Ask the Gay Guy

[Marvin D.]

Would you rather be in a long term relationship, or get married? Do you want to adopt kids?

[American Eagle]

Are you offended when people say stuff like, "Ha, that movie was so gayyyyy"?

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

Would you rather be in a long term relationship, or get married? Do you want to adopt kids?

I'd rather do both I think. Get married while in a long term relationship. And yes, I am trying to ruin everyone else's marriages by doing that.

Yes, actually. I want to raise a child more than I want to be in a relationship with someone to be honest.

Are you offended when people say stuff like, "Ha, that movie was so gayyyyy"?

Yes. Because, here's the thing, when people say "that's so gay" they're substituting the word "stupid" with the word "gay." It's essentially equating being gay with stupidity. It's a blanket word that people use to mean that they didn't like something, but gay is not an insult. It doesn't work as an insult because being gay is not a bad thing.

[The Top Crusader]

That's so hetero.

[Marvin D.]

THAT'S SO STRAIGHT.

I'm offended when people say that something was gay, too, because it's really just a slur for the most part and I dislike it when people do that

[Astronomer]

The ironic thing is that gay originally meant the complete opposite of how some people use it now.

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

Happy is the complete opposite of attraction to the same sex? If you say so.

Words change and evolve. That's the way language works.

[Whitty Whit]

No hetero...geneous mixtures here!

[~JCGJ~]

Would you rather be in a long term relationship, or get married? Do you want to adopt kids?

I'd rather do both I think. Get married while in a long term relationship. And yes, I am trying to ruin everyone else's marriages by doing that.

Yes, actually. I want to raise a child more than I want to be in a relationship with someone to be honest.

Are you offended when people say stuff like, "Ha, that movie was so gayyyyy"?

Yes. Because, here's the thing, when people say "that's so gay" they're substituting the word "stupid" with the word "gay." It's essentially equating being gay with stupidity. It's a blanket word that people use to mean that they didn't like something, but gay is not an insult. It doesn't work as an insult because being gay is not a bad thing.

[Anna><>]

It's also rude, mean, and offensive to slap someone in the face. He should have just said it nicely.

[~JCGJ~]

I think the idea was that when you substitute the word "stupid" with the word "gay," it's like (ie. just as rude as) a slap in the face to gay people.

[Astronomer]

Happy is the complete opposite of attraction to the same sex? If you say so.

What I meant was that what gay used to mean (happy) is the opposite of how some people use it now (stupid).
Sorry if I didn't make sense before.

[Sherlock]

I always thought calling something gay was another way of denoting it as being frivolous and over-complicated like huge Broadway production or whatever.

[~JCGJ~]

Do you know when/how the term "gay" came to mean "a homosexual male" instead of "happy/gidd?"

[SoccerLOTR]

Is it ok to use the term "gay" to describe both male and female homosexuals? The term "lesbian" came into my vocabulary much later in life (not sure why), so my initial thoughts upon hearing "gay" is synonymous with "homosexual" in a general way--just like when I hear in old speeches or texts the phrase "all men" I know it is referring to both men and women. Is that an acceptable thought/usage, or would that be offensive/incorrect?

[Aaron Wiley]

*reads through entire conversation without one post saying "GOD HATES GAYS! YOU'RE GOING TO heck!" and is incredibly impressed with ToO community*

Wow... you guys actually have mature conversations about this kind of stuff here? Man, I've got to keep a closer eye on this place.
I have a question though- a couple actually:

Do you think being homosexual should be treated in the same way as being mentally retarded, or manically depressed in the sense that rather than being accepted and embraced, it should be accepted and "cured"? I mean, (and this is probably another question in itself) you would agree that being homosexual isn't really a natural thing, correct? People are blaming it on chemical imbalance and what have you, so I guess what I really want to know is, do you view it as a problem, or a sort of "gift"?

[Marvin D.]

^so for some reason people think we're all immature. .? Gee, thanks =P

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

Is it ok to use the term "gay" to describe both male and female homosexuals? The term "lesbian" came into my vocabulary much later in life (not sure why), so my initial thoughts upon hearing "gay" is synonymous with "homosexual" in a general way--just like when I hear in old speeches or texts the phrase "all men" I know it is referring to both men and women. Is that an acceptable thought/usage, or would that be offensive/incorrect?

As far as I know, the term "gay" can refer to either male or females. It'd be better to ask a girl who's gay what she prefers and than use the term she wants, since I have no idea, mostly because I'm not a girl.

Do you think being homosexual should be treated in the same way as being mentally retarded, or manically depressed in the sense that rather than being accepted and embraced, it should be accepted and "cured"? I mean, (and this is probably another question in itself) you would agree that being homosexual isn't really a natural thing, correct? People are blaming it on chemical imbalance and what have you, so I guess what I really want to know is, do you view it as a problem, or a sort of "gift"?

No, I wouldn't agree to any of that. Homosexuality, like everything else, is completely natural. There really is nothing "unnatural" in the world. We, humans, are natural and we created these things that we would normally call "unnatural."

However, I personally don't know the cause of homosexuality. I would be more inclined to say that it has something to do with genetics. Genetics is a lot more complicated than a punnett square. Most traits are caused by more than one gene and genes that cause homosexuality in one sex could cause something else in the other sex, like increased sexual activity.

Homosexuality shouldn't be treated as mentally retarded or manically depressed as both of those cause severe problems in people's lives. Homosexuality, is simply the attraction towards people of the same sex and as such does not generally cause severe problems for people. It may cause a great many problems in people if they grow up in a fundamentalist community like this one that tells them that they're a sinner and that they're going to heck or where they hear "love the sinner, hate the sin" all the time. But that's the community they're around. Homosexuality, on its own, doesn't cause any more problems than heterosexuality. It is simply an attraction to those of the same sex rather than those of the opposite sex. No more, no less.

[Aaron Wiley]

@Marvin Come on bro, you know I didn't mean it like that. I just was surprised your admins allowed discussion this deep on a site to discuss a kids show, but seeing as the majority of your users are older and, yes, mature enough to discuss these kinds of subjects without it turning into a huge flame war, I suppose they saw it fit to leave the conversation be.


@JJJJ Very well put, and I can agree with you in a sense.

I actually had a conversation about this the other day with my youth pastor, or at least something similar. The premise was basically that for Christians, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Through this, we all obey a lot of "rules" not solely based on whether or not they have immediate physical consequences or not, but rather based on what God tells us to do in his word.

We related this to premarital sex, and how really, when you're not a Christian, there isn't so much of a strong argument to convince anyone not to take part in it. I mean, sure, you may end up with unwanted children or STD's, but there are chances of disaster in everything we do. Ultimately, the real reason most Christians don't have sex before they're married is because the Bible says not to, not because it's necessarily the most advisable ethical decision. The same idea can be plugged into to homosexuality. If you aren't a Christian, or don't agree with parts of the Bible, there's no real ethical reason to stop you from participating in homosexual activities apart from them being arguably more dangerous/unhealthy for the body.

I personally don't condone any practices of Homosexuality because I'm one of those nasty little extremists who believe the Bible as a whole is literally true and applicable today. Perhaps you are too, and simply interpret certain parts differently than the majority would, in which case I would then find it hard to argue with you about any text in the Bible since we'd be basing our points two entirely different axioms. I should ask though, as I don't really know you that well: Are you a Christian? If so, what denomination are you, and how to you rebuke the verses I'm sure many other Christians flood you with consistently about homosexuality being a sin?

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

I actually had a conversation about this the other day with my youth pastor, or at least something similar. The premise was basically that for Christians, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". Through this, we all obey a lot of "rules" not solely based on whether or not they have immediate physical consequences or not, but rather based on what God tells us to do in his word.

And that's a problem. Morality is not based around the commands of one being. If said being is all powerful and such why does he make the rules as he does? Does he just arbitrarily say, "Well I don't like gay people right now so homosexuality is a sin." There's really no reason to make homosexual activity a sin.

We related this to premarital sex, and how really, when you're not a Christian, there isn't so much of a strong argument to convince anyone not to take part in it. I mean, sure, you may end up with unwanted children or STD's, but there are chances of disaster in everything we do.

So for some reason people think that marriage is this magical thing that makes STDs go away. This is not true. Married people can and do get STDs just as much as non-married people. Marriage is not a magical talisman that does this. We also have things called birth control which help keep people from having babies and help protect against the spread of STDs. You can't magically get an STD if the person you're having sex with doesn't have one whether you're married or not. That's just not the way it works. If you have a baby from sex, generally it is your fault, not always, but generally because we have birth control that keeps that from happening. If you have sex without birth control, you have to expect that you will get a baby, that's your own fault.

Ultimately, the real reason most Christians don't have sex before they're married is because the Bible says not to, not because it's necessarily the most advisable ethical decision. The same idea can be plugged into to homosexuality. If you aren't a Christian, or don't agree with parts of the Bible, there's no real ethical reason to stop you from participating in homosexual activities apart from them being arguably more dangerous/unhealthy for the body.

So homosexuality really isn't more dangerous for the body if you use proper protection, again back to the birth control. We are living in a time when people can have sex with a very low risk to their body just in general. Science has changed significantly in the past hundred years.

I personally don't condone any practices of Homosexuality because I'm one of those nasty little extremists who believe the Bible as a whole is literally true and applicable today.

But that makes no sense. If you think the entire Bible should be taken literally, there are many many verses I could show you that you don't follow morally today. Why? Because morality has changed significantly since thousands of years ago.

Perhaps you are too, and simply interpret certain parts differently than the majority would, in which case I would then find it hard to argue with you about any text in the Bible since we'd be basing our points two entirely different axioms. I should ask though, as I don't really know you that well: Are you a Christian? If so, what denomination are you, and how to you rebuke the verses I'm sure many other Christians flood you with consistently about homosexuality being a sin?

I am not a Christian, anymore. I am an atheist. When I was still a Christian, and when I still took the entire Bible literally, however, this was how I interpreted it:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm