The Homosexual Dilemma

[Syriusly]

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Please.

Do.

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

 

[Syriusly]

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

I CHOSE to be attracted to women.

So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

 

[Conservative65]

I chose not to unlike you.

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

 

[Skylar]

I CHOSE to be attracted to women.

So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

 

[Conservative65]

I CHOSE to be attracted to women.

So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender. There. Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.

Wrong. You are talking about a RELATIONSHIP and pretending it's a person.

What's more, Marriage includes BOTH GENDERS... therefore there is no potential discrimination of someone based upon gender, except where the standard REQUIRES discrimination, wherein someone of the same gender as the initiating applicant seeks to be married.

And therein, lies the rub. The Left, as one should expect of evil is attacking ALL standards critical to the viability of western civilization. The natural standards of marriage are just one of the latests to be fired upon.

Understand, the goal is to destroy civilization. Not that the individuals idiots understand that, the energy that animates them, requires that they NOT. Because even at the exquisitely pitiful intellectual levels of these clowns, if they ever come to realize the destruction they're causing to their own house... they could very easily turn from their current 'feelings' and that would not serve evil well, at all.

Also, the law speaks to discrimination for very specific considerations, such as housing, employment and the like.

It would be wrong to prevent someone from living somewhere because they're a man, unless that somewhere was in say... the ladies room.



Ask her is she sees how that works... .

 

[Syriusly]

So you found yourself equally attracted to both men and women but chose only one? What did you do, flip a coin?

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

 

[Skylar]

So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

 

[Syriusly]

So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

Whatever dude- if you choose not to find men sexually attractive, you might be bisexual.

 

[Syriusly]

So you could choose to be attracted to men?

I have always been attracted to women- not my choice- I just love everything about them- the curves, the walk- wow- sorry- don't get that from men.

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

 

[Skylar]

Ok, let's go with your idea of gender....in this country, the government cannot discriminate based on gender. There. Your argument against same sex marriage shot down.

Wrong. You are talking about a RELATIONSHIP and pretending it's a person.

What's more, Marriage includes BOTH GENDERS... therefore there is no potential discrimination of someone based upon gender, except where the standard REQUIRES discrimination, wherein someone of the same gender as the initiating applicant seeks to be married.

The same argument was made regarding interracial marriage. That since the laws included both blacks and whites, there was no potential for discrimination based on race.

The obvious problem being.....there's no valid reason for the restriction. As there's nothing required by marriage that a white man and black woman couldn't meet. And likewise, there's nothing required by marriage that a lesbian and a lesbian couldn't meet.

And no state interest served in denying same sex couples their right to marry. Nor can a logical, rational reason be given.

All of which is required if you're going to deny someone rights.

 

[Conservative65]

Why are lesbians so angry all the time? Even gay men try to keep away from you all, finding little in common. Perhaps women are so hormonal and bitchy, you shouldn't put two of them together like that. They need a man to calm them down. Just saying.

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter.

13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message Gay Marriage Is Wrong #!

The problem is you never know what someone might not think twice of one day and complain about the next. The problem is the politically correct crowd is a bunch of pussies that get upset if someone says something they may happen to not like. Unlike them, I don't care.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

I can't because I choose not to.

 

[Syriusly]

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

I am seeing the whining from homophobic bigots here- whining and crying about how unfair it is for them to have to experience a gay football player- or how unfair it is for them that a baker 2000 miles from them is being forced to obey the law.

I see the homophobes crying about how unfair it is that they have to treat homosexuals fairly in the workplace.

How everything would be just fine if homosexuals would just stop being all uppity and go back to the closet where they belong.

You have it all wrong. I don't have a problem if a football player is gay. I have a problem is the focus is on him being gay rather than what he's there to do. My problem isn't with the baker doing the cake. My problem is the same ones saying the baker should saying that it would be OK if a gay baker refused to put something on a wedding cake.

I don't have a problem treating an employee fairly regardless of sexual orientation. I have a problem with having to watch every word because one of them might get offended and get his panties in a wad.

Why do you care about the football player at all? Why do you care whether he is gay- or whether the focus is on him because he is gay?

As far as the baker is concerned- the baker is subject to State law- that applies to everyone covered in that law- I would object if the baker refused to bake a wedding cake to a Christian couple because they were Christian or a black couple because they were black or a Jewish couple because they are jewish.

You have to watch every word you say at work? Well good for you- then your HR department has gotten through to you. Yes- you can't say something that will embaress the company at work. You can't say things that are sexist that might offend women- you can't say things that are racists that might offend racial minorities- and you can't call people f*ggots because its the wrong thing to do at work.

Why do people care if he is gay and focus on that rather than the reason he was supposed to be selected? Very little was said about his skills for the job. Plenty was made out of what his supporters say is supposed to be a private matter..

First of all- lets talk about what is 'private' and what is 'public'-

What a person does in his or her bedroom is indeed private- and I don't need to hear anyone tell me how he banged his wife or his husband last night.

But a person's sexual preference has always been public- heterosexuals have been public about our attractions always- holding hands, kissing in public, getting married in public.

You know why people are making a big deal of this guy- because there have always been rumors about gays in pro sports but there has been a stigma attached to it. Coming out publicly is working to overcome the stigma.

We have seen the same thing with others regarding mental illness and drug dependency(why did Betty Ford come out publicly with her dependency issue?) and medical conditions(Michael J. Fox and his Parkinson's).

Personally, I dont' care whether this guy is gay or not- and when he was cut, I figured he just didn't have what it takes to make it.

But I understand why people do go public with issues to raise public awareness- I had no problem when Betty Ford did it- or when Michael J. Fox did it.

 

[Skylar]

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

I can't because I choose not to.

But if you choose, you clearly can.

That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It should be noted again... due to the obtuse nature of evil, that race is GENETIC... and not sexual.

The SCOTUS did not proclaim in its finding that Race could not be used as a means to prevent a man and a woman of distinct races from being married that marriage was open to people of the same gender.

That is because they had no reason to do so. And why did they not have a reason to do so?

They had no reason to do so because Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, without regard to the melatonin content of their skin; meaning that race is irrelevant to marriage.

This in contrast to GENDER... and VOLUME... which are CENTRAL to marriage, as such requires that only TWO PEOPLE can enter into such and that each of those must represent the distinct genders, One male, One Female... .

And this without regard to weeping and gnashing of the intellectually less fortunate tooth.

It should also be noted that in deciding that the 2nd amendment protects the right of the individual to own and effectively use firearms, that SCOTUS did not conclude that men could marry men... just as in their decision that the responsibilities inherent in the right to free speech preclude a right to injure others through false speech... the court also DID NOT convey that a woman could marry her dog.

Ya see, a decision on the limits of one subject standard, in no way invalidates the otherwise essential cultural elements known as "standards".

 

[Conservative65]

I don't get that from men either. That's why I chose women.

Oh I certainly chose to have sex with women- I chose to marry a woman- but I never, ever chose to be attracted to women.

IF you can choose to be attracted to women- then you should be able to chose to be attracted to men.

If you find the idea of a stubbly male face kissing your lips repugnant- like I do- then your attraction is not a choice.

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

If you think you could chose to be turned on by a photo of Clooney in a bathing suit- then you are probably bisexual.

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

Whatever dude- if you choose not to find men sexually attractive, you might be bisexual.

That would make me a heterosexual.

I guess if I COULD be a bankobber but choose not to that still makes one.

By the when you include "dude" in your response, it weakens whatever you have to say.

 

[Conservative65]

I choose not to be attracted to men.

I find a lot of things repugnant. Does that mean it isn't a choice on those either?

Then you are probably bisexual.

As a heterosexual I can say with great certainty- I do not find men sexually attractive- and cannot chose to find them sexually attractive.

I like Jennifer Anniston and Holly Hunter and Jessica Alba- not Brad Pitt or George Clooney.

Oh, Holly Hunter. Nice! That woman is an unsung gem of pure feminine hotness. But then I've always had a thing for strong willed women. And the characters she plays just turn that crank.

Oh yeah baby.......

If I could choose to be as turned on by George Clooney as I was by Holly Hunter- I would be bisexual.

I can't because I choose not to.

But if you choose, you clearly can.

That makes you and I fundamentally different. I just don't find men sexually attractive. I don't have a choice in the matter.

It makes us different but it doesn't make me what anything other than a heterosexual that chose to be heterosexual.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Could you site the law in any of the 50 States where procreation is a requirement of Civil Marriage?

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

I can...

Let me help ya through it.

All 50 states exist in Nature and are dependent upon Nature for their continued existence... where ANY state rejects the moral foundation intrinsic IN Nature, the state sets itself to suffer the otherwise unavoidable and catastrophic consequences of their failure to respect the laws in nature which govern human behavior.

Thus for law to be valid, it must rest upon the soundly reasoned morality inherent in natural law... or such law leads the state toward its certain demise. AND where the fate of THAT state is intrinsically tied to others, its demise endangers the viability of the whole of that subsequent Union.

Feel better?

You failed to make one citation to an actual law, you projected your opinion, but no links to actual laws.

Not surprising.


>>>>