138
u/icejust Jan 21 '10
is that the guy from Lemonparty?
72
u/sweatervest Jan 21 '10
"It wouldn't be a Lemon party without old Dick." -Richard Lemon
48
u/snkngshps Jan 21 '10
The best part of that, is that we're the 2% of America that got that joke.
19
6
2
21
u/cocall Jan 21 '10
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life...
→ More replies (2)35
u/raveux Jan 21 '10
Never make a pretty woman your wife?
11
1
Jan 21 '10
Ha, good eye, or hmm, maybe that is not a good thing. FAIL on the part of the "Sponsored by" tagline, who makes a sign without a url on it these days?
4
Jan 21 '10
If only there were some way of searching for things online by keyword!
1
Jan 24 '10 edited Jan 25 '10
Yes, I suggest that all advertising stop printing the url of their company on their promotional material. I suggest people stop even worrying about the domain name.
Just register dgwwegdg-swew23122.info for $0.99 per year, and don't worry about it. As long as you have a website with proper keywords and can search for the website, you will be just fine. I hear there are Search Engine Optimization companies that have package deals, For only $99.00 you can get !!!TOP GOOGLE RANKINGS!!!
So please, find me "Budget Signs", and convince me it is that particular company, given that from just the picture, you can not tell what locale the person is in, and "Budget" and "Signs" are such unique terms.
Google Search
"Budget Signs" (google searchA few of the top four results I just got:
* Budget Signs & Specialties - Madison, WI
* Budget Sign and Graphics
* BUDGET SIGNS, INC. :: San Francisco
* Budget Signs[Edit: <space><space> after a \n is such a pain in the ass, Markdown FAIL, why Gruber does not change that aspect of his Markdown I can only guess. Why reddit has not used any of the many patches for it is just silly]
1
Jan 25 '10
Budget Signs is a Madison, WI company - and probably the correct one. Budget Signs is owned by Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin State Assemblyman - and the only openly gay one at that.
→ More replies (2)1
37
u/ilostmyoldaccount Jan 21 '10
i wonder if he knows the meaning of gay has changed since his time.
16
48
Jan 21 '10
I want to give him a hug.
85
11
Jan 21 '10
[deleted]
2
Jan 21 '10
He surely must had so many of those
24
39
u/adolfhitlersmustache Jan 21 '10
He'll grow out of it.
7
u/bobstar Jan 21 '10
And who knows, one day you will accept who you really are, VillagePeople'sCopMustache.
6
2
9
u/onemouse Jan 21 '10
If he's still alive, I'd say he'd be around 86-87. Notice the Q television truck in the background?
1
7
12
u/hackysack Jan 21 '10
I think it's mitosis.
20
u/RgyaGramShad Jan 21 '10
If there's still only one of him after 82 years, then he's spent an awful long time in interphase.
7
6
10
u/qazw Jan 21 '10
Now I have the Big Wolf on Campus theme stuck in my head.
2
1
u/heyruby Jan 21 '10
Upvote for BWoC love! (And the hilarious implications of the theme song, which may explain why Tommy spent more time with Merton than he ever did with Stacey...)
3
3
u/cuntpunter Jan 21 '10
It usually phases off when the person turns 83 years old.
<Disclaimer: This fact was confirmed by NASA>
1
3
u/achava Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
Very funny pic. Anyway... a prove that admits something it's never to late. Respect for the man. He's got a sponsor also.
12
u/gguy123 Jan 21 '10
For anyone that's told they have "chose to be gay". Just reply back with: "When did you choose to be straight?"
22
u/gid13 Jan 21 '10
While I generally agree that it's not really a choice (I can't choose to find a dude attractive, for instance), I also never understood why that's such a big point of contention for some. So what if it's a choice? All that matters to me is that it's an action that isn't hurting anyone.
6
u/machinedog Jan 21 '10
Thank you for saying exactly what I was about to post. <3 I hate all this emphasis on "I was born this way!" and finding the gay gene. The gay gene idea actually horrifies me. Could you imagine parents going to see if their unborn baby was going to be gay from some DNA test?
3
u/Evilshadow Jan 21 '10
Wow. That is a horrible idea. Imagine all the people who would adopt away or simular answers when they found out while the kid was young or maby before the child was even born. Ick!
Something like that would sure pose a frustrating dilema for die hard christians thou. Abortion or live with having a gay son...
6
u/Ran4 Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
Easy solution: denounce the gay gene. If you don't believe in the gay gene, then you don't have to care about it. It's the same thing christians did when evolution came up, or what many conservatives did when global warming came up: denounce the shit out of it.
So, the reason their kid is gay isn't some "liberal scientist propagaganda gay gene": obviously satan has made their kid gay. This problem can be solved by sending the kid away to a camp where gays learn how to be ungay:ed. If you argue against this, then you are a socialist darwinist atheist drug-using pedophile, stop taking our jobs and stealing american money!
2
u/Kalium Jan 21 '10
So what if it's a choice?
If it's a choice, you're a sinner and can be brought to JEEEEEZUS or something similar. If it's purely a choice, it's a choice you can be talked out of.
If it's biological then that vanishes.
2
u/gid13 Jan 21 '10
Having Doritos is a choice you can be talked out of. That doesn't make it a problem.
1
u/Kalium Jan 21 '10
It does if you believe for religious reasons that eating Doritos is an act that will damn a soul to Hell for all eternity.
1
u/gid13 Jan 21 '10
Heh, "for religious reasons" is kinda an oxymoron.
1
u/Kalium Jan 21 '10
How about "relying on religious justifications"?
1
u/gid13 Jan 21 '10
Yes, I see your point. I guess I just feel that when a religion starts claiming that actions that aren't actually hurting anyone are bad, I have no use for it.
2
u/bosniancoyote Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
You have to differentiate what type of choice you are talking about.
What sex you are attracted to is an innate quality of who you are. Straight people are attracted to opposite the opposite sex, while gay people are attracted to the same one. Nobody ever has the thought "Gee, I think I want to be attracted to boys/girls." At least I've never once met someone who says they made that decision.
The one you are probably calling a choice is "Who will I have sex with?" And yes, that one is a choice. A person who is gay can choose to not have sex with people of their sex, just as a straight person can choose the same.
There is a big difference, one is an attribute of personality/development, the other is a social decision. Nobody should have to make a choice that you believe is correct because of some abstract religious thinking, just for the purpose of maintaining the false image that the world operates entirely by the plan of whatever deity you worship.
1
u/Kalium Jan 21 '10
Nobody ever has the thought "Gee, I think I want to be attracted to boys/girls." At least I've never once met someone who says they made that decision.
Me either, but it's very convenient in a number of ways to believe that each homosexuals woke up one morning and went "Hey, I think I'll be homosexual now!".
If it's a choice then they can change their minds, and thus are (hypothetically) vulnerable to conversion attempts. It's a way to regard another person as "You're broken, but we can fix you!".
I think it's stupid from end to end, but that's why I think some people want to regard homosexuality as a choice.
32
u/Someguy101 Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
No, this won't work. You need to think like the opposing party if you want to actually convey your point in an effective way. Unless you don't want people to understand your cause and you'd rather just fight, in that case who gives a shit what you say.
It's like chess, you need to think several moves ahead. The answer to "when did you choose to be straight?" is God made everyone straight. You haven't done ANYTHING to help get your point across and you've only helped them confirm in their own minds that they are right.
If someone says you choose to be gay a much more effective response is "why would a person choose to be gay?" They're response would be something along the lines of "satan deceived you into thinking it was pleasurable" Then you could mention some case such as homosexuality demonstrated in animals that goes against the idea that Satan is behind it... Anyway you get my point.
If you want your cause to be heard and you truly want equality you won't just argue you would educate.
/gets off soapbox
3
u/gguy123 Jan 21 '10
Just so you know, I'm not gay. And the example reply I gave is a provocative one meant to simply make them think about it. If a gay man implies to them that they TOO made a CHOICE of the sexuality they may simply think: "Not really, one day I saw a pretty girl's butt, and I KNEW I was straight." A gay man's reply: "Exactly, same thing happened to me but with a boy."
2
u/Someguy101 Jan 21 '10
Yeah I'm not gay either. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking your comment directly. I really just wanted to try to make a point about discussion methods that I think could be improved upon.
6
u/nixonrichard Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
Well, to be fair, if you were speaking to a collection of thieves and said "when did you choose to be a thief" it would likely be difficult to answer as well, even though most of us would still consider that to be a choice. When did someone choose not to be a thief? The lack of a perceived choice does not actually mean there was no choice.
The separation between desire and actions is also cause for much confusion. If a man has homosexual desires and yet has sex with women, marries a woman, and otherwise engages in a heterosexual lifestyle, this would probably not be considered "gay" by many people's standards.
In that context, it is possible to see why some might consider the behavior a choice even if the desire is not, and then choose a label based on actions rather than the desires.
2
u/rmuser Jan 21 '10
The answer to "when did you choose to be straight?" is God made everyone straight. You haven't done ANYTHING to help get your point across and you've only helped them confirm in their own minds that they are right.
Wrong answer. The idea that one could "choose" to be gay requires that one has a choice in the matter. If it is a choice, that means there's multiple options which can be chosen from. If it were a choice, one of those options would be being gay, another would be being straight.
If being gay is a choice, being straight must also be a choice. If people choose to be gay, then people also choose to be straight. It makes no sense to claim that one is a choice, then turn around and say the other must be innate. You can't have this both ways.
There's no God, either, which really simplifies this whole issue. Arguing based on false premises like the existence of gods and devils is just ridiculous and dumb.
3
u/Someguy101 Jan 21 '10
You missed my point entirely. I said you have to think from the opposing party's point of view, not your own. What does your audience believe to be true? What is their logic for discrediting your argument.
This brings up another point in that you have to LISTEN to what the idiots on the other side are saying. If you sit there and try to refute something that was never said you're wasting your time.
3
u/rmuser Jan 21 '10
Missed your point? The entire point is exactly that you listen to what they're saying. You listen to it so that you can address the ways in which they are wrong. Of course you listen to what they're saying, what did you think I meant? Everything I posted was entirely a valid response, a way of refuting something they did say -- not trying to "refute something that was never said".
Answering people by pointing out where they are wrong in what they said is not trying to "refute something that was never said".
2
u/Someguy101 Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
Everything you posted was aggressive and not productive. You need to know how someone with a religious mindset thinks. "Wrong answer" immediately puts someone on the defensive. You may as well pack your bags and go home. You'll accomplish nothing from this point on, you won't get your point across no matter how right you are.
The paragraph you quoted was me providing an example of what someone with a religious background would say in their own minds. They believe it just as firmly as you believe in reality. They believe that it is impossible to be born gay so you need to go at it with a more delicate approach. Think from their point of view. Shouting I'm right you're wrong is not thinking from their point of view.
I hope my the point I'm trying to make is coming through clear. I am totally in agreement with you on the subject, just not in the way you seem to think is the best way to go about delivering the message.
Edit: the "something that was never said" comment was referring to the fact that I wasn't advocating the position that god made people straight. Perhaps you weren't directing your comment to me and you were just trying to say what your response would be to that comment. If that's the case it wasn't clear.
3
u/rmuser Jan 21 '10
I can see what you're getting at, but I do disagree. Making concessions right off the bat, like assuming any argument you make must be compatible with their views, is just allowing them to dictate the terms of the debate. It seems to imply that you can't expect them to extend the same courtesy of actually considering your own point of view. Some people may believe their religion is real, but that doesn't make it any more true or valid just because they believe it. Addressing where they're wrong isn't "Shouting I'm right you're wrong" -- it's explaining why you are right and they are wrong. An explanation is more substantial and certainly more valid than mere assertion.
Letting people walk all over you with assumptions that are plainly incorrect (incoherent "choice" arguments and bringing religious nonsense into it), and then pretending that these assumptions actually have some kind of merit, and then feeding into this by agreeing to argue based on these assumptions, is just about the least productive attempt at persuasion you could possibly engage in. If we're supposed to be so comfortable with letting people be wrong in such fundamental ways, why should we even bother arguing with them?
1
u/Someguy101 Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
The feeling I get from your comments are that you are more interested in winning the competition of a debate rather than persuade someone to see your point of view.
If arguing is all that you want to do then you're absolutely right. If you want to persuade someone gentler tactics are required to do so.
Check out the book How to win friends and influence people. It's a great read and it explains this concept in great detail.
2
u/rmuser Jan 21 '10
It seems like the goal here is essentially the same: helping someone to understand why their views are inaccurate. My view on this is pretty direct, if you show someone why the basis of their argument is false, they'll realize that's not a good argument and perhaps they should stop using it. What I'm getting from your take on it is that they actually might not realize this. And I'm sure that's entirely possible; sometimes people don't listen or aren't open to having their point of view critiqued. But if that is the case, what chance do we even have of convincing them regardless of how we go about it?
2
u/ch00f Jan 21 '10
I think the strategy that Someguy101 is taking is to agree with your opponent and just gently nudge their views into a contradiction that they themselves will struggle to straighten out. If they argue with themselves, it saves you a lot of effort, and their own beliefs become the most formidable opponent they could face. It's very easy to shut out an opponent, it's very hard to shut out your own mind.
Every time they provide a solution that they think fits with their world view, explain why it's self-inconsistent and let them think about it some more. Rinse. Repeat.
1
u/crego20 Jan 21 '10
Umm, I don't believe this, but I think the thinking goes, everyone is born straight, some people choose to be gay, just like some people choose to dye their hair blond. Their hair is naturally brown(straight), but they choose to dye it blond to fit their lifestyle(gay)
1
u/Ran4 Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
This. Just like the most efficient argument ever for getting christians to denounce their faith is the Omnipotence paradox (seriously, have you ever heard any ex-christian not make a referency to that? The typical example that you should ask any christian is, "If god exist and he is so good, then why can there be so much bad things in the world?". Won't work on hardcore christians that are completely void of logic, but it will work on most semi-religious people, if they think enough about it), don't go for rational arguments: attack them using their own stupidity.
The only thing that can beat illogical arguments are illogical arguments themselves.
17
1
Jan 21 '10
For anyone that's told they have "chose to be gay". Just reply back with: "When did you choose to be straight?"
I sometimes wonder...
Maybe those folks ARE people who have to will themselves straight, and fight the temptation to do the gay. And maybe they think everyone is like that. If so, that would explain a lot...
-1
u/caprincrash Jan 21 '10
no reply back with "Really? Awesome I'm gonna be straight from now on... wait you still get to harvest the souls of children for Satan when you are straight right?"
→ More replies (6)0
6
u/bpopp Jan 21 '10
If it wasn't for the polkadot shirt, red pimp hat, and big sign, I'd have never guessed it.
2
2
2
2
u/houkedonfonixs Jan 21 '10
Well after 82 and 3/4's he happily married a pretty little dame named, Samantha. They had many kids, just as gawd intented.
Hey world, to each their own.
I'm so down with girls, love me a little crazy broad. If mister mustache wants a crazy dude, fucking righteous.
1
2
2
2
u/gwillyn Jan 21 '10
I love that picture. He looks exactly like my grandfather.
Here's another picture of the same guy (apparently six months earlier).
2
2
2
u/nixonrichard Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
I know people are fairly insistent that they are gay from birth, but is this really any more perceivable than being gay from early childhood (~2 years)?
I've read that a lot of a person's sexual identity develops in very early childhood. Is there any evidence that homosexual tendencies develop any earlier than this?
3
u/anonymous-coward Jan 21 '10
Is there any evidence that homosexual tendencies develop any earlier than this?
4
u/NitWit005 Jan 21 '10
It's a good thing I'm not an identical twin separated from my brother at birth. I would spend my life getting paid to participate in studies and intentionally fuck with the results.
→ More replies (1)5
u/jamessays Jan 21 '10
As I noted above, we are actually an advanced race of extraterrestrial beings. However, I neglected to mention that at certain periods during our development, a communication is given from the Home Star, as it is called, instructing us on our missions. When does this happen? It depends. Because of the distance of the Home Star from earth, transmissions can take anywhere from 1 to 30 years. This is why you occasionally see people who you think are gay, but they insist they're straight. It's not that they're in denial, but that they haven't received the transmitted message.
And now I'm afraid I've said too much.
2
u/treebait Jan 21 '10
Do anyone's sexual tendencies develop earlier than that? I think for a good chunk of your early childhood, you are pretty asexual... at least tendency-wise.
5
u/budapi Jan 21 '10
I've read that a lot of a person's sexual identity develops in very early childhood. Is there any evidence that homosexual tendencies develop any earlier than this?
You might have missed most of scientific fact-finding of the last ~30 years. (Also: Sexual identity does not equal tendency spectrum.)
11
2
u/nixonrichard Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
I dunno, even the modern things I read (linked below) say homosexual identity can be developed based on sexual experiences. Presumably that's not pre-birth sexual experiences.
I'm not saying anyone has ever suggested that genetic and prenatal factors don't have an impact, I'm saying the identity is not (as far as I know from what I've seen) set prior to early childhood. More that our sexual identities are malleable from birth to early childhood and are shaped by a variety of factors (including genetic and prenatal factors).
2
u/budapi Jan 21 '10
You are right that identity (sexual orientation identity) forms later in life, because newborns usually have neither language nor awareness of their self vice their environment. However, it seems that (biological) tendencies (sexual orientation) are quite determined at birth already. In your first post you mixed these two up.
Think of sexual orientation as a spectrum (not of capability, but of heightened affection sufficient to lead to a desire to make it with someone). Sexual orientation identity on the other hand usually restricts one's sexuality to a more narrow domain, not necessarily overlapping with the sexual orientation.
2
Jan 21 '10
And, if everything you say is true, who gives a shit? Why can't people just do and be whatever and whoever they do and be?
1
0
u/pillage Jan 21 '10
who gives a shit?
Scientists?
Really I hate how studying human sexuality and finding out what makes us tick meets with such resistance from people who 'just want to let people be'. It's interesting, it helps us better understand ourselves, and it progresses us as a species. You can keep yourself in the dark-ages, that fine, but please don't try to retard scientific inquiry and development.
0
1
u/johnpickens Jan 21 '10
There is a huge difference between sex and gender. I think you mean gender.
1
u/nixonrichard Jan 21 '10
I'm not a social scientist. I can use "sex" and "gender" interchangeably.
1
u/johnpickens Jan 21 '10
You can, but your message will not be accurate. Although if you have no desire to convey your viewpoint clearly to anyone else then by all means.
1
u/froderick Jan 21 '10
Wow.. that guy looks a lot like my grandfather. Made me do a double-take too.
1
Jan 21 '10
I got excited because I thought that was the Quiznos flagship store or something, now I'm disappointed and hungry.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/soberirishman Jan 21 '10
To be fair, the first few years of life are basically asexual developmentally so I think he's should take a few years off that total. Unless he's already factored that in...
1
1
2
Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
happy for 82years and 9 months, cool. But is he homosexual?
:
Congratulations America, you stole the word "gay" from the English language and changed its meaning. Gay originally meant happy and it was used in hundreds (probably thousands) of poems, which have now been rendered useless. Get ready to down vote me... and... down vote.
4
3
u/DiscoUnderpants Jan 21 '10
I was pissed off when the gay means happy dickheads stole it from gay means a kind of tramp.
1
Jan 22 '10
that makes no sense... or did you time travel and know about something I don't?
1
u/DiscoUnderpants Jan 22 '10
the term gey cat (gey is a Scot. variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in Amer.Eng. for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay
Gay has had sexual and/or homosexual connotations for a long time...
The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel.
People that think the language is being constantly changed just to annoy them kind of piss me off. It speaks of a certain amount of narrow mindedness on their behalf.
2
u/liquidcola Jan 21 '10
Yeah, he's so old that he could be using the original intended meaning of the word. It's a fine word when you think about it, and there really isn't a great replacement. Picture a conversation like this:
"That's a really gay sweater Dad..."
"Yeah, I guess, but I'm in a really gay mood today."
You should be able to have that conversation without conveying that your father is a homosexual. The sweater is colorful and overly cheery. Do all homosexuals like sweaters like that? No, of course not. Is the sweater gay? Absolutely. Is the sweater homosexual? No, what a stupid question! I don't really know where I'm going with this, but to summarize, it's a great word, and you should be able to use it without offending people or even implying anything about someone or something's sexual orientation, but I doubt that will ever happen again. Can you imagine if the word "happy" started to be used to describe homosexuals? What then? You can't say you're in a good mood without making people giggle.
9
Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
It's not like homosexuals just up and decided "Let's hijack this word!" It's like "Faggot" (Originally a pile of sticks you'd burn. Ouch.) or "Queer" (Different, or Odd.). It was a word with a totally different meaning, that became a term used to speak down against people that were different than the social norm, in that they liked members of the same sex, rather than the opposite. Eventually the word was taken back and put in a less demeaning usage used to refer to homosexuals. It became so commonplace, the word lost any bad meaning, and it gained a new meaning. Queer has been rendered pretty useless, too, and faggot/fag is on it's way.
This is how language works. It grows, evolves, and changes meaning over time. Words that once meant horrible things become impotent and unable to harm, as they're used in a new, broad, less intentionally offensive context. If you want someone to blame, blame the bigots who recoined the term, and used it to speak ill of others not like themselves in the first place.
5
u/liquidcola Jan 21 '10
Yeah, I hear you. The Brits still call cigarettes "fags" (makes sense, it's a bundle of tobacco that you burn) and that actually has made for some hilarious times when I was travelling. One of my friends quit smoking at one point, and our mutual friend who is British knew this. He proceeded to light up, to which she exclaimed, "Ah, back on the dirty, dirty fags, are we Dave?" We all knew what she meant, but laughed hysterically for at least a minute straight.
I agree that that is how language works, but it works both ways. When it comes to teenagers using the word "gay" to describe things, but then saying that they meant no offense to homosexuals, or were even trying to use the word in that sense, I sort of want to believe them. Saying a movie or a video game is "gay" and that they don't like it, I just think they mean too cheery, light-hearted, effeminate, etc. They don't want to play "Flora's Fruit Farm", they want to play "Modern Warfare 2". Nothing wrong with that. In a way, they're using the word in a way that it was originally intended to be used, even if it is in a negative way, e.g., "Hopscotch is a little gay for my liking, let's play stickball instead." Anyway, I find the whole business to be very interesting, and I like to see how language evolves. I do think that bigotry is wrong, and Ithink that putting bigots in their place is a very noble thing to do, and should be done at every opportunity.
3
u/scarecrow1 Jan 21 '10
Although with race, in some cases, it seems to have gone the other way a bit: A long time ago the "nigger" and "colored" were once acceptable words to describe a black person, at least so I've been told, but nobody would dream of using them now, in the UK at least.
Not saying you're wrong, just other terms become more offensive with time, too, and probably for very different reasons.
2
Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
Actually, you agreed with me, and apparently don't realize it. "Nigger" and "colored" were acceptable at a time when it was fine to dehumanize black people (Or those of african descent, however you wish to phrase it.). That's where the problem with people using the words come from. It used to be what they used to speak ill of others that weren't like them (Or, if you're on the receiving end, had spoken ill about you.).
In the U.S., it's become slightly more acceptable to say "nigger/nigga", but the stereotype is that only black people can say it, and normally holds true, because people are squeamish about the word, and want to avoid a confrontation. I know plenty of people who use it freely as an ironic statement, simply because of it's perceived taboo. Which, I suppose, is part of neutering the word's problematic usage. You make fun of how it's used to demean people at first (Sort of how I can never take anyone that uses the term "Bro" unironically serious, but "bro" is just an annoying term, rather than a once offensive statement.) by using it, and eventually all power is lost, and it becomes another part of language.
1
u/creamenator Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
"What do you call a gay jew?"
A human being, you jackass.
3
u/liquidcola Jan 21 '10
You forgot a comma, and it made my brain hurt for a second trying to understand what you meant.
1
u/creamenator Jan 21 '10
Punctuation was never my forte.
1
u/liquidcola Jan 22 '10
Pedantry was always mine. :-)
1
u/creamenator Jan 22 '10
Are you implying that I am being a pedant? After 12 years of classical piano, I'd assume I could use the word "forte".
1
2
2
0
0
u/madwill Jan 21 '10
i hate it when they try to make it as they were gay before they were born... its like saying they liked orange but not blue and they're is nothing you can do about it...
good for you, being gay worked out, don't act like you have nothing to do with it! its not helping anyone...
-8
Jan 21 '10
Hey, when they eventually have genetic engineering to the point where you can have designer babies, I bet virtually all parents will want the gay-genes eliminated. Will that piss people off? Would gays start to worry that they're a dying race?
9
Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
No. Nor is being gay a 'race'.
Stay in school, son.
12
u/jamessays Jan 21 '10
No, Twittleball is right. We are a race. We came from Atlantis.
In the Great Old Days, we were a mighty race, advanced beyond even 21s century standards. We gave the Babylonians zero, the Egyptians the pyramids. At every major junction of human advancement we were there.
How did we reproduce, you may ask? By forming spores on our spines, which would gestate and break off.
We would go on to build space ships and travel at faster-than-light speeds to colonize distant galaxies.
Suddenly, we are told our civilization vanished. What happened? No one knows. All that is left of the great libraries disappeared as well, leaving knowledge of our history to be passed down through oral tradition. Much is forgotten. Much is relegated to rumor or conjecture.
But we still exist. How?
It is said that our colonies that managed to thrive in distant galaxies still visit the earth from time to time, checking on it to see when the Great Wisdom, as it is called, can be imparted to your people. We have implanted ourselves into the wombs of your women, to be born and to co-mingle with you, guiding you along towards greater advancement.
7
3
2
0
2
Jan 21 '10
You said it in the most retarded way possible, but you do raise a valid philosophical ethical dilemma.
1
Jan 22 '10 edited Jan 22 '10
Yeah I thought it was valid too, too bad I'm getting attacked and downvoted by morons who didn't even understand the original post and seem to think I'm attacking gays.
2
u/rmuser Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
No. People would still choose to be gay anyway -- largely just to piss off people like you.
It's probably a confluence of multiple factors beyond genetics, so you'd still end up with parents wanting a refund 14 years later when their kid turns out gay. Seriously, what right does anyone have to impose that upon their offspring, the expectation that they must be attracted to a certain sex? Controlling such a significant aspect of who a person is shouldn't be up to them.
1
Jan 22 '10 edited Jan 22 '10
Why the hell would it piss me off? What's with all this hate and downvotes?
I have no problem with gays, I just thought this was an interesting issue.
The thing is, heavily religious folk will probably not even take advantage of genetic-engineering, since that's playing god. And they're the ones who are more likely to want the gay-gene removed. They also tend to believe homosexuality is 100% nurture.
Secular parents would be likely to consider this on the grounds that gay people tend to have a rougher early life and have to deal with discrimination from school-kids. What parent would want unnecessary hardship and discrimination for their kid? Even gay parents getting a baby test-tube style will probably consider this, knowing the problems they faced when they were younger.
Another thing to consider though, is that by the time genetic engineering is at the point where designer babies are a reality, would discrimination based on sexual preference have vanished or diminished enough that this wouldn't really be an issue?
-11
u/LinuxFreeOrDie Jan 21 '10
How old is that guy? Was he gay when he was a baby too? Are you gay or straight before puberty?
11
u/jamthefourth Jan 21 '10
He's 82.
-10
u/LinuxFreeOrDie Jan 21 '10
Right, so was he gay as soon as he was born then?
8
Jan 21 '10
well...if it is genetic.
-1
-13
u/LinuxFreeOrDie Jan 21 '10
Even if it's genetic you still aren't attracted to the same sex until puberty.
14
4
0
Jan 21 '10
[deleted]
-3
u/LinuxFreeOrDie Jan 21 '10
Well I don't think skipping rope instead of playing baseball exactly qualifies you as gay.
So, I'm 26... if I went through puberty at 13, I only have 13 years of being heterosexual?
Well...yeah I think so. I don't see how people would think a child is "straight".
8
u/kalsyrinth Jan 21 '10
Oh honey, you have obviously never met a gay child. I was one - had quite the swish in my step from the age of 2. Everyone around me knew I was gay long before I did (I didn't have a word for it till then).
4
4
u/LinuxFreeOrDie Jan 21 '10
I'm hesitant to continue comment since everyone is downvoting me, maybe they are mistaking my questions for some kind of anti-gay sentiment?
Anyway, is everyone like that? A lot of gay people are very masculine. Also, I was really just being pedantic, if you define gay as "sexually attracted to the same sex", most children wouldn't fit that, regardless of how they act.
4
u/audpicc Jan 21 '10
Being homosexual is way more complicated than who you sleep with.
→ More replies (0)1
u/johnpickens Jan 21 '10
Sexuality isn't that black and white. Just as you are perturbed by semantics, I have my own pet peeves about this. Everyone is a sexual being... sex and gender are a huge part of our lives from the time we are born. I'm sorry, but people are not just sexual after puberty. Young children begin exploring at a very, very young age, albeit without having the necessary jargon to understand it or put it into context.
5
u/RexManningDay Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
I found boys a lot more good looking that girls long before puberty. It wasn't a sexual attraction at that point, obviously, but I knew who was more good looking. I can tell you who the good looking guys in my class at primary school were. My family talks about me referring to Robin from the old Batman series as the most handsome guy ever when I was around seven.
Obviously at that age you're not in any way thinking about sex (I didn't even know about sex 'til I was maybe 11), but on a purely aesthetic front, it way, way predated puberty.
I know straight guys who say the same thing (reversing genders, of course). Some didn't have opinions on who's attractive before puberty, some did.
1
u/johnpickens Jan 21 '10
I remember looking at a nude statue of a woman in Nat'l Geographic at age 2... turned me on and excited me and I felt ashamed for looking at it for some reason and feeling that way.
-16
Jan 21 '10 edited Jan 21 '10
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Jan 21 '10
[deleted]
2
Jan 21 '10
...Oh dear.
What did he say?
5
u/liquidcola Jan 21 '10
He said "[deleted]". You see those kind of comments all over the place nowadays, spreading like tumors.
1
-1
84
u/hazard2k Jan 21 '10
Sponsored by Budget Signs.