Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Gender & Sexuality

Recommended Posts

Fonz

Whatever. Let's just agree to disagree before this goes any further, okay? Everyone knows you are a complete bandwagon and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if this was five years ago when homosexuality and the like were still frowned upon.

 

"Ah, yeah, look at these people... The other day I was downtown and saw some black people walking around freely! How crazy is that? They even complained about a racist guy harassing them! LOL I bet they wouldn't have said anything if this was 50 years ago when they didn't have any civil rights... fukin entitled drama queens, amirite?

 

Wh.. what? What do you mean this is 2016? Why are you trying to silence muh free speech, bruh? Gee, I wonder who the real bigots are!"

 

 

TL; DR: 344e5ps.jpg

Also... You f*cking suck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

I can understand if someone feels more conservatively because they're brought up a bit more traditional and/or religious, but the second someone starts associating same-sex attraction to love with inanimate objects or something else inflammatory and completely unrelated to get a rise out of people is where I just can't take you seriously.

 

Of course you tried to akin homosexuality to being in love with a toaster. Really shows your attitude towards the subject as well.

Edited by Gay Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Let's try and keep posts within the rules of D&D please.

 

Also, who the f*ck thought homosexuslity was immoral five years ago?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I don't know why my temper is so much shorter for this topic than so many others.

 

the moment people go into that callous false-equivalency territory it really pulls my chain.

oh, if gay people can get married then it must be like allowing pedophilia or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever.

 

no dude. it's not.

it's not like that at all. you think your "personal views" are harmless but in this realm they're really not. oh, you "don't care" about gay people but you just "don't believe" they should be together? so you don't believe they deserve happiness because they have sex slightly differently than you? and probably not even that differently from you... let's be honest we all enjoy a good bit of sodomy every now and then. who doesn't enjoy a good ass-to-mouth? why should gays have all the fun?

 

it's just ignorance man.

so much ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Please don't hate on me for this, but I personally believe that men are supposed to be attracted to women and women attracted to men. Allow me to use a short old saying:

Opposites attract.

 

Well yes, this is the norm, but a significant minority of people are attracted to the same sex. What you or someone else might want humanity to be like is one thing, what it is is another thing entirely. Surely it's better to accommodate this than discriminate against people who don't fit your worldview?

 

 

I'm not gay and tend to be fairly traditional in my outlook, but I see absolutely no reason to discriminate against gays. At the end of the day trying to enforce heterosexuality on someone who is gay is just going to cause a great deal of unhappiness, whereas accepting them for who they are will enable them to actually function in the society they've been born into. I hear homophobes say things like "I don't like it when they flaunt it", but this is something I rarely see. I can sort of see why you'd be uncomfortable with people "flaunting it", but all the gays I've met have just been normal people like anyone else. Indeed, I had no idea a friend of mine was gay until it came up in a conversation (it's not as if it matters). You talk about gays "affecting you", but how do they actually affect you? The vast majority of gays are normal people who just so happen to go home to a spouse of the same sex--what they do on their own is up to them and, like most couples, they don't broadcast it to the world. You've probably interacted with gay people without knowing it.

 

Nobody here was trying to force their views on you. You came into this thread, posted a fairly inflammatory one-line post and then got indignant about that post being responded to despite this being a discussion forum. If you can't deal with your views being deconstructed, don't post them here.

 

 

 

Before you complain about El_D talking about sodomy, he is being facetious. A lot of gay couples probably don't engage in those acts.

 

 

 

 

yeah, no; not for having an opinion.

 

you're narrow minded for having a narrow minded opinion.

get it?

If that's what you think, so be it. I'm not going to argue about the practicality of a person being in love with their toaster.

 

 

 

Not sure what to make of this. Are you trying to compare a relationship between humans to a man loving a toaster? Relationships are not purely sexual. Indeed, for a lot of people emotion, compatibility, mutual respect and loyalty are all important aspects of a relationship. Two women can find these aspects in a relationship between eachother, but a person and a toaster cannot, because toasters lack sentience. This is why it's preposterous to compare a relationship between adults to a man with an unhealthy fixation with a bloody kitchen appliance. The implicit assumption in what you're saying is that gays are automatically disposed to wild, impractical sex acts, but I think this is very crass and unfairly depicts gays. Many gay couples are attracted to eachother on an emotional level and whatever else they do only concerns them. It's not fair to boil their relationship down to lustful acts they may or may not participate in (which, in any case, only concern them).

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA36362355

Albert Camus says: A man without ethics is a wild beast let loose upon this world.

 

we are beasts. what's a man, what's a woman?

Edited by Mister Kay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

I used a man loving his toaster as a metaphor. I can see how you people can be easily offended by a traditionalist. I apologize for offending you guys but my opinion still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

I used a man loving his toaster as a metaphor. I can see how you people can be easily offended by a traditionalist. I apologize for offending you guys but my opinion still stands.

Here's the thing, though: it doesn't stand. Not up to any scrutiny at least. There's no analogy between a human being "loving" an inanimate kitchen appliance and two consenting adults who just happen to be the same sex being involved, getting married etc. etc.

 

Now your other point: an appeal to nature, and not a particularly good one at that. Animals frequently display homosexual behavior. It occurs in nature—the definition of "natural". You're objectively wrong.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

I used a man loving his toaster as a metaphor. I can see how you people can be easily offended by a traditionalist. I apologize for offending you guys but my opinion still stands.

Here's the thing, though: it doesn't stand. Not up to any scrutiny at least. There's no analogy between a human being "loving" an inanimate kitchen appliance and two consenting adults who just happen to be the same sex being involved, getting married etc. etc.

 

Now your other point: an appeal to nature, and not a particularly good one at that. Animals frequently display homosexual behavior. It occurs in naturethe definition of "natural". You're objectively wrong.

Why do animals even factor into this discussion? Clearly they are not on the same "level" as humans- level being brain capacity and the knowledge of right and wrong. I don't care if you are in love with someone of the same sex, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me, which is what most are trying to do.

Let's try and keep posts within the rules of D&D please.

 

Also, who the f*ck thought homosexuslity was immoral five years ago?!

Five years ago, most Americans were still against homosexuality, on a larger scale than today. It wasn't noticed, because people weren't worried about gays being married. Now, with the growing trend of "open-mindedness", most who speak out are attacked for being "narrowminded" and stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

...I don't know if you understand the point of D&D, but I'm not sure what you're doing here if all you're going to do is state opinions and refuse to partake in any discussion, then just blame everyone else for disagreeing with you.

 

People have said many things to your opinions and you haven't responded to a single one. It'd be nice of you to elaborate on why you hold your opinions, as well as respond to people's criticism. No one's forcing their beliefs on you, they're trying to have a discussion because that's the entire point of posting here. It's not a soapbox to host your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

...I don't know if you understand the point of D&D, but I'm not sure what you're doing here if all you're going to do is state opinions and refuse to partake in any discussion, then just blame everyone else for disagreeing with you.

 

People have said many things to your opinions and you haven't responded to a single one. It'd be nice of you to elaborate on why you hold your opinions, as well as respond to people's criticism. No one's forcing their beliefs on you, they're trying to have a discussion because that's the entire point of posting here. It's not a soapbox to host your opinions.

Okay then, let's start discussing, and stop bashing each other. Edited by Tampa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
Why do animals even factor into this discussion?

I wasn't arguing on the basis of "what's supposed to be" or nature, you were. I was refuting that point by pointing out that homosexuality is, by the definition of the word "natural", natural.

 

they are not on the same "level" as humans- level being brain capacity and the knowledge of right and wrong

Right! We are, though. And there is absolutely zero wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex getting involved. Unless you claim it's wrong because it's not supposed to be that way and so on, which is silly circular logic. There's not a single argument against homosexuality. Not a single one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Okay then, let's start discussing, and stop bashing each other.

Well, back to my original post, what do you even mean by "supposed" to (in terms of what men and women are "supposed" to do)? It's a pretty vague statement, and it'd help to understand where this thought came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

Why do animals even factor into this discussion?

I wasn't arguing on the basis of "what's supposed to be" or nature, you were. I was refuting that point by pointing out that homosexuality is, by the definition of the word "natural", natural.

 

they are not on the same "level" as humans- level being brain capacity and the knowledge of right and wrong

Right! We are, though. And there is absolutely zero wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex getting involved. Unless you claim it's wrong because it's not supposed to be that way and so on, which is silly circular logic. There's not a single argument against homosexuality. Not a single one.I wouldn't say that there isn't an arguement against homosexuality- homosexuals can't naturally procreate, is one- but I'm not trying to say how it's wrong and all this and that. Like I have said multiple times that it doesn't bother me if someone is gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

I wouldn't say that there isn't an arguement against homosexuality- homosexuals can't naturally procreate, is one

What about heterosexual couples who can't have children either? And those that don't want to? Who has sex purely for procreation anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

Okay then, let's start discussing, and stop bashing each other.

Well, back to my original post, what do you even mean by "supposed" to (in terms of what men and women are "supposed" to do)? It's a pretty vague statement, and it'd help to understand where this thought came from.I mean "supposed" in terms of men and women are the only people that can naturally procreate. And we both know that a man and woman getting together is the only reason we are here.

 

I wouldn't say that there isn't an arguement against homosexuality- homosexuals can't naturally procreate, is one

What about heterosexual couples who can't have children either? And those that don't want to? Who has sex purely for procreation anyway...Couples who can't have children can always adopt. And those that don't want to, don't have to. There is no law stating that you can only have sex if you intend on hearing a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

I don't care if you are in love with someone of the same sex, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me, which is what most are trying to do

 

Yea, no.

 

 

I mean "supposed" in terms of men and women are the only people that can naturally procreate. And we both know that a man and woman getting together is the only reason we are here.

 

Thus gay people are born from straight people as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

 

I don't care if you are in love with someone of the same sex, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me, which is what most are trying to do

Yea, no.

 

 

I mean "supposed" in terms of men and women are the only people that can naturally procreate. And we both know that a man and woman getting together is the only reason we are here.

Thus gay people are born from straight people as a result.

Most doesn't have to mean random people on a forum. I have encountered people who have tried to force their religious beliefs, as well as their sexualities onto me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

 

 

I wouldn't say that there isn't an arguement against homosexuality- homosexuals can't naturally procreate, is one

What about heterosexual couples who can't have children either? And those that don't want to? Who has sex purely for procreation anyway...
Couples who can't have children can always adopt. And those that don't want to, don't have to. There is no law stating that you can only have sex if you intend on hearing a child.

 

And? Gay couples can adopt as well. I was pointing out how it's wrong to try to make that into an argument. People aren't obliged to have sex or to get into a relationship to have children, therefore "they can't reproduce" isn't an argument at all because 1) many heterosexual couples can't have kids either; 2) Not everyone wants to have kids anyway; 3) homosexual couples could just as easily adopt and raise a kid if they wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

I wouldn't say that there isn't an arguement against homosexuality- homosexuals can't naturally procreate, is one

What about heterosexual couples who can't have children either? And those that don't want to? Who has sex purely for procreation anyway...

 

Couples who can't have children can always adopt. And those that don't want to, don't have to. There is no law stating that you can only have sex if you intend on hearing a child.

 

If your argument is one regarding procreation- that is, if you claim homosexuality is unnatural or immoral because it cannot sire children in the conventional sense- then it's only logical to conclude that you view being infertile as equally unnatural or immoral.

 

If you see the lack of procreation as an argument "against" homosexuality, it's also an argument "against" infertility, voluntary celibacy or contraception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

I have encountered people who have tried to force their religious beliefs, as well as their sexualities onto me.

 

Oh really? You don't say.

 

You have encountered people, that doesn't mean "most".

Edited by Gay Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Claiming that people are trying to force their sexuality onto anyone is mostly bullsh*t, more often than not it's a homophobe's way of expressing horror at the fact that a gay couple dared to kiss in public or something. You know, like every straight couple does.

Edited by Black_MiD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

I used a man loving his toaster as a metaphor. I can see how you people can be easily offended by a traditionalist. I apologize for offending you guys but my opinion still stands.

The problem is that it's an awful metaphor. Did you even read my post? You're fixated on the sexual aspects of relationships. Gays are human beings and aren't any more sex-obsessed than we are and, like us, seek out meaningful relationships based on trust and understanding, which you won't get with a toaster.

 

Personally I don't want to watch men kiss and carry on, but I have never needed to because, lo and behold, gays are not shameless and don't run around committing sex acts in public. If two blokes are holding hands in public I can very easily just not look at them; they aren't forcing their sexuality on me. You, however, are forcing your sexuality on Tony here by trying to equate being gay with shagging toasters.

 

 

At the end of the day if someone is decent as a person then they should be accepted and not made to endure ridiculous, dehumanising diatribe involving kitchen appliances.

 

What exactly constitutes someone "forcing their sexuality on you"? Just because "one man one woman" is the norm and ideal doesn't mean we should marginalise gays or make them feel guilty for expressing their affections in a private setting, whatever we might think about that (never mind heterosexual couples who do similar things anyway). You seem fixated on sexual acts.

 

I am straight but won't have kids because I'd be a terrible father. Does this make me immoral?

 

 

 

Not sure about the "easily offended" remark. I actually know what bigotry is having experienced it. You're dishing out your opinions but can't respond cordially when questioned on them. You seem like the easily offended one here.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

Wait, who said you can't love your toaster? :inlove: Damn bigots...

 

2lvGmT7l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Been ignoring this thread cause it's p much just everyone patting each other on the back for spewing the same gender essentialist bullsh*t, but

 

I don't care if you are in love with someone of the same sex, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me, which is what most are trying to do.

 

What kind of sick people would do something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

I have no problem with gays expressing their love for one another. I do have a problem with all of you trying to put words onto the screen under my username. If I stated that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, I didn't mean to, but I won't apologize. If I offended people with my horrible metaphor, my bad, I will NOT apologize any more for my views on gender and sexuality.

 

I never said homosexuals are sex-obsessed. I do know that they are likely to have shallower relationships than heteros, this does not mean I hate them. Most do partake in homosexual acts, I do not hate them for it. It does not mean I think it is right. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Rager

Well, the culture element of homosexuality being a bit "in your face" (lol) is part of the chain.

 

Hate, indifference, tolerance, acceptance, celebrated

 

We, right now in the western world, celebrate homosexuality, it's brave to come out, it's trendy to be for gay marriage. Remember the rainbow facebook profile pics?

 

I have the "I don't give a f*ck" approach to sexuality, whatever you do in your bedroom is your business, and you should (as should heterosexuals) keep it a private matter for the benefit of society as a whole. If a business doesn't want to serve you because you're a homosexual, that's fine - the community will shop elsewhere and nobody will ban anyone because it isn't PC. Same with churches who don't want to tolerate homosexuality, they deserve the right to choose who to serve. Business owners aren't slaves to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Tampa: I wasn't offended by the toaster metaphor, I just criticised it because it was asinine.

 

Your absolutist statements are the issue here. Are you gay? According to you, emphatically no, so how can you speak for them? I suppose gays might have a shallower relationship because they can't have the traditional nuclear family due to biology, but who's to say they aren't very intellectually and emotionally invested in their relationship?

 

I never asked you to apologise for your views--you're the one putting words in our mouths--but you did post an inflammatory one-line post with zero substance on a debating forum. By the nature of D&D you really have no right to complain about people deconstructing your post.

 

As for "most partake in homosexual acts", do you speak for all gays? In any case, so what? If you don't think it's right, that's fine, you don't have to comment. I don't particularly agree with sodomy but if people (gay or straight) do it, I don't care as it does not affect me in any way so I won't comment on it.

 

 

 

I fall in line with Canadian Badass when it comes to religious institutions and marriage because then it's at the discretion of religious authorities. I mean orthodox rabbis will absolutely refuse to marry a Jew and a non-Jew and this is as it should be in the religious Jewish world, even if it can be painful (as some people close to me know). However I do support civil marriages for gays which offer the same benefits and status in society.

 

I disagree totally with businesses refusing to serve gays because of their orientation unless they're specifically asking for a service for their marriage which the business owner doesn't recognise on religious grounds.

 

As for celebrating people coming out, I don't see this as a bad thing. When a gay person admits that they're gay they can stop living a lie and start taking control of their lives. Is that a bad thing? It's hardly "in your face" in any case.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tampa

Tampa: I wasn't offended by the toaster metaphor, I just criticised it because it was asinine.

 

Your absolutist statements are the issue here. Are you gay? According to you, emphatically no, so how can you speak for them? I suppose gays might have a shallower relationship because they can't have the traditional nuclear family due to biology, but who's to say they aren't very intellectually and emotionally invested in their relationship?

 

I never asked you to apologise for your views--you're the one putting words in our mouths--but you did post an inflammatory one-line post with zero substance on a debating forum. By the nature of D&D you really have no right to complain about people deconstructing your post.

 

As for "most partake in homosexual acts", do you speak for all gays? In any case, so what? If you don't think it's right, that's fine, you don't have to comment. I don't particularly agree with sodomy but if people (gay or straight) do it, I don't care as it does not affect me in any way so I won't comment on it.

 

 

 

I fall in line with Canadian Badass when it comes to religious institutions and marriage because then it's at the discretion of religious authorities. I mean orthodox rabbis will absolutely refuse to marry a Jew and a non-Jew and this is as it should be in the religious Jewish world. However I do support civil marriages for gays which offer the same benefits and status in society.

 

I disagree totally with businesses refusing to serve gays because of their orientation unless they're asking for a service for their marriage which the business owner doesn't recognise on religious grounds.

About businesses, I believe that the owners have every right to deny service to anyone and everyone, whether they be gay or straight, black or white, it is at the discretion of the owner. Unless it is a major distribution company such as Walmart, the owners can run their businesses as they please, I say.

As for homos and participating in homo acts, I am widely generalizing. I should probably stop trying to speak for the gays, seeing as I am not one, you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.