The charm of a woman and the security that a man offers.Those two are the most attractive features of the female and male sex respectively. But this charm can attract also a female. The same goes for a man.
Tell me about your point of view about this issue.
Please do not offend.

well i think that it's pretty cool when that happens. Everyone is free to love anyone that the want, right???

It's all the same.

I agree but there are still people in this world that really hate them for some reason...

>>4
Orthodox christians hate the theory of evolution.
No actual reason to hate or not to hate something. Just that it becomes a problem if expressed excessively.

>>4
They hate what they cannot have and what's truly inside each and every one of them.

We had a conversation in our class with a theologist and she referred to them with real hate and called them abnormal.That really pissed me off.

>>7
Ofc.
A theologist. Someone who studied under the discipline of pretty much mainstream monotheistic religions which abhorr any form of homosexuality or transexuality or even (sue me) nonmarital relationships.
No surprise there.

I'm against homosexuality actually. Not a homophobe, but I think it's wrong. However, if someone I knew was gay, I wouldn't actually care enough to want to stab them; they'd still be my friend and I'd treat them how I always did. It's someone else's (sex)life so I have no reason to mock or whatever. Homosexuality is just against human nature, and the nature of all animals infact. We don't see two male horses fucking against a wall, do we. There are two different sexes for a reason - it's so they can have wild sex and make offspring so being gay is like going against nature in my opinion. Or do you think my reasoning is verbal diarrhoea? Homosexuality in entertainment (yuri and yaoi shit for example) is all fine. Though yaoi is the obvious no-go for me. If I had to say, bi's and trans irritate me more.

Let's see if I get spat on.

>>9 I've actually heard that homosexuality is found is many other species. I'll try to find some reliable links for you.

And what's your issue with bisexual people?

>>10
It's not I hate them too, but I just don't like it. They get a wider ranger so they have a higher chance of getting laid. It kind of reminds me of a prostitute, making her open to all men to satisfy her desire for money and sexual desire too. Bi's are similar, but they make themselves open to both sexes so they have a higher chance of getting laid(and being haooy of course yeah yeah, bit happiness is still a desire). It's like they live that way just so they can please themselves easily. A very common reason why people don't like bi's is because "they're greedy" which I don't disagree with. Although, nothing I stated above goes for natural born bisexuals. It stills annoy me how they're lucky to have more variety and chance for partners. Another point is that it is also unnatural since they are attracted to the same sex as well.

Again, no special hatred for them and I still wouldn't mind if a friend admitted to be in that category. Don't spit on me.

>>11 You realize anything other than a "natural born bisexual" is not actually bisexual right? You can't just switch sexualoties at the drop of a hat.

Also, how on Earth do bisexuals have "more chances to get laid"? Considering that most people (bisexuals included) only have a single partner at a time then they have statistically less chances than any other sexuality. To clarify my point, if a gay/straight person has 1/10 chances of getting laid by someone in a group where half the people are a sex they aren't attracted to (meaning 10 males and 10 females) it would mean they had a 10% chance of sex. However, a bisexual's chances would be 1/20 (as you count both males and females) which would mean they had a 5% chance compared to the other sexuality's 10%.

>>12
Actually, yes you can. Sexuality is more fluid than what most pppl think.
Also, whats with the math lesson?

>>13
Statistics increase the seriousness level of a conversation by at least 40%.

>>13 So you're saying a gay man can just turn straight? So what you're saying is that conversion camps actually have a basis in reality and aren't just failed attempts by delusional parents to fix their child that isn't broken? Yeah right.

Sexuality is just labels for the various possibilities and combinations of what the specific person is attracted to. Therefore, you can think you were gay but were really bi,the think you were gay but we're really straight, think you were straight but were really bi, etc. etc. and so on; but your sexuality doesn't change, you're just trying to figure out what you're into and the label just describes the name of that kind of attraction.

>>14 Also, are you mocking me? This is a friendly discussion, so I would recommend you refrain from that.

>>15
It's whatever you make out of it. Thats the whole point of philosophical debates.
Just like you are not an individual separate from the rest of the world unless you think that you are, sexuality is a fluid notion with many different interpretations.
Regarding to what you're attracted to, is that something you were born with? I don't think so. It can change, therefore sexuality can change.

Also, how petty are you to get mocked by >>14 ?



>>14
It's not even a stats, it's rhetorical probability, and a bad one at that.

^ there's a flaw in the philosophical argument meant to confuse you with sophisticated words that have no relation to one another. Kudos if you figure that out.

Eh, I'm fine with non-heterosexual people. Let them find what they want in life. To each their own.

>>16 I'm speaking from a scientific point of view, not philosophical; so we're essentially having two different conversations here.

Also, how is >>14 mocking me make me petty? Does that mean that if I mocked Abraham Lincoln he's also petty even if he's too, y'know, dead too respond? Are they special somehow and their all important judgment means that if they mock me I must be wrong? Seriously, how on Earth does them mocking me make me petty? People mocked female suffragettes, does that mean they were petty too?

As for my supposed "rhetoric", I was simply giving a mathematical example to clarify my point. Think back to school and you may recall that your teachers did the same thing to explain concepts to you. That's why it's bad rhetoric, because it was never meant to be in the first place. Essentially, it's like complaining that an apple doesn't make a good orange; it was never meamy to be on in the first place so of course it sucks at being one.

Look, you seem to be turning to insulting me with that last paragraph in >>16, so I'll just inform you right now that I'd prefer this stay civil. I haven't insulted you at all in my posts and I'd prefer it if you do the same in yours from now on.

Last but not least, as I'm not personally having a philosophical debate I hope you understand if I don't plan on searching for the flaw you mentioned. Sorry.

>>19
No, I actually wasn't mocking you at all. I'm just non sequitur in human form.

>>19
That >>21
Nonmocking, nonabusive, 0 offense language and somehow it's mockery?
no one here talks like a barbarian and yet here you are saying let's be civil.
I'll leave whether or not what I just said is interpreted as an insult to you.

>>22 How about I qoute what I said in >>15 "Also, are you mocking me? This is a friendly discussion, so I would recommend you refrain from that."

As you can see I had no clue if they were making a sarcastic comment to mock me or not, but calmly asked them to stop if they were. I initially was confused, but thanks to >>21 I know they meant no harm.

Also, how is calling me petty not an insult? You said, and I qoute, "Also, how petty are you to get mocked by >>14 ?"

Due to the way syntax functions within the English language, you're comment there clearly states you assumed they were mocking me as well (even if you did not). However, even if you really did not think they were mocking me there is no way that you calling me petty can be seen as anything other than an insult within this context. This is why I stated we should keep this civil, while I have had many wonderful discussions that leave everyone satisfied; there are a few that turned out less than ideal and became a chore. I'm just trying to head it off at the pass so this discussion can be fun.

Last but not least, why are you leaving? I never asked you to leave but you seem to be implying I asked you to. I'm not saying you shouldn't leave if you really want to (as it's your choice), but you seem to be implying I was at fault and I'd like you to clarify.

>>22
Read the 'to you' part and you'll know I'm not leaving.
Now then for the real mockery. See I just loooooove messing with people who try to sound smart.
Let's start with the statistics.
An acceptable comparison between two subjects belonging to the same category is only with the condition that both are put in equal conditions.

Simply put, you got the 5% from dividing 1 out of 20, correct?
And then 10% was gotten by dividing 1 out of 10, but wait a minute. One sample size was 20 and the other was somehow downsized to 10!

What about this: the chance of someone having a potential mate out of a group of people is 10%. The same thing applies whether the person is straight / gay. A group of 20 was made for comparison, 10 men and 10 women.
Now then, this means that theoretically one person has 2 potential mates within that group. However, since one person is straight and the other one is bi, the straight one only has half of that group as a potential mate, resulting in (statistically) 1 potential mate compared to 2 potential mates bi persons have.


Your answer?

Answer? I didn't realize we had switched to debates but ok.

I downsized the group to 10 because I was halving a full group of 10 men and 10 women. When I switched to talking about bisexuals I simply added the 10 men and 10 women to get 20 (which is not unlike what you did in your third paragraph). However, I knew my wording there was a little iffy, so I'm not surprised you got confused. :\

Anyways, your logic (and consequently mine unfortunately) has one fatal flaw: we keep giving the bisexuals a bigger group and skewing the results.

Y'see, what we should have done is give bisexuals the exact same sample size as the others so that the math checks out. In a group of 10 people all three of the mentioned sexualities have the exact same chance of getting a date: 10%

However, none if this factors in the fact that many bisexuals have a preference of the sex they're attracted to. For instance, some prefer male over female while some prefer female over male; but they're still bisexual because they can be attracted to the less preferenced one as opposed to hetero/homosexuals that can't.

This unfortunately means that arguing about my example is pointless anyways because we were both wrong. Sorry to waste your time. :(

Can't refute my argument so instead you decided to bring it down as well, hmm? Alas, I'm also petty and I don't like losing so I'm not gonna let that slide.

Supplementary informations:
1. The size given to each subject is a total of 20
2. It's assumed that those 20 people are willing to hook up with any gender
3. The halving of heterosexual to 10 is by the subject's own preference, but the sample size remains 20. It's your brain that's not checking out.
4. By no means is the size for bisexuals bigger in any way.
5. Personal preferences of subjects are not considered. We're guessing the number of potential mates, not who they choose to hook up with,
6. This emulates the situation irl where bi always have larger dating pools as they can go for men and women


Any more retorts?

What argument????? I'm not here to refute anything, I'm just here to discuss! Why is it so hard for you to accept that?!

Also,in the end I agreed with your method of sample size and now you're criticizing me??? Also, didn't your earlier comment give hetero/homosexuals a sample size of 10 too or did I just misread that?

Also (I'm using that way too much right now), doesn't that mean my 10/20 example was accurate? Y'know, the one I just said was wrong.

Look, with that last sentence it's pretty clear that you either seem to think we're in some sort of fight or that this has turned into some sort of debate club. I don't wanna fight, I wanna discuss and it's certainly possible to do that even with differing viewpoints. Remember how I kept saying I wanted this to remain a friendly discussion? Well, this is starting to turn into the opposite of that in spite of me. I'm all for discussing our differing viewpoints, but I am in no mood for a fight.

Bwahahahahahahah
Either my lower-class plebian language doesn't reach you or you're just slow.
Like I said I'm a petty person. I'll leave it to the others to decide which one's better.
Also, you do realize you've already picked a fight with a lot of people the moment you said gay/bi children are broken?

No I didn't, here's the actual qoute from >>15 : "So what you're saying is that conversion camps actually have a basis in reality and aren't just failed attempts by delusional parents to fix their child that isn't broken? Yeah right."
Next time, you should actually read what someone has to say instead of skimming, or you end up making mistakes like the one you made just now.

As someone who actually knows gay/bi people and supports them 100% you're comment couldn't be further from the truth in more ways then one.

Dammit, I forgot the the end tag for the italics. Now the whole second half is italicised!

Ah, woe on fe, for I have made a great mistake.
Reread that 5 times and finally got what you were implying. Do forgive me, I'm not thatfluent in English.
Well, that doesn't matter much, since I was harassing you for another reason.
That was fun. Have a great day.

Well, I guess good day to you too. :\

as a gay, i say the gay is fine
its the straight people we need to worry about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Being asexual, I find both straight and gay people weirdish.

homosexuality is found in over 1 million species. mostly equines. homophobia is found in only 1. now which one seems unnatural?

>>34 I'm sorry for being curious but how can you be asexual???
Please don't take it as an offend!

>>36
Humans can be asexual just by simply not expressing any sexual attraction at all towards either gender. That's all there is to it.

>>37 thanks for the reply :)

well, i'm all charm but i can't see my own penis whatsoever

Practice abstinence people that way you wouldn't have to have a serious debate about mocking people and misunderstanding thinking they're being mocked. And whether you're bi or straight, won't give you a better chances of getting laid. People focuses on others lifestyles using comparison whether the person is compatible to you or not.

Reading that 'discussion' gave me a laugh.


Do pansexuals have sexual desires?

Homosexuality is wrong. It is supposed to be love with a man and woman. God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. The world needs Jesus Christ. We do not hate gays but we don't like the sinful nature.

>>41 Pansexual

I don't understand your question. Pansexual is basically a person who can love anyone without caring about their gender.

>>42 What do you use religion to defend your reason? You can just simply say I don't like seeing homosexual people being intimate in public. Because nothing in the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. If it does, please tell me the book, chapter, or verse to support your statement.

>>43 In the bible there is a verse that contains the quote "Man should not lay with man" or something along that lines.

LGBTQA+ people are cool with me. But I don't understand why other people hate them so much. Its not really anyone's business who they fall in love with but their own, ya know?

>>45
There's religion, politics, medicine, etc.
And it's not like the LGBT side is only about who's loving who, so normal vs LGBT is completely normal. Just like west vs east.

As a Christian I believe homosexuality is wrong but that is not the only reason because for homosexuals and bisexuals they have already crossed a moral line and once it is crossed you don't really care about crossing those other lines which can be extremely harmful towards yourself and others. Homosexuality is based only on pyshical pleasure and satisfaction and a false sense of love where as straight couples have the genuine desires to create there own family. This next comment may seem rude but please don't hate me for it. Homosexuality often leads to much worse things including rape, gangbangs, molesting children. This has happened to some of my close relatives such as one who I'm not going to say who he is or how he is related to me for his privacy was drugged in a bar and gangraped by many men. Homosexuality is the gateway to many horrible things. It may seem cute and innocent at first but it grows into something horrible and twisted.

>>47
Ironically the Catholic church is famous for child-molesting priests.

>>48 that's one of the reasons I'm not a Catholic the other is that they don't follow the bible and twist the words to their own benefit. I'm part of the Lutheran church were the pastors actually say question what I say and follow the bible before anything else. Though those people who molest children are lying scumbags that abuse their power and do not belong in the church. Thank you for your opinion and I know that there are bad things that have happened in every denomination but that does not make the religion itself wrong, just the messed up people in them.

>>47 From the sounds of it your friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the wrong part of town/city and should have know better unless he was looking for that kind of thing,

you talk about morals and call your self a Christian then you really should try reading the bible once in your life and see how many immoral things there are in the bible, this is what you call calling the kettle black.

>>48 indeed those evil bastards.

>>49
The Lutherean church from my country is basically an organisation of money-grubbers where people who fail their jobs take up the role of preachers just so they can get jobs. Naturally what follows is that their lectures emphasise greed. I don't see how that's any different.
Btw your part about false love is more insulting than the rape part, just to let you know.

>>47 WTF?! Are you saying that homosexual and bisexuals only wanted sexual relationship? Do you think my love for my girlfriend is just false love, even though we never have sex? Those are just bullshit! You think straight couples have more genuine love, then why the heck is there more divorce? We also wanted to have are own family, that's why we wanted acceptance to the public to have gay marriage.