The Clockwork Mansion

Right. It had been mentioned that we didn't have something like this yet, so here's something. For the record I'm not sure what some of these mean, but I suppose that if they describe you, then you know.

Note: For the top 8, the format is meant to be actual gender/alignment.

EDIT: If you don't understand some of these, see the explinations below (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=2266.msg93758#msg93758).

I'm still confused.  Do you think you can do a breakdown of every single option?
You also seem to be missing "not entirely sure" and "gay for Abel".

I'm heterosexual here, but I still appreciate the cuteness of this comic's bishies.

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 08:43:36 AM
I'm still confused.  Do you think you can do a breakdown of every single option?
You also seem to be missing "not entirely sure" and "gay for Abel".

Trying, but thanks, I knew I was missing something.

Wait, do you mean if I'm trying to come up with every single option, or whether I should explain every single option?

Quote from: modelincard on February 23, 2007, 08:51:27 AM
Wait, do you mean if I'm trying to come up with every single option, or whether I should explain every single option?

There are a lot of options which I don't understand, and that's after speaking English for almost 30 years.   >:3  You might want to explain them all...

At least some of them are the fault of Darkmoon, who said he'd lock the thread if it didn't include them. :-)

Male, straight.

However, sex is not something that interests me all that much. It's just so ... organic. And it involves bodily fluids and orifices, other peoples bodily fluids and orifices that are rather close of other peoples "waste disposal facilities".

Still, women are easily the most aesthetically pleasing.

IS THIS WHERE I SAY I'M A 40' HERMAPHRODITE ANTHROWOLF?

*stomps over thread*

Okay. I'll try, but as I said, I don't understand them all myself.

heterosexual-being attracted to members of the opposite sex
homosexual-being attracted to members of the same sex
bisexual-being attracted to members of either sex
gaysexual-homosexual like behavior
transgender-having originally not been the gender you are now
eunuch-a neutered male
hermaphrodite-having qualities of both sexes
asexual-being of neither sex (roughly opposite of hermaphrodite) uninterested in sex with either gender.
ambisexterous-able to use both sexes equally or interchangeably
voyeursexual-I got nothing on this one. It seems to involve pr0n, though.

Quote from: KasarnVoyeurism is a fetish where you like to watch.

gay...for Abel-despite being heterosexual, you are still attracted to Abel
unsure-deciding between options in this poll

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCornaAt least some of them are the fault of Darkmoon, who said he'd lock the thread if it didn't include them. :-)

Yes...yes.

(it works better if you spell quote correctly. HTH, HAND)

Voyeurism is a fetish where you like to watch.

:tmyk

Male, straight here.

Quote from: Kasarn on February 23, 2007, 09:15:31 AM
Voyeurism is a fetish where you like to watch.

It's not a sexuality, though.

'gaysexual' was the one which really tripped me up - what is the difference between that and homosexuality?

**EDIT**
Or is that 'straight but think Abel / Dan etc are kind of cute'?

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 10:03:41 AM

Quote from: Kasarn on February 23, 2007, 09:15:31 AM
Voyeurism is a fetish where you like to watch.

It's not a sexuality, though.

'gaysexual' was the one which really tripped me up - what is the difference between that and homosexuality?

**EDIT**
Or is that 'straight but think Abel / Dan etc are kind of cute'?

Nope. Gaysexual means you are attracted to gay people, whether or not their gender is the same as yours or not. Homosexual is that you are attracted to people of whatever gender you are.

Quote from: Vidar on February 23, 2007, 10:09:36 AM

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 10:03:41 AM

Quote from: Kasarn on February 23, 2007, 09:15:31 AM
Voyeurism is a fetish where you like to watch.

It's not a sexuality, though.

'gaysexual' was the one which really tripped me up - what is the difference between that and homosexuality?

**EDIT**
Or is that 'straight but think Abel / Dan etc are kind of cute'?

Nope. Gaysexual means you are attracted to gay people, whether or not their gender is the same as yours or not. Homosexual is that you are attracted to people of whatever gender you are.

Really? Okay, I was getting it from here (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Gaysexual).

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 10:03:41 AM

Quote from: Kasarn on February 23, 2007, 09:15:31 AM
Voyeurism is a fetish where you like to watch.

It's not a sexuality, though.

It's not supposed to be. I presume that it's there for lulz.
At a guess, it may mean virgin... or just somebody who watches porn. Either way...

Straight here.

And Abel isn't my type.

If he was a girl I would still wouldn't want him.

I'm gay for Jyrras.  :)

*shrugs* Why not...
Male, het. But I'm comfortable enough in my sexuality to where being close to a guy doesn't make me scream "OMG, GAY!"

If you needed to read the description t each of the choices before deciding, you haven't been in the furry fandom long enough.

Not enough people are gay for Abel. :<

Quote from: Sheridan on February 23, 2007, 12:08:50 PM
Not enough people are gay for Abel. :<

Some of them may have listed themselves as straight.  I nearly did.

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 12:40:40 PM

Quote from: Sheridan on February 23, 2007, 12:08:50 PM
Not enough people are gay for Abel. :<

Some of them may have listed themselves as straight.  I nearly did.

Then they're liars! :<

Mine's not listed, and the only one close enough isn't described the right way :<

Quote from: Sheridan on February 23, 2007, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 12:40:40 PM

Quote from: Sheridan on February 23, 2007, 12:08:50 PM
Not enough people are gay for Abel. :<

Some of them may have listed themselves as straight.  I nearly did.

Then they're liars! :<

I was actually being quite honest.  Other males including Abel just don't do it for me, unfortunately.

Considering the ratio of males in this community that really are straight to the amount of females that really are females (and not some guy who rp's one convicingly), it makes it that much harder on guys like me to get a date. :P

im about as straight as a bannana
but im not totally gay

Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on February 23, 2007, 12:45:35 PM
Mine's not listed, and the only one close enough isn't described the right way :<

What do you mean?...He has every possible combination known to Furry/man/insectiod... Unless you a photontronic based lifeform, who is into screwing toaster...then your choices is unsure. 

Example R.A.M., here looks like a male gaysexual which is not fully gay but not whole Bi either

What this poll needs is more female voters...

Female, BI, naturist :mowcookie
PBH

If "Ambisextrous" were an actual word, it would officially be the greatest English word ever.

Quote from: BillBuckner on February 23, 2007, 03:10:52 PMIf "Ambisextrous" were an actual word, it would officially be the greatest English word ever.

The OED has it, with usages going back to 1929.  Unfortunately, it is listed as a `humorous,' synonym of `ambisexual,' not ``officially the greatest English word ever.''

The poll lacks ``male lesbian,'' though.  That's probably the closest to what I am--I prefer to take on the feminine role in a relationship, and would be cool with having been born a girl, but I have no desire (well, anti-desire) to make it with a man. (exit only, please)

(also, not a cross-dresser like Eddie Izzard (http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9501E5DC1F3CF93AA35753C1A9659C8B63).  Despite the time that my parents found those pantyhose in my trash (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php?topic=465.msg93457#msg93457).)

I'm like... neither. But I can't say asexual, because its description means I'd have to be like Ken :<

Other than that, a bunch of these aren't much to do with sexuality, either... But that's not what I had a problem with.

Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on February 23, 2007, 03:28:04 PMI'm like... neither. But I can't say asexual, because its description means I'd have to be like Ken :<

Inamorati?

Quote from: RyudoLee on February 23, 2007, 02:35:09 PM

Quote from: Sheridan on February 23, 2007, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: Tapewolf on February 23, 2007, 12:40:40 PM

Quote from: Sheridan on February 23, 2007, 12:08:50 PM
Not enough people are gay for Abel. :<

Some of them may have listed themselves as straight.  I nearly did.

Then they're liars! :<

I was actually being quite honest.  Other males including Abel just don't do it for me, unfortunately.

I meant the ones who were gay for Abel, but had failed to list themselves as such. Not the ones who are actually straight. :P

QuoteThe poll lacks ``male lesbian,'' though.  That's probably the closest to what I am--I prefer to take on the feminine role in a relationship, and would be cool with having been born a girl, but I have no desire (well, anti-desire) to make it with a man. (exit only, please)

superluser basically described what i am better then i could :)
and yes i know im inside the quote box...i messed up


(glad I could assist. -- llearch :-)

i WOULD say what i am, but i might scare some people...so...>w<

truthfully, i'm bi-curious and gaysexual. My friend Josh(gay =.=) =HAWT

Not that it matters, but I'm male, heterosexual, and voluntarily celibate.

Quote from: TheGreyRonin on February 23, 2007, 04:34:05 PM
Not that it matters, but I'm male, heterosexual, and voluntarily celibate.

My views exactly, but my celibacy is by lack of option really.  I just can't seem to find women down here that aren't either spoken for or simply breeding material.

I had no idea that there needed to be roles in a relationship, even less that "voyeurism" actually counted as a sexuality... And "ambisextruous"?! What the hell?! This poll just became chock full of unserious, and I'm blaming it on Dmoon, if it was indeed he who insisted to add these things...

Also, I did vote, so you can not complain about me just complaining, biyatches!

I'm sorry, polls are supposed to be serious, now?

When did that rule get added?

Where's Zina's "Serious Cat" pic when you need it?

Quote from: Stygian on February 23, 2007, 05:32:27 PMAlso, I did vote, so you can not complain about me just complaining, biyatches!

We can complain about you complaining.

What we can't do is complain about you not voting but complaining.

:B

Thus, I added the "just". Also, this isn't the RP board, Llearch. There's fantasy and wishful thinking, and then there's simple reality. You choose which you're comfortable with. And I don't think that I was the first one to comment...

But meh, who cares, really? It's not like sexuality is something big and serious to people... they just legislate about it and damn it in some religions...

Welease Wogew! [yes, it's a Python reference, and yes, it's a 40' herm wolf out for your ass...]

I chose ambisextruous because it sounds kinky.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 23, 2007, 05:35:40 PM
I'm sorry, polls are supposed to be serious, now?

When did that rule get added?

(http://art.airlandrail.net/img/misc/serious.jpg)

*cough*Yeah, llearch actually did warn me about this. I meant this poll to be semi-serious, but I seem to have failed miserably.

For the record, gay, straight, bi, & transgender were all ones that I originally wanted to include. I forgot to put unsure, but Tapewolf reminded me. Gay...for Abel was another Tapewolf idea, but it seemed good to me. The rest were requested by the mods under threat of lock.

If ya'll were wondering.

I blame Darkmoon.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Of course, everyone else always blames Darkmoon, anyway, so....

I was joking about the voyuersexual dangit!  'A'

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 23, 2007, 07:08:03 PM
I was joking about the voyuersexual dangit!  'A'

Sure you were! *cough*  :mwaha

Straight,why do you ask? :/

Quote from: Amber WilliamsI was joking about the voyuersexual dangit! 'A'

Ach, no wonder I couldn't find much for it.

No worries, evidently someone thought it's worthwhile. It's tied for 4th.

Also, superscript tags don't seem to be working.

Quote from: Amber Williams on February 23, 2007, 07:08:03 PM
I was joking about the voyuersexual dangit!  'A'

:lol Good one :lol

:hug
PBH

Heterosexual, got a boyfriend and everything. I have super karate-chop action, too.

Though I think I have a bit of a bisexual side, but I'm not entirely sure... so that's why I clicked 'unsure'.

~Keaton the Black Jackal

Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on February 23, 2007, 07:22:39 PM
Heterosexual, got a boyfriend and everything. I have super karate-chop action, too.

Though I think I have a bit of a bisexual side, but I'm not entirely sure... so that's why I clicked 'unsure'.

~Keaton the Black Jackal

Or you could have clicked hetero, bi and unsure. :P
Being able to chose that many makes it hard to use the data. What was the point of it? :confused

Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on February 23, 2007, 12:45:35 PM
Mine's not listed, and the only one close enough isn't described the right way :<

(I will not say mean thing, I will not say mean things...)

I don't see an option for plushies, nor for necrosexuals...

...What? Some people can't resist cracking open a cold one..."

*waits for the hail of thrown objects to begin*

Quote from: Darkmoon on February 23, 2007, 08:11:06 PM

Quote from: Aridas Soulfire on February 23, 2007, 12:45:35 PM
Mine's not listed, and the only one close enough isn't described the right way :<

(I will not say mean thing, I will not say mean things...)

Neither will I...

Quote from: TheGreyRonin on February 23, 2007, 08:30:38 PM
I don't see an option for plushies, nor for necrosexuals...

...What? Some people can't resist cracking open a cold one..."

*waits for the hail of thrown objects to begin*

[Stygian doesn't bother to throw things. He just picks The Ronin up and stuffs him in a trashcan, then rolls it down the stairs]

And that's what I think of that.

Female and bisexual, though I'm in what's looking to be a long-term relationship with someone of the opposite sex, so I'm basically as good as straight....

Even though visually, I still think boys are icky. :p

Quote from: Miaka on February 23, 2007, 09:32:38 PM
Female and bisexual, though I'm in what's looking to be a long-term relationship with someone of the opposite sex, so I'm basically as good as straight....

Even though visually, I still think boys are icky. :p

[laughs]

You're looking at the wrong boys then. It's hard to believe, but we can look good too. It just doesn't occur as much...

Gay online, straight IRL.

Quote from: Stygian on February 23, 2007, 09:36:15 PM

Quote from: Miaka on February 23, 2007, 09:32:38 PM
Female and bisexual, though I'm in what's looking to be a long-term relationship with someone of the opposite sex, so I'm basically as good as straight....

Even though visually, I still think boys are icky. :p

[laughs]

You're looking at the wrong boys then. It's hard to believe, but we can look good too. It just doesn't occur as much...

I know boys can be very good-looking.
it's more just.... it's a different kind of attraction with me.
if I'm going to be with a guy, It's more likely to be less of a physical attraction and more of a mental one.
that doesn't mean the physical attraction isn't there.

With girl's, it's... actually, now that I think about it, much more similar than i thought. I'd just prefer there be more of a physical(and probably more of a sexual attraction) with a girl than in a relationship with a man.

I'm just rambling now, I'll shut up.

I was truthful.

Being Bisexual is being attracted to a male or female, but that is just the sex.  A one-nightstand may fill your sexual hungry, but a love relationship will fill your needs beyond just sex, which makes sex more satifying.  I have said this before But there are qualities in both males and females bodies, I find attractive.  So, I really find I look at the person inside to see if I attracted to them as a person before I make love to them. 

Because, you are really give a piece of yourself to another, then you have sex.  Only when they willing to share themselves with you, do you get something back and something more than you gave.  That is all we can really hope for.

Good luck Miaka and May God bless you and yours
PBH

Quote from: TheGreyRonin on February 23, 2007, 08:30:38 PM
I don't see an option for plushies,

With furries, I thought that was just a given for all... if we're to believe "Vanity Fair".   :mowtongue

Mrrr... they're stuffed full o' lovin, baby!   ;)

Quote from: BillBuckner on February 23, 2007, 05:36:39 PMWhere's Zina's "Serious Cat" pic when you need it?

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~superluser/ambisextrous-sm.png)

Will this do?

Also, there's a good reason for having stupid funny options on polls.  If someone wants to be funny and choose a stupid answer, they'll choose the stupid option, which skews *that* answer, and not the legitimate ones.  That's why there's always a gag option on Slashdot polls.

Also also, in human sexuality studies (I'll look up the exact reference), they find that men who strongly claim not to be turned on by gay porn are actually more likely to show signs of arousal when shown gay porn.

This is not the case for women.  There is no difference in the rate of arousal for any type of porn no matter whether she claims to be gay, straight, bi, or whatever.  So women seem to like it all.

I seriously expected a greater percentage of the poll to show females. maybe theyre either scared of this thread, lied on the poll, or a hefty chunk of the 'girls' we see around here are actually 34 year old men wearing "yiff me" shirts. Please, for the love of Odin let it be one of the first two.

its looking like as time progresses people think that homosexuality is 'normal' and 'mainstream' and that heterosexuals are 'downright weird'. eh, not really, but its good to see that homosexuality is tolerated so, my theory on this is that 'normal' will soon be defined as "Yes, I prefer sexual intercourse with the opposite gender and find them hot, but I also find some members of my own gender attractive and admire them even though I probably would never engage in sexual intercourse with them....unless i was really drunk"

as long winded as that statement is i find it applies to me. and thank Frigg for that, if i wern't so open i would freak out the way that gay furrs tend to flock to me like vultures to roadkill.

QuoteA smiling face is half the meal.

I have nothing against homosexuality. I've never had intimate contact with another female (unless nursing counts but I was too young to remember it) and I don't know if I would like it or not. I'd rather be with a man, but that may be because it makes life easier and also because that way we may have children someday. If there weren't so many people who think it's sick and so many who think it's a disgrace to the family, and if it didn't make virtually everyone see you differently one way or another, I might be bisexual. I guess it's something I'll never know. Luckily for me, I'm not homosexual, so I can keep hoping to find the right guy someday.

Also, this is the first time I've voiced those thoughts in public. I hope it doesn't turn against me.

I think the furry community is already very open, generally speaking, and hence is likely to be more tolerant of other ideas - you know, like the ones that the world is flat, or that men might like other men, or that the world goes around the sun - all the unusual ideas are out there and acceptable, as long as you accept that other people may disagree, and that's ok.

It's interesting, in a general way, that the community that is most lambasted for being perverted and sick is the one that's most likely to say "well, you're welcome to be perverted and sick in your own special way, as long as everyone agrees to it beforehand" - and the community that is -supposed- to be open and forgiving is the one saying "burn in hell, motherfsckers!"


Funny how people are, isn't it?

Well, most of the people I know personally don't even think hell exists, but either feel sorry for gay people and their families or find them disgusting and hope none of them gets too close. I find the latter disgusting myself.

The first guy I fell in love with turned out to be gay. That was quite frustrating, but I didn't see him as a different person because of that. We're still friends. I just never told him what I once felt for him because it wouldn't do anyone any good.

Now, about what llearch said... people who have been discriminated know what it feels like and are often more careful not to do that to others. Often, but not always. I know it's my case, as many have discriminated me for being Jewish so I know quite well how stupid that is and how much it can hurt, but I have some close family members who don't hesitate to pay it forward (of course they often think they're paying it back, but since they aim at whole communities, they're just doing the same thing).

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on February 24, 2007, 07:53:16 AM
I seriously expected a greater percentage of the poll to show females. maybe theyre either scared of this thread, lied on the poll, or a hefty chunk of the 'girls' we see around here are actually 34 year old men wearing "yiff me" shirts. Please, for the love of Odin let it be one of the first two.

its looking like as time progresses people think that homosexuality is 'normal' and 'mainstream' and that heterosexuals are 'downright weird'. eh, not really, but its good to see that homosexuality is tolerated so, my theory on this is that 'normal' will soon be defined as "Yes, I prefer sexual intercourse with the opposite gender and find them hot, but I also find some members of my own gender attractive and admire them even though I probably would never engage in sexual intercourse with them....unless i was really drunk"

as long winded as that statement is i find it applies to me. and thank Frigg for that, if i wern't so open i would freak out the way that gay furrs tend to flock to me like vultures to roadkill.

QuoteA smiling face is half the meal.

41 responses specifically male or previously male

13 responses specifically female

26 responses not revealing physical sex

For myself, I picked one response indicating male and two not indicating anything

if all the ambiguouys answers were counted female, you would have 41 to 39

bear in mind each respondant is allowed up to five selections, any most ptobably picked only one

It would probably be more clear if this were a multi-question single-answer poll insrtead of a single-question multi-answer question.

For myself, I would suggest that the females in our midst are simply more noticable than the multitude of males, either through higher levels of activity or by making more noticable posts when they do post.

I only picked one answer: male & straight.

I find some of the responses to this thread to be extremely humorous, though.  :giggle

Quote from: Reese Tora on February 24, 2007, 02:03:54 PM

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on February 24, 2007, 07:53:16 AM
I seriously expected a greater percentage of the poll to show females. maybe theyre either scared of this thread, lied on the poll, or a hefty chunk of the 'girls' we see around here are actually 34 year old men wearing "yiff me" shirts. Please, for the love of Odin let it be one of the first two.


its looking like as time progresses people think that homosexuality is 'normal' and 'mainstream' and that heterosexuals are 'downright weird'. eh, not really, but its good to see that homosexuality is tolerated so, my theory on this is that 'normal' will soon be defined as "Yes, I prefer sexual intercourse with the opposite gender and find them hot, but I also find some members of my own gender attractive and admire them even though I probably would never engage in sexual intercourse with them....unless i was really drunk"

as long winded as that statement is i find it applies to me. and thank Frigg for that, if i wern't so open i would freak out the way that gay furrs tend to flock to me like vultures to roadkill.

QuoteA smiling face is half the meal.

41 responses specifically male or previously male

13 responses specifically female

26 responses not revealing physical sex

For myself, I picked one response indicating male and two not indicating anything

if all the ambiguouys answers were counted female, you would have 41 to 39

Actually, 41:13 seems reasonably consistent with the 4:1 male to female ratio claimed on the forums.

QuoteFor myself, I would suggest that the females in our midst are simply more noticable than the multitude of males, either through higher levels of activity or by making more noticable posts when they do post.

Never thought about that myself, but that is a point.

straight , male

I'm also a Straight Artist too, meaning I'll likely draw more females then males (even more so in the more adult spectrum of my art.)

Bi female, but really just bi-curious, as I seem to frighten most other women and haven't any experience with them at all.  :P

I didn't pick an answer anywhere near where I am. But, I only felt like saying one thing, and "Gay for Abel" was too good not to vote.

Quote from: Seraline on February 25, 2007, 12:00:39 AM
Bi female, but really just bi-curious, as I seem to frighten most other women and haven't any experience with them at all.  :P

*nods in agreement*

unless you count me making out with my best friend for $50....

Truthfully, i'm selectively bi V.V

Wouldnt you like to know...*giggle*

"In Denial"

Quote from: King Of Hearts on February 25, 2007, 07:06:19 AM
"In de Nile"

Fixed

I think everyone is selective, Xze. Or at least everyone who has any self esteem. Not being selective would mean everyone is the same to you.

And Shadrok, drawing someone is not a sexual practice, you can draw males without anyone thinking you feel attracted to them.

Personally, I don't mind drawing anyone. I'm not artistically selective. :P Well... unless I find them really gross or something like that.

On the romantic field, however, I'm VERY selective.

Quote from: Gabi on February 25, 2007, 08:41:22 AM
And Shadrok, drawing someone is not a sexual practice, you can draw males without anyone thinking you feel attracted to them.

Heh. Equidna would have to disagree. :T

Quote from: Gabi on February 25, 2007, 08:41:22 AM
I think everyone is selective, Xze. Or at least everyone who has any self esteem. Not being selective would mean everyone is the same to you.

Nah. I'm not selective, I hate everyone equally. *shrug*

Of course you do. *Pats the box.*

Quote from: Seraline on February 25, 2007, 12:00:39 AM
Bi female, but really just bi-curious, as I seem to frighten most other women and haven't any experience with them at all.  :P

It's probably the whips and leather that scare them, y'know. :B

Either that or the smiley face you have on that gimp mask in your handbag....

I'm more afraid of the dildo gag and the pamphlet on CPR.

So the tiger balm, the frozen herring and the helium tube are okay with you?

[starts to sing "Stuck in the middle with you"...]

Quote from: Gabi on February 25, 2007, 08:41:22 AM
Shadrok, drawing someone is not a sexual practice, you can draw males without anyone thinking you feel attracted to them.

What I ment was you're more likely to see me draw more straight art then gay art. Not to say I won't ever draw gay art, just that it's not something I tend to draw too often is all.

Quote from: Stygian on February 25, 2007, 07:13:48 PM
[starts to sing "Stuck in the middle with you"...]

Stygian, now I have that song stuck in my head.
["Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right"...]

me, I'm bi, but most people would say i'm gay just cause I lean towards that more. It's really sad how badly everyone accepts sexuality in today's world. You know, a long time ago, people were divided by their race. Today, it'd orientation. I've been bi since 7th grade, but where I used to go to a christian school, i never could tell anyone. And it made me so sad when the class would bring up the discussion of gay marraige and the teachers would talk about how sinful and wrong it was. I personally don't believe it is. Everyone would say I was wrong and foolish for my beliefs, and it hurt, cause on the inside this is how I am. But it simply amazes me how a generation that sccepts so many things as normal can say something like oreintation is wrong. Who are we to judge? Everyone has their own personal feelings about it, and I believe it should be kept to themselves. Well, i'm gonna stop now, cause I  could go on forever.

Well, as the saying goes; Homophobia is gay.

*shrug*

"Judge not, lest you be judged yourself. Unless you're gay, or a minority, in which case you're bad and wrong and you're gonna burn in hell..."

... yeah. I'll subscribe to that. No, really....



Not.

As a practicing Christian, I place myself in the aptly named "Couldn't-give-two-shits-camp"(I named it meself!) about gay marriage and such. Many Christians tend to be amazingly melodramatic about this matter, and others.

I'm Jewish, so I don't have enough of a base to participate in the discussion about Christianity.

But did you know that two young women, one Jewish and one Catholic, got married at a Lutheran church in Buenos Aires not long ago?

Eating shellfish is a sin, too.  Anyone who has ever eaten shrimp, lobster, crawdads, etc. is going to burn in hell! >:O

That's an Old Testament law, and is obsolete according to the NT. Soz.

Quote from: HaZ×MaT on February 25, 2007, 08:55:36 PMEating shellfish is a sin, too.  Anyone who has ever eaten shrimp, lobster, crawdads, etc. is going to burn in hell! >:O

I could get into a debate about how what the Bible condemns shellfish more vehemently than homosexuality, and how homosexuality usually doesn't mean homosexuality in the Bible, but that would probably get this thread into Godwin's Law territory.

So instead, I'll say this:

GOD HATES FIGS (http://www.godhatesfigs.com/)!

The interesting thing about "the NT overrides the OT, and the OT is all invalid now" is that Jesus, in the NT, never actually said all the old rules are now obsolete.

He hinted, he suggested, but he never said. And all the hints and suggestions are couched in a "well, if you're not an idiot, you can see what I mean" type of non-answers, so he didn't rile up the local management that the Romans left in control, etc....


It's surprising just how much weasel-wording there is. Not that I'm critical or anything....

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 25, 2007, 09:43:28 PM

It's surprising just how much weasel-wording there is. Not that I'm critical or anything....

Why weasels? What did we do?...But in all seriousness, it's kind of sad how unaccepted things are in a world where people like pimps and whores are glorified, but homsexuals and those who aren't considered "normal" are shunned. We promote things like "the thug life" and being "gangsta", lowering women to nothing more than property, but homosexuals are considered dirt to this. But the truth is, there will always be something that won't be accepted. It used to be race, then it became orientation and religion. If those are ever accepted, there will be someting new. People are scared of "different" and if only they could just accept everyone as the same, then the world would be better.

In short- people are fuckwads. Welcome to reality.


Oh, and Down, Not Across.

.. perhaps I'm experiencing an overdose of cynicism...

This is supposed to be about who  you snuggle, not if it's sacriligious or not.  :U

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 25, 2007, 09:43:28 PMThe interesting thing about "the NT overrides the OT, and the OT is all invalid now" is that Jesus, in the NT, never actually said all the old rules are now obsolete.

Well, maybe He didn't when He was walking around on Earth, but God specifically tells Peter that all animals are clean in Acts 10.

Why do all discussions about sexuality inevitably turn into discussions about religion? And about Christianity, more often than not.

Quote from: superluser on February 25, 2007, 10:00:20 PM
Well, maybe He didn't when He was walking around on Earth, but God specifically tells Peter that all animals are clean in Acts 10.

... and, of course, Peter was totally objective about everything. Since we know most of the homophobic content seems to stem from Peter's accounts, rather than everyone else's....

Interesting how God seems to favour the same things as the people who are asking him to guide them, isn't it...



Sorry, Gabi. That's probably more than enough already. I'm gonna STFU and go catch some Z's. Maybe I'll feel more positively inclined toward my fellow man in the morning, although, since it hasn't happened in the last ten years, I can't see it changing any time soon....

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 25, 2007, 10:07:29 PM
...Sorry, Gabi. That's probably more than enough already. I'm gonna STFU...

same here. I'll drop this here. This is too good of a thread to lose.

Quote from: Gabi on February 25, 2007, 10:01:21 PM
Why do all discussions about sexuality inevitably turn into discussions about religion? And about Christianity, more often than not.

Because someone will come in, start hating on Christian doctrines, [and will go on and on] and the moderate Christians try to defend their faith.

I swear its like Godwins law. Someone mention Christian doctrine in a sexually related topic and the whole thing goes to hell.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 25, 2007, 10:07:29 PM... and, of course, Peter was totally objective about everything. Since we know most of the homophobic content seems to stem from Peter's accounts, rather than everyone else's....

No, no.  Paul is the only one who mentions what is commonly rendered as `homosexuality.'  I don't think that any other NT author touches it.

Now that we've got that minor bit of trivia cleared up, I'm gonna try to STFU on religion, as well.

+1 for me on the last bit.

Quote from: Gabi on February 25, 2007, 10:01:21 PM
Why do all discussions about sexuality inevitably turn into discussions about religion?

Fixed. :)

it wouldn't even be an issue of one of our many many popes just decided to tell everyone that the 'prophet' Leviticus was some nut job who should be ignored. seriously, according to him polyester, vegetable gardens, hamburger, and bunny rabbits are all "Abominations Unto God"

QuoteAll i hear is the wind whistling between your ears

Is there anything that isn't at some point an abomination unto god?

Goodwill toward men.

Quote from: superluser on February 25, 2007, 10:31:49 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 25, 2007, 10:07:29 PM... and, of course, Peter was totally objective about everything. Since we know most of the homophobic content seems to stem from Peter's accounts, rather than everyone else's....

No, no.  Paul is the only one who mentions what is commonly rendered as `homosexuality.'  I don't think that any other NT author touches it.

Now that we've got that minor bit of trivia cleared up, I'm gonna try to STFU on religion, as well.

Ah, yes. Thank-you. I knew it didn't sound quite right...

Ok, since we do not all share the same religion and there's no way anyone will be able to prove what God thinks (or the Gods for polytheistic people, and I have no idea what atheists would do in such a discussion) why don't you start talking about what you think? And/or the people around you.

Anyone must rember take the skinnny boat to chinatown...*dances in a thong* Theirs nothing magical to wonder the peoples minds now eh? And if your out there James...Fetchez la vache!  :shifty

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 05:49:59 AM
Ok, since we do not all share the same religion and there's no way anyone will be able to prove what God thinks (or the Gods for polytheistic people, and I have no idea what atheists would do in such a discussion) why don't you start talking about what you think? And/or the people around you.

Oh, that's easy. I think 98% of people are stupid, and deserve everything they get.

And the other 2% should've left years ago.



Go Darwin Awards.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 26, 2007, 06:49:48 AM

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 05:49:59 AM
Ok, since we do not all share the same religion and there's no way anyone will be able to prove what God thinks (or the Gods for polytheistic people, and I have no idea what atheists would do in such a discussion) why don't you start talking about what you think? And/or the people around you.

Oh, that's easy. I think 98% of people are stupid, and deserve everything they get.

And the other 2% should've left years ago.

Yeah, but where would we go?  :P

Quote from: Brunhidden da Muse on February 26, 2007, 01:27:22 AMit wouldn't even be an issue of one of our many many popes just decided to tell everyone that the 'prophet' Leviticus was some nut job

Well, the book of Leviticus (named for the tribe of Levi, not for a prophet) was traditionally written by Moses, so saying that would probably lead to some problems with Jewish-Christian relations.  Besides, the main issue is what Paul writes about sex.

Can we please get back to talking about sex?  I'm trying to STFU about religion, but everybody seems to be getting basic issues of authorship and identity wrong.

Oh, if everyone's so interested in discussing religion we could have a separate topic for that.

Now back on topic. What are the laws regarding homosexual marriages where you live? Here they're legal, but they're not allowed to adopt children. I've heard it's the other way around in some places.

Honey, I live in Southern California. Everyone here is fabulous!

...Which would probably make sense had I ever been to southern California. I've heard there are many homosexual couples in San Francisco (and two researchers from my university were mistaken for one there because they shared a hotel room, aparently all those North American scientists couldn't grasp the concept of lack of monetary funds). But that's about all I know.

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 07:37:08 AM
Oh, if everyone's so interested in discussing religion we could have a separate topic for that.

Now back on topic. What are the laws regarding homosexual marriages where you live? Here they're legal, but they're not allowed to adopt children. I've heard it's the other way around in some places.

From what I can tell, New York doesn't allow it.

However, we're sitting near a concentration of states that do. New Jersey just passed a law allowing civil unions for homosexuals with full marriage benefits. I believe that Vermont may also have a similar law.

Man, Amber's audience is skewed. Look at the ratio of male to female.  :erk

Quote from: Alan Garou on February 26, 2007, 11:44:36 AM
Man, Amber's audience is skewed. Look at the ratio of male to female.  :erk

Thats because there are no women on the internet.

The 4-to-1 thing the forum says? I don't really know how true it is, and I honestly forget if there was an option on it to be undisclosed. If it's the poll on top, there is likely to be a lot of overlap since we can pick up to 5 options. :/

I think it's the unmentionable chat that provided that statistic.

I like how you call it "the unmentionable".

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 07:37:08 AMNow back on topic. What are the laws regarding homosexual marriages where you live? Here they're legal, but they're not allowed to adopt children. I've heard it's the other way around in some places.

I don't think that our state allows it, but I'll bet you an ISO standard Coke that you can get a JP somewhere in the county to solemnize the marriage.

Personally, I think that marriage is a religious issue, so government should butt out and get into the business of solemnizing civil unions for same- and opposite-sex couples.

Why do you think marriage is a religious issue? It's not seen that way here. Many people (not all) do have a religious ceremony when they get married, but what counts as legal here is the papers you get at the civil registry.

Quote from: superluser on February 26, 2007, 12:25:05 PM

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 07:37:08 AMNow back on topic. What are the laws regarding homosexual marriages where you live? Here they're legal, but they're not allowed to adopt children. I've heard it's the other way around in some places.

I don't think that our state allows it, but I'll bet you an ISO standard Coke that you can get a JP somewhere in the county to solemnize the marriage.

Personally, I think that marriage is a religious issue, so government should butt out and get into the business of solemnizing civil unions for same- and opposite-sex couples.

Oh I agree that it should be left to religion.... Because  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_eighth)marrage (http://home.ican.net/~goid/q&a.html) is (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/femviofnfnts_e.html) obviously (http://www.divorcerate.org/) holy. (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/troubledmarriage/a/celebritydivorc.htm)

Quote from: Gabi on February 26, 2007, 12:30:09 PMWhy do you think marriage is a religious issue? It's not seen that way here.

Most people don't explicitly see it that way here, either.  But tell them that there are going to be same-sex marriages, and suddenly people start pontificating about the natural order and crap like that.

The fact is that quite a number of religions have various rules about what marriage is, who can get married, and so on.  That makes it a religious issue.  I think that we need to divorce civil unions from marriage.  You can have whatever religious ceremonies you want so long as they're not on the government's dime, and you can transfer whatever legal rights you want via civil unions.

Quote from: Jim Halisstrad on February 26, 2007, 12:40:11 PMBecause  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_eighth)marrage (http://home.ican.net/~goid/q&a.html) is (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/femviofnfnts_e.html) obviously (http://www.divorcerate.org/) holy. (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/troubledmarriage/a/celebritydivorc.htm)

This is actually a good point.  Taking religion and making it separate from the civil union drives home the point that legal rights don't imply anything else, and need to be seen as independent of any real relationship.

Independent of any real relationship? What's the point, then?

Here there's some talk about same sex marriages whenever one becomes known, but no one brings up the subject of religion. Not that I've heard anyway. Some people do say it's unnatural, but argue from a biological point of view, not a religious one. However whenever the topic arises on English language message boards, religion always comes up. I guess it must be a cultural difference.

[laughs sardonically]

Such an issue... The connotation obviously comes from the idea that love is something larger than life, and thus immediately ties into other things that bear the same "label". And there are so many who would like to be holding the right to decide where to put that label.

Me, I just ignore it, since from my point of view there is no "label", and not even an idea behind it all that's worth spending any effort on. It's bullshit, like so many other figments of the human mind...

Really. The limitations of the human intellect and instincts, that's all there is one can chalk it up to. It really is that simple. It actually only becomes hard when you put it into a specific context, and when you have to apply the ideas of tolerance, of information exchange, of culture and of thought to it all... But even then, in the beginning of it all, it is just an idea.

Oh, right. And the more extreme christians who go on about the "right and wrong" and the "purpouse of procreation" shit can stick it. These are the people who simultaneously tend to argue about the world being created 4000 years ago, and whose narrow scientific perspective really should not be bothered with.

And those are my uncensored opinions. Now, I could very well apply some more thought and argumentation to this, but I felt that it was probably right to show you the courtesy of telling what is really spinning around on the surface level of my thoughts when I see this.

Thank you.

You can't have concepts without culture, Stygian. They're a part of it. And so are all human activities, one way or another. Interesting analysis, though.

Straight. Guys are sexy. ^^ (Except when they have cooties... :blarf)

My opinion: Against gay marriage? Then don't get one and STFU.

In North Carolina, there's a pretty big range of opinion on this. Of course, we've got yer stereotypical rednecks that pull out the ol' shotgun if they see two guys holding hands, but luckily there are also those of higher mind. I'm fortunate to live and attend school in an area that is very artistically oriented; I've found that many artists tend to be very open and accepting. Last year, the president of our school's Gay-Straight Alliance was elected prom queen. Wewt!

Lots of my friends are bi. Actually, I've never thought about it before, but most of my close female friends from school are bi. At our high school, the only people viewed with distaste are those who don't accept others for who they are. :woot

Now that you've brought it up, what do people do in Gay-Straight Alliances? I've heard of them a few times but we don't have them here and I can't imagine what kind of activities they would do.

Quote from: Gabi on February 27, 2007, 10:03:47 AM
Now that you've brought it up, what do people do in Gay-Straight Alliances? I've heard of them a few times but we don't have them here and I can't imagine what kind of activities they would do.

Mission Statement:
1. create safe environments in schools for students to support each other and learn about homophobia and other oppressions,

2. educate the school community about homophobia, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues, and

3. fight discrimination, harassment, and violence in schools.

Oh, I see. Discrimination was never a big issue when I was in school. As for harassment and violence, there were a few bullies, but they were the ones with issues. And no one ever brought a weapon to school.

I did once attempt to enter another school, though, and was rejected for being Jewish. That wasn't the official reason, of course, but it was too much of a coincidence that all Jewish applicants were rejected.

:milklaugh this topic has gone on for 5 whole pages!!! hahahaha that's awsome cause it means actual serious discussion has been going on *was too lazy to read it all*

Me? Male, straight, and proud of it, but I expect everyone different to be proud of theirs also.  I'm not proud as in I dissaprove of others, but I do like my own standing.  I am completely comfortable being friends with gays and whatnot cause I know them and they know and respect me (except for one who's hitting on me, no idea why :confused but I don't scorn him for his sexual orientation)  Got plenty more straight friends also.  That's what is more important: not what everyone's own sex/preference is but what everyone thinks of others.  If you scorn others just because of that, and not because of them as a person, then fuck you.  My said queer friends don't feel any need to support another gay person if they're a jerk (they don't even see the word 'queer' as an insult, just a statement of fact)  Really, the worst thing that ever happened was a few awkward situations: guy hitting on me, gay friends not getting along with straight buds cause of sexual orientation, :animesweat ect.  There's no problem unless you've got a problem with it.
   That's what I say and if I'm wrong I earnestly encourage you to prove me wrong so that I may better myself. :)

I find nothing wrong about your latest statements, Density D. They did sound a bit too defensive, but I agree with the contents.

Ah, Gay Marriage... I support it personally the Civil kind anyway, but let the religions do about with the marriages in their own rites. [You do your own marriage, we do our own]

My reason for it is the protection of both partners in the eyes of the law. I feel sad when a gay guy loses all he and his lover have worked for in favor of some estranged relative or the government because it is not considered "conjugal property" they dont even have the right that is accorded to people who cohabbit with each other.

Does that really happen over there? That sounds completely unfair.

...it happens. Though rare, most people just keep mum on the subject of a gay guy's estate unles someone else makes a fuss of it.

So guys, be kind to your family, keep a will.

The problem I have with "civil unions" is when you have different classification for different types of people, then rights can be taken away from one group.  I would like to see that all people have to get a civil union, and then if they want, prance off to whatever religious institution they like and go through the pomp and ceremony there.  But if we're going to segregate a whole subsection of people (homosexual marriage) to only be allowed civil unions, I think that the heterosexual marriages have to have the same requirement, or something fishy will happen. 

I mean, who really trusts the politicians to keep it equal and fair?  They've done such a bang-up job so far.

Good point, Damaris. Actually, what you're proposing is what is done here.

If the religions allowed for same sex marriages, we really wouldnt have this problem in the first place.

Supposedly that is where separation of Church and State comes in. It will have to depend on the denomination, legally the state cannot affect a legislation affacting that unless the act allowed/disallowed is inherently harmful.

If same-sex civil unions is allowed into law, it cannot be taken away on a whim even if it was a majority of the legislature. The right to union will become a "vested right" unassailable except for extreme measures.

Im not that knowledgable with American jurisprudence but from what Ive read same sex civil unions are similar to heterosexual legal marriages. If at the least they will have the same standing in the eyes of the law.

Well, some religions allow it, some others don't, but that's their issue. The governments can't force religions to accept or reject anything, but they can decide to give people equal rights as far as the law is concerned.

Quote from: Damaris on February 28, 2007, 09:49:54 AMThe problem I have with "civil unions" is when you have different classification for different types of people, then rights can be taken away from one group.  I would like to see that all people have to get a civil union, and then if they want, prance off to whatever religious institution they like and go through the pomp and ceremony there.

Yay!  Someone agrees with me!

Is it that the law now a day anyway.?  Sure, you can get marrying in a church, but you still need a marriage license from the government to get marrying or the church is qualify to give you one.  What they have a problem is if you want a license to marry your same sex "friend", which same states are making laws for it or against it.

Well, I'm not sure, if this is a good example, but in the Roman Empire, the common people did have a problem with all the same sex tromping going on.  But the Nobles were going to listen to the pleasants..now are they. 

"Hey, they are burning Rome again"

So, things have not change for awhile, have they?

PBH

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on February 28, 2007, 01:45:44 PMWell, I'm not sure, if this is a good example, but in the Roman Empire[...]

OK.  Now you're going to get it.  In Rome, there were three types of marriage (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm).  Confarreatio was basically what we'd call a formal marriage, coemptio was roughly a civil union, and usus was like a common law marriage.

So the distinction is pretty old.  I don't think that we need or should have such a distinction in any secular democracy--or at least, it shouldn't have anything to do with sexual orientation or the sexes of the spouses, but it is something that has a long and storied history.

Thank you Super.. I knew you had the answer...PBH    :mowcookie

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on February 26, 2007, 06:49:48 AM
Oh, that's easy. I think 98% of people are stupid, and deserve everything they get.

And the other 2% should've left years ago.



Go Darwin Awards.

Amen. Thank goodness idiots came with an expiration date.

On the subject of gay marriage, and marriage in general...

Mairrage is a wholly religious thing.  It was invented by religion, it's "controlled" by religion, and it's annulled by religion.  If one church only considers a couple married if they slap each otehr with live eels, then, in that church, you're not married unless you've been slapped by an eel.

The government, being founded and peopled by religious people, chooses to recognize marriage in a legal capacity by issuing a license allowing those so inclined to take advantage of their status.  The license grants advantages to people who cohabitate, share thier resources, and raise children.

In a perfect world, people would get married, and the government would have nothing to do with it.  In a perfect world, the government would issue licenses to groups of people granting them special rights for chosing to aprticipate in cohabitation, resource sharing, and so on.

In a perfect world, the people next door wouldn't give a damn what Fred and Jed do with the lights out in the privacy of their own home, and human nature wouldn't cause people to be so darn suspicious what what possibly hidden agenda someone has by granting a group of people rights held by another group.

So your idea of a perfect world is a world ruled by religion? Here there aren't even many religious people in the government. Before 1994 the Constitution said you had to be Roman Catholic in order to become president, but Menem was a Muslim and, although he had to be baptised in order to become president, everyone knew he was still a Muslim. And now that requirement doesn't even exist. Good riddance, I say, because being president has nothing to do with religion, and although I don't intend to ever run for that position, I wouldn't want to be denied the option for religious reasons.

I think all he's saying is that government shouldnt have a say on marriage.

Quote from: Reese Tora on February 28, 2007, 10:48:04 PM
On the subject of gay marriage, and marriage in general...

The government, being founded and peopled by religious people, chooses to recognize marriage in a legal capacity by issuing a license allowing those so inclined to take advantage of their status.  The license grants advantages to people who cohabitate, share thier resources, and raise children.

Regardless of Religion, the Government and society has a vested interest in marriage as the best way to raise Future citizens.  Many governments give tax breaks and incentives and rights to encourage people to have children, and we find that the two partner deal is the better than the one parent model to raise a child, where the state often times must give aid to the single parent... To tell you the truth, an extended family model is better for the state and family, where the grandparents are also in the mix and the parents help support their parents and the grandparents help raise the child and keeps Granny feeling alive.

  Same sex couples, some would argue can't have their own children, and may not provide good role models to each sex of a child.  Yet there are have been a few cultures which the uncle or brother would step in to help raise a woman's children, and the father may not even be in the picture.

PBH

Quote from: King Of Hearts on March 01, 2007, 06:25:47 AM
I think all he's saying is that government shouldnt have a say on marriage.

Well, if that was the only thing he meant... would he rather forbid atheists from getting married at all? Or couples with different religions.

What I was trying to say is that the concept of marriage as practiced by religions should be separate from the benefits that the government hands out for a couple being married.

No matter what laws are passed, the Catholic institution as a whole won't recognize gay marriage, for instance, because that religion has it's specific view on marriage.

Maybe if we had seperate words for the spiritual union that married people experience, the institution that religion promotes, and the state recognized by the government, there would be less confusion.