What do hetero guys really think of gay guys?

[Gunite]

dont care unless flamboyant and annoying

^^^this

[newleaseonlife]

"Oh here we go, the old incest argument"

I literally said in that exact sentence that if you're cool with incest then your logic holds and we probably fall on opposite sides of the spectrum and should just respectfully agree to disagree.

That's where you're losing people. Just because I think you should be able to do it, doesn't mean that I support it. I think people should be able to indulge in whatever drug they use, doesn't mean I smoke rocks. Stop being so black and white about everything. Some people just don't care to expend the energy on crap that they don't care about.

[breeno92]

That's where you're losing people. Just because I think you should be able to do it, doesn't mean that I support it. I think people should be able to indulge in whatever drug they use, doesn't mean I smoke rocks. Stop being so black and white about everything. Some people just don't care to expend the energy on crap that they don't care about.

That's a rather individualistic attitude - I don't subscribe to that.

One of the things I struggle to reconcile with American concepts of liberty is that in a society an individual doesn't exist in a vacuum and their actions have consequences for other people, even if extremely indirect.

And with that I've alienated virtually every neoliberal conservative in the USA from my viewpoint.

___________

Also, as I stated, if you believe incestuous couples should be able to marry then we fundamentally believe that marriage is for differing purposes and no amount of arguing will see us reach a resolution.

I came across this a while back and save it to my comp because I thought it represented my views well:

"Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation."

If you believe marriage has no tie to procreation, then our views are irreconcilable, plain and simple.

[havoc713]

So flamboyantly gay, not a chance.


One of my good friends is gay and the only reason I don't care at all is our friendship is completely platonic. He has a boyfriend and they are completely loyal to each other. He never hits on me, creates awkward moments, talks about who he finds hot, etc. Completely know everything about one another though.

But the moment a gay guy tries anything at all there is no chance I'd be friends with him. I am not a girl, I'm not going to awkwardly friend-zone or any of that nonsense. Make me uncomfortable and there is zero chance I'll be your friend.

So my advice to you is don't hit on straight guys if you want to be friends with them, and don't create uncomfortable environments or awkward situations if you want to be good friends with them.

[mada41]

Someone's sexual orientation is their business, it doesn't affect my opinion of them.

There are gay people that I find annoying just like there are straight people that I can't stand.

People get way too wrapped up in what other people are doing.

[shtabe]

Well once a gay guy locks his jaws it's game over man

[libtolu]

Don't give a flying ****. I have gay friends that are just normal guys that like dick. I don't really get along with flamboyant gay guys though but that's because there the male equivalent of attention whoring sloots and I can't be arsed to listen to sloots talk either.


Basically if you're chill I don't care about your sexuality, if you're an annoying **** i'm not going to like you regardless of if we share a love of puss.

[onmyway01]

Straight guys just can't fathom being interested in peen. That chit baffles us. Dicks are for humor, or something you have to accept when watching porn. The fact that you are into it doesn't disgust me or anything, it just doesn't compute to my mind.

I'm less of a caveman than some of these "it doesn't bother me but I'd never actually talk to one" guys, though. Guys who do care or get uptight if gay men show interest are on shaky ground and nervous that they could be easily swayed to suck some dinks themselves. Das it mane.

Honestly it's 2014, if you haven't come to terms with this you're kind of stupid and could probably be tricked into sucking a dink, so you should be worried.

Good post man, but how does one actually "get tricked into sucking some dick"?

[Milkahol]

I've always thought about his. And I'm not asking your opinion about really flamboyant gay guys, I'm just asking about normal guys who happen to be gay. I'm of the thought that we can all get along, so I'm wondering what you guys feel about us. Not really in relation to our rights, but deeper than that if you know what I mean.

Stop asking this question. My problem isn't that people are gay, but that they have to make it known to EVERYBODY, and constantly ask questions like this and make it a big deal for no reason.

[BeansnToast]

Really couldn't give a damn what people do behind their closed doors. One of the lads came out there, still the exact same. But jesus, the "over-the-top, look-at-me, I'm-fabulous" type I have no time for. Attention whoring on all levels, especially when they're so self entitled because they're gay.

Long story short, for the majority of hetero guys, as long as you're not being flamingly fabulous in our faces, they don't care.

[iLiketoLift898]

I don't mind them. I think it's funny how people can have such boring and pointless lives that they actually spend time and energy hating some stranger just because he likes dudes.

[PLZGO]

i am a supporter of equal rights for homosexuals. i lived with a gay dude for a year and met a few of his "flamboyant" friends who were really cool when you actually take the time to talk to them. one guy i met moonlighted as a drag queen, but was an emt and an ordained minister during the day.

frankly i think most of these miscers talking about "ya bro gays are cool unless they're flamboyant and annoying" are trying to hide their distaste for gays

[TeddyAtlus]

Marriage should be to provide stability for offspring.

PS: Marriage isn't a right.

Institutions of a society should not transform to fit the will of an extremely small minority, especially when that minority engages in behaviour which is not desirable from a societal progression point of view (you cannot produce kids). There are some among the gay community who can admit this, there are others who cannot.

From a gay man:

"There are plenty of good and reasonable arguments against equating same-sex marriages with reproductive marriages...in a culturally homogeneous society that wants to preserve its culture and heritage. In an atomized, globalist society where everything is organized around consumerism and short term pleasure thinking, the only thing that matters is what makes people feel good right now, and right now that is gay "marriage."

Homosexuality is not a desirable quality in the former society. However, I am of the belief that it is predominantly organic (yet not 'normal') - as in you are biologically predisposed to it.

Let us not pretend that gay marriage is desired by most of the movement for anything other than a chance to destroy what may be left of a traditional society. The people at the forefront of the movement are hateful radicals.

I would never disrespect a gay man who did not disrespect me first, I would treat him just as I would treat any other human being on an individual level. If he asks for my opinion on their contribution to society on a group-dynamic level, then I would hope he's not offended by what I believe.

The 'gay marriage' issue does not sit in some kind of societal vacuum. Marriage is but one of a plethora of links in a chain constituting a society which has proven itself to be one of the most culturally unique and innovative in recorded history. Keep wearing away at the links in the chain and eventually the structure collapses.

Surely recognising the importance of a predominantly heterosexual society and wishing to preserve the interests of the majority isn't beyond comprehension merely because of your sexuality? I admire gay men and lesbians who side with me on these issues more than I do straight people, because such people are willing to sacrifice their own personal, short term satisfaction for what they believe to be the greater good.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/se...ies-above.aspx

The supporters of gay marriage are no longer the minority.

You're forgetting that marriage today is by no means "traditional." Centuries ago, wives could not even own property and basically belonged to their husbands. The definition of marriage has evolved and changed many times before, which kind of makes your argument about changing it will lead to the structure collapsing invalid.

Also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[MK117]

As long their mincy hands stay away from me, I don't care

[breeno92]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/se...ies-above.aspx

The supporters of gay marriage are no longer the minority.

The privilege of marriage is to be conferred upon the minority though. You know what I meant.

EDIT: Actually, I used the word 'will' - bad phrasing on my behalf.

You're forgetting that marriage today is by no means "traditional." Centuries ago, wives could not even own property and basically belonged to their husbands. The definition of marriage has evolved and changed many times before, which kind of makes your argument about changing it will lead to the structure collapsing invalid.

I'm not forgetting that. I said it in one of my posts. The fundamental precepts of marriage are 'evolving' (I personally think for the worst). As I said, I believe marriage and procreation should be (and have been up until the 1960s) inextricably intertwined. It is only in a society which deviates from this thought path that gay marriage can even be a consideration.

I'm saying what I believe should be the state of affairs, not what are.

Also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Slipper slope is a perfectly valid logical device when used correctly.

As a representation:

I haven't suggested X as an inevitability due to D (gay marriage) which is a former link in the chain (which unless patently obvious needs to be proved). I have stated that A, B and C preceded D (ie. the rise of individualism, divergence of marriage and procreation, etc.) and that D is simply the latest manifestation in the process of A-D.

I have stated that through a process of A-D, a 'traditional society' will collapse (ie. society as we know it). You've somewhat admitted that yourself. 'Progress' IMO is not measured upon some lineal continuum. The society we live in 2 decades from now will be a different creature at its heart to that a century ago. They are essentially different societies - the same body politic, but different societies.

The High Court of Australia actually had a really good discussion on this topic of 'societies' in the Yorta Yorta case.

Disregarding that, even if I were committing the slippery slope that you have accused me of, I feel that it is often overstated as a fallacy. Homosexual civil marriage presents enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If this is the sole criterion for marriage, there is literally no other reason upon which the incestuous could be denied. It's just that most people are too stupid to articulately establish this chain of logical implication that people seem to be under the misconception that this 'slippery slope' is invalid.

Anyway, got to head to sleep brah, and heading away for Easter weekend. Feel free for right of last reply.

[HarryFlashman]

Men's bums are hairy and smell of poo poo. It's a total mystery to me why some men want to lick and suck them.

[BeansnToast]

i am a supporter of equal rights for homosexuals. i lived with a gay dude for a year and met a few of his "flamboyant" friends who were really cool when you actually take the time to talk to them. one guy i met moonlighted as a drag queen, but was an emt and an ordained minister during the day.

frankly i think most of these miscers talking about "ya bro gays are cool unless they're flamboyant and annoying" are trying to hide their distaste for gays

Like I said before, regardless of sexual orientation, there's just some people I find annoying. No doubt that you, with your self righteousness, would be one of them.




You may not be gay, but you're still a *******

[blackbull2k13]

They are all perverts and ****philes who are in open defiance of god! Not srs


Look I don't care what you ****s do when you are alone, just don't **** it up in my face with your *******ry.

Get married, adopt kids, have all the rights that regular married couples have...just don't complain about how you are underrepresented in the media and more shows should have dudes making out and don't try and get people fired just because they don't agree with your lifestyle.

[BIGrob84]

I am convinced it is a deep seated identity issue, of which I am not exactly certain on the origin. I think that gayness is a struggle in the human psyche just like alcoholism, food addiction, OCD, and any of the other issues that can trip us up as human beings.

I think it is telling and denigrating when someone bases the whole of their identity based on whom/what they sleep with: it reduces people to their base nature.

I think it is a psychological issue rather than a biological issue, that a person is not born gay. I think that we have been mislead by people wanting to find justification for gay behavior. That people claiming to be objective in their studies of nature have identified gay behavior in approximately 1500 animal species, when in actuality they have misidentified affection in animals as sexual (affection is not sex), and have misidentified dominating male behavior as sexual, when it is clearly not. in an effort to bolster their own conclusions.

That being said, I think that a gay person should never be mistreated, insulted or threatened and that their private issues are just that- private. When a person chooses to make their private issues public and then receives disagreement on that issue from others in public, they have no right to complain.

Finally the gay agenda people are neither tolerant nor inclusive in their thoughts or discussions, demanding support and even promotion under the guise of tolerance. I find the promoters of the gay agenda to be some of the biggest bigots I have ever observed.

Is that what you wanted OP?

Holy ****. This.

[Panthrax]

frankly i think most of these miscers talking about "ya bro gays are cool unless they're flamboyant and annoying" are trying to hide their distaste for gays

Yeah, lots of that ITT. "Bro gays are cool as long as they keep their phucking philthy *******ry away from me and nowhere I can see sense or smell it!!"

Honestly, who gives a phuck... it just doesn't affect you unless you're gay. Don't like the visuals? Tough chit, I don't like looking at fat chicks or douchebag mouthbreathing Bros either but I got over it. Unless you're struggling with your own identity, that chit should have no effect on you.

Good post man, but how does one actually "get tricked into sucking some dick"?

It's a joke, pretty much stolen verbatim from Joe Rogan.

Why, did you think you stumbled upon a new tactic?

[TeddyAtlus]

Slipper slope is a perfectly valid logical device when used correctly.

As a representation:

I haven't suggested X as an inevitability due to D (gay marriage) which is a former link in the chain (which unless patently obvious needs to be proved). I have stated that A, B and C preceded D (ie. the rise of individualism, divergence of marriage and procreation, etc.) and that D is simply the latest manifestation in the process of A-D.

I have stated that through a process of A-D, a 'traditional society' will collapse (ie. society as we know it). You've somewhat admitted that yourself. 'Progress' IMO is not measured upon some lineal continuum. The society we live in 2 decades from now will be a different creature at its heart to that a century ago. They are essentially different societies - the same body politic, but different societies.

The High Court of Australia actually had a really good discussion on this topic of 'societies' in the Yorta Yorta case.

Disregarding that, even if I were committing the slippery slope that you have accused me of, I feel that it is often overstated as a fallacy. Homosexual civil marriage presents enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If this is the sole criterion for marriage, there is literally no other reason upon which the incestuous could be denied. It's just that most people are too stupid to articulately establish this chain of logical implication that people seem to be under the misconception that this 'slippery slope' is invalid.

Anyway, got to head to sleep brah, and heading away for Easter weekend. Feel free for right of last reply.

Yes, if sexual love was the "sole criterion for marriage," then you could also argue that people and animals should be able to marry. The fallacy is assuming that homosexual marriage redefines marriage as such, when it does not. What it does do is negate the requirement of heterosexuality in marriage. That is all.

The slippery slope is saying that the negation of the heterosexual requirement in marriage will redefine the requirements of marriage to solely "sexual love," which will then lead to incestuous marriages. You also claim, "marriage should be to provide stability for offspring." Well incestuous couples can still raise offspring, so your definition of marriage appears to not have any qualms with incestuous relationships, only homosexuality. That is, if you are basing your argument against gay marriage on raising offspring, then what is your argument against heterosexual incest under that definition?

[onmyway01]

Men's bums are hairy and smell of poo poo. It's a total mystery to me why some men want to lick and suck them.

Mystery it may be, but why does it matter to you?

[onmyway01]

Yeah, lots of that ITT. "Bro gays are cool as long as they keep their phucking philthy *******ry away from me and nowhere I can see sense or smell it!!"

Honestly, who gives a phuck... it just doesn't affect you unless you're gay. Don't like the visuals? Tough chit, I don't like looking at fat chicks or douchebag mouthbreathing Bros either but I got over it. Unless you're struggling with your own identity, that chit should have no effect on you.



It's a joke, pretty much stolen verbatim from Joe Rogan.

Why, did you think you stumbled upon a new tactic?

No, why would I want to trick a heterosexual into having sex? There are plently of apps for gay guys to hook up, not that we need them. Why would we need to hook up with st8 guys?

[onmyway01]

I've always thought about his. And I'm not asking your opinion about really flamboyant gay guys, I'm just asking about normal guys who happen to be gay. I'm of the thought that we can all get along, so I'm wondering what you guys feel about us. Not really in relation to our rights, but deeper than that if you know what I mean.

bump

[BakeryMaster]

idgaf as long as they aren't making passes at me. But it would probably boost my self esteem if they did.

[DranzerGT]

[onmyway01]

lol who dat?

[Drewcifer69]

Couldn't give a fuk tbh.

Extreme PDA pisses me off no matter want gender the couple, so keep it in your house and we're all good.