into "furries" before there were "furries"?

If it is "natural" to be a child molestor, then aren't we as a society making a mistake by trying to rehab them? Shouldn't we just put them down? (I am SO for that.)

Taking this back to the top, I'm just saying that I think "some" of it might be something other than natural selection.

I'm just presenting the possibility that not all homosexuals are homosexual by nature's selection. Or I could just be baiting a hook.

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:43 pm

I'm not talking about actual acts, those are choices (except if raped, of course). I'm talking about "hey, I look at this person here and I get stimulated in a sexual manner". That's the natural urge, straight or gay or bi, that can't be chosen.

Some people say that gay men "choose" to find other gay men attractive (ditto for lesbians). Like one day they listed the pros and cons of girls and boys and came down on the "wrong" side. These are the ones that think you can deprogram homosexuals, that you can somehow make them be straight. People who believe this are the ones I think are stupid.

Everything beyond simply having that urge is a choice, including choosing to act on that urge. And, yes, it seems there are some people who find that the only thing that gets them hot is children/shoes/furries/scat/whatever. Some are undoubtedly due to some sort of psychological trauma, and some are just born whacked. I feel sorry for them. And those that choose to act on an urge that harms another (such as the child molesters) we as a society rightly choose to enact vengence.

Because there's a big difference between two consentual men diddling each other and a man diddling a small defensless child, regardless of what some people think.

Post by **GORDON** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:34 pm

Cripes... I'm watching Surviving Nugent 2... day 3 of their little contest, and 2 people have been put in the hospital.

One of them was Ted. I was all like, "Ted, that isn't the right way to cut down a tree!" Next thing you know.... MEDIC!

Post by **Vince** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:14 pm

I call bullshit. If Gordon wasn't married, he'd be trying to bang everything that moved. Female wise. Most guys would. Gay guys just have the advantage over straight guys as their targets want to bang everything too. So, it's easier for gays to bang alot. But straights would bang just as much if females would stop being so. . . female'ish.

I disagree to a point. Men reach a point of bullshit tolerance where it's not much worth the effort. I find myself being more and more like my dad (which in some ways frightens me and in some ways is kind of nice).

The idea of "the chase" is tiring. I have to put in a lot of effort to show I'm interested and make them feel special. The resulting relationship isn't what I envisioned and I realize I put more effert into "the chase" than they are putting into the relationship. One can't sustain that level of interest (real or faked for the benefiet of "the chase") forever, so she's starting to bitch about how I don't do the things I used to do, blah, blah, blah.

I like a relationship, I just hate all the bullshit that has to lead up to it.

If it doesn't come to me, I'm not much inclined to go to it. Yeah I'm alone, but there's a lot less BS in my life. I don't know. Internet porn and less BS... girlfriend... internet porn and less BS... girlfriend...

Post by **TPRJones** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:01 pm

Well, he did specify that this would only be true of women weren't such a pain in the ass about it (i.e. "female'ish").

Post by **Vince** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:44 pm

Well, he did specify that this would only be true of women weren't such a pain in the ass about it (i.e. "female'ish").

Oh! Well if that's what he meant by "female-ish" then I agree completely.

I'd have sex with a lot more women if they were more like guys.

... that didn't sound good, but I think you know what I mean.

Post by **Vince** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:36 pm

I call bullshit. If Gordon wasn't married, he'd be trying to bang everything that moved. Female wise. Most guys would. Gay guys just have the advantage over straight guys as their targets want to bang everything too. So, it's easier for gays to bang alot. But straights would bang just as much if females would stop being so. . . female'ish.

You know, the more I think about this (with normal guys that still give a shit) the more I think you're right.

Women keep straight men from being as promiscuous as gay men. Same sex are not optimally fit in the scheme of nature.

The sexual or physical aspect of a relationship between a man and a woman develops as follows:

"Want to fuck?"

"Not yet."

"Want to fuck?"

"Not yet."

"Want to fuck?"

"Not yet."

"Want to fuck?"

"Not yet."

With a lot of dinners and movies thrown in in between until she says, "I want to fuck"

Now we don't actually say that with words. We do it with body language, playing grab-ass until she says "slow down", etc.

But men aren't wired to say "Not yet". Not unless she's a two bagger and we haven't had enough beer yet.

So I think I may be agreeing with Cake that in most cases he's right. That's the nature of men and women. That's the spagetti monster's cool way of making things with balance. Gay people aren't balanced. And after a couple of years together, lesbians stop having sex all together.

Post by **TPRJones** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:45 pm

I'm looking forward to the legalization of gay marriage, just because I'm a stats junky and it'll be interesting to see what the divorce rate is for 'em after a few years have gone by. I wonder if it'll be similar to hetero couples or higher or lower. I really can't make a reasonable guess.

Post by **Vince** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:47 pm

I'm looking forward to the legalization of gay marriage, just because I'm a stats junky and it'll be interesting to see what the divorce rate is for 'em after a few years have gone by. I wonder if it'll be similar to hetero couples or higher or lower. I really can't make a reasonable guess.

I saw the stats for Europe where it's legalized. Lesbians divorce at a higher rate than Hetero couples. There's no pleasing a woman. Two is fucking impossible.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:57 pm

I predict divorce rates for gays to be on par w\ divorce rates for everyone else. Why? Cos stupidty & bad decision making are not limited to straight folk.

Alhazad · Post by **Alhazad** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:14 pm

I predict divorce rates for gays to be on par w\ divorce rates for everyone else. Why? Cos stupidty & bad decision making are not limited to straight folk.

I doubt it.

Something like 70% of divorces are filed by women. Men are generally happy to stay in the relationship as long as they get sex once in a while.

With no woman around to put a brake on the sex and decide the marriage isn't the fairytale she thought it'd be?

Fuhgeddaboutit.

Post by **Vince** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:54 pm

I agree with Alhazad.

Alhazad · Post by **Alhazad** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:31 am

I agree with Alhazad.

If it turns out that being gay is a choice, do you wanna be gay with me, Vince?