Posts by Ryan Wood98

Brandon Rivera2 said:But honestly, they just ruin my view. I can't even focus on the horizon when they're there...

Well, I suppose there are plenty of unpleasant people out there who ruin my view too, but I can't exactly demand they stay home.🙄

Edward Wilson82 said:Man, you really love twisting arguments.

Being gay and watching porn aren't the same thing.

One is an orientation—it's how you're wired. The other is just an action.

And you certainly have a way of twisting arguments; homosexuality isn't a disorder. It hasn't been considered one for quite some time.

Brandon Rivera2 said:I mean, I'm definitely not gonna go looking the other way just because of some random idiots...

But why? They might be bothering you. 🤷 Personally, if something bothers my sense of aesthetics (for instance, a soap brand like "Sun Valley"), I simply choose not to look at it.

Henry Williams said:It's just sports.🙄 Honestly, I have no clue how this photo even relates to what we were talking about.

Well, I once asked someone what they thought defined the term "lewd," and they described it as photos of men dressed provocatively in public spaces. This image follows that exact same logic—it shows men in minimal clothing in a public setting.

To me, it feels just as lewd. 🤷

But, then again, maybe I'm just a bit twisted since I watch the UFC 🤷

Brandon Rivera2 said:Gay people aren't being discriminated against. They can always marry someone of the opposite sex and have kids with them if they want to...

I see. And then, I suppose, they can just divorce that person because they don't actually love them, take the child, and go live with the same-sex partner they truly care about?

In fact, that seems to be what often happens, simply because it might be the most straightforward way for them to have a child.

Brandon Rivera2 said:Is it just coming from some irrational fear, or is there actually some real concern behind it? I mean, can you even have intelligent homophobes out there...

The more I find myself reading through these forum discussions, the more I seem to ask this same question.

nimblegardener7 said:It seems pretty clear from your posts that you don't actually think you have a problem here; rather, it feels like you just showed up to this forum for a bit of entertainment.

My extensive experience on these forums (as my post count might suggest) has taught me that people generally visit for one of two reasons—either to find some amusement or because they are facing an actual issue.

I suppose I wonder which category you fall into?

nimblegardener7 said:God established

Maybe this is where the issue lies? Did God tell you it was alright to refer to people as "scrawny, fat lesbians"?

nimblegardener7 said:Of course, you will likely claim that the data isn't accurate,

Generally speaking, when someone makes a vague assertion, I tend to point out that the information might be incorrect. But if you are insisting it is "common knowledge" that the most horrific crimes occur within homosexual communities, then I would suggest you search the internet and provide links to specific data regarding those crimes. In return, I will look up the crimes committed by various religious individuals in the name of the Church and Jesus. Then, perhaps at the end, we can compare our findings and see who uncovered more instances of heinous acts. Does that sound fair?

I might have actually read the rest of your post, if it didn't sound quite so much like dogmatic brainwashing.🤷

Brandon Rivera2 said:Those are just outliers, really... Most straight people end up having kids, while most gay folks aren't looking to have them...

Even if they are exceptions, does that change much? I suppose homosexuals could be viewed as exceptions too, yet we are still discussing them here, and some even argue that they aren't "normal" precisely because they fall outside those exceptions.

Besides, I am curious where the claim comes from that most homosexuals don't want children? I am not necessarily disagreeing, but I was wondering about the source for that specific statistic, as I haven't come across it before.

Brandon Rivera2 said:Nah, they aren't getting frisky or anything, it's just how guys celebrate...

🤣🤣🤣 Honestly, this should probably be part of your signature. It feels like one of the most powerful statements made here. 🤣🤣🤣

Henry Williams said:Honestly, I don't even think the majority of people actually watch porn.☕

I suppose I don't feel like I should even have to work; maybe I should just receive money simply because I am good-looking. ☕

nimblegardener7 said:You’re honestly quite skilled at twisting things. I never said it was okay just because some attractive women are involved. My point is simply that in movies—whether mainstream or adult films—homosexual characters are often played by actors portraying heterosexual roles.

I suppose you could view homosexuality as a disruption of the instinct to propagate the species. And if that's the case, then maybe it's a disorder.

Thanks, I suppose my background in marketing comes into play here.

nimblegardener7 said:You’re honestly quite skilled at twisting things. I never said it was okay just because some attractive women are involved. My point is simply that in movies—whether mainstream or adult films—homosexual characters are often played by actors portraying heterosexual roles.

I suppose you could view homosexuality as a disruption of the instinct to propagate the species. And if that's the case, then maybe it's a disorder.

So, I guess the implication is that if someone identifies as heterosexual, it is perfectly acceptable for them to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender now and then?

nimblegardener7 said:You’re honestly quite skilled at twisting things. I never said it was okay just because some attractive women are involved. My point is simply that in movies—whether mainstream or adult films—homosexual characters are often played by actors portraying heterosexual roles.

I suppose you could view homosexuality as a disruption of the instinct to propagate the species. And if that's the case, then maybe it's a disorder.

If a homosexual person desires to have a child, would that not suggest they do NOT have a disrupted instinct to preserve the species, given that they want to continue the lineage?

Furthermore, I wonder if a heterosexual person who chooses NOT to have children would also be considered to have such a disruption.

Henry Williams said:You're honestly just trying to wiggle out of this with nonsense. For me, watching porn is totally unacceptable for a decent person, just like homosexuality is.
I don't see anything strange about thinking that way.

I'm not quite sure how to explain this... I believe morality is largely something conditioned by society. If the majority of people in a culture consume pornography, then that behavior becomes the norm, and one's refusal to do so would be considered the deviation.

It is perhaps similar to how heterosexuality is viewed as the standard, while homosexuality is seen as a deviation.

The question, I guess, is whether deviating from the norm should be judged, or if it even can be.

Is it right to judge homosexuals or those who abstain from pornography? In a sense, both groups are simply deviating from what society deems the standard.

nimblegardener7 said:[IMAGE REMOVED]

[IMAGE REMOVED]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you consider men who dress provocatively in public to be debauched?

For instance, maybe people like these:
[/

nimblegardener7 said:Don't try to be sneaky about this—there's a massive difference between adult film stars doing their jobs for a paycheck and some gross person being a lesbian. And honestly, who even decides if today's guys are "normal" or if consuming porn online is normal... especially when someone spends twelve hours jerking off at a computer while life passes them by...

I'm not sure I follow. Are you trying to say that you don't have an issue with lesbians, provided they happen to be attractive?

Furthermore, I suppose I am struggling to understand your logic here. You seem to suggest that homosexuals aren't normal simply because they are a minority, yet on the other hand, you claim that people who watch pornography aren't normal, even though they represent the majority?

How exactly do you define the concept of "normal"?

Henry Williams said:Look, I know this might sound weird to you, but not everyone watches porn.
There’s really no need.

It is true that not everyone watches pornography, but it is also true that not everyone is heterosexual.

Some people seem to believe that because most of us are heterosexual, those who aren't (the minority) must somehow be abnormal or disordered.

By that same logic, if the MAJORITY of men watch pornography, then those who choose NOT to (the minority) would also have to be considered abnormal or disordered.

But please don't worry; you can see that there are those of us who belong to the majority, yet we still advocate for the rights of the minority. We will defend your rights in the same way, and we won't let people tell you that you are broken just because you don't watch pornography. 😉

nimblegardener7 said:If you look at how the word fear is used in the English language, it’s often linked to psychological conditions. And I guess that’s where the catch is. Homosexuals want to label anyone who finds their behavior repulsive as being "insane." It feels like a smear campaign to me... an attempt at brainwashing to build a society rooted in evil, where perfectly decent citizens end up being mistreated—or "treated," I suppose—in psychiatric wards because of some fabricated "illness" called "homophobia."

Because when you point out that they have psychological issues, they just want to fight... maybe because there's a certain darkness inside them. So much for their version of "normalcy."

I don't think any normal man or woman could feel fear toward something so unnatural. People claiming to have a phobia seem to need police protection, yet it feels like the police only exist to protect homophobic homosexuals. I mean, what is there to be afraid of? They’re supposedly the pacifists of their group; most can't even land a slap.

This whole idea of "homophobia" seems like a political label to me—just a way to flip values upside down and twist perspectives. It's a tactic to justify their warped views, but I guess not everyone is gullible enough to buy into it.

A natural reaction for any normal man might be a sense of disgust toward a homosexual or contempt for a lesbian. Similarly, a normal woman might find a lesbian repulsive and feel contempt for a homosexual. No matter what laws they pass, I don't think they will ever change that natural human response. They aren't looking for progress; they just want to indulge in their own hedonism.

Well, they can enjoy themselves... just not on our dime.

By the way, I guess you could clarify what exactly you mean by "debauched behavior."😂

nimblegardener7 said:If you look at how the word fear is used in the English language, it’s often linked to psychological conditions. And I guess that’s where the catch is. Homosexuals want to label anyone who finds their behavior repulsive as being "insane." It feels like a smear campaign to me... an attempt at brainwashing to build a society rooted in evil, where perfectly decent citizens end up being mistreated—or "treated," I suppose—in psychiatric wards because of some fabricated "illness" called "homophobia."

Because when you point out that they have psychological issues, they just want to fight... maybe because there's a certain darkness inside them. So much for their version of "normalcy."

I don't think any normal man or woman could feel fear toward something so unnatural. People claiming to have a phobia seem to need police protection, yet it feels like the police only exist to protect homophobic homosexuals. I mean, what is there to be afraid of? They’re supposedly the pacifists of their group; most can't even land a slap.

This whole idea of "homophobia" seems like a political label to me—just a way to flip values upside down and twist perspectives. It's a tactic to justify their warped views, but I guess not everyone is gullible enough to buy into it.

A natural reaction for any normal man might be a sense of disgust toward a homosexual or contempt for a lesbian. Similarly, a normal woman might find a lesbian repulsive and feel contempt for a homosexual. No matter what laws they pass, I don't think they will ever change that natural human response. They aren't looking for progress; they just want to indulge in their own hedonism.

Well, they can enjoy themselves... just not on our dime.

If anyone reading your post happened to mistakenly believe that you were "normal," I imagine this sentence has certainly made things clear 🤣🤣

Man, do you honestly think the internet would be flooded with lesbian pornography if "normal men" actually despised them? 🤣🤣

I guess I should say congratulations, because you just outed yourself 🤣

Edward Wilson82 said:Nah. A primitive is just someone who refuses to listen to their own conscience and common sense—specifically the part that tells them male and female aren't sexually compatible. Look, the whole foundation of sexuality relies on duality (male female). You take away that duality, and the whole concept of sexuality doesn't even exist.

I find myself wondering how they "don't fit" when roughly 5-10% of the population identifies as homosexual?

It seems that in those 5-10% of cases, they actually *do* fit. 🤷 That’s just what common sense would suggest. ☕

Furthermore, contrary to your specific definition, if you look at the internet(http://www.answers.com/topic/primitive), it seems an anthropological definition of a primitive person is someone who is uneducated, unsophisticated, or at a lower stage of development.

Edward Wilson82 said:Of course it will.

So, I suppose my initial point stands: certain behaviors trigger an aversive reaction—and I am certainly not referring to sexual contact here—but only when those actions are specifically associated with homosexuality.

If those very same behaviors are carried out by people we wouldn't typically categorize as homosexual—for instance, professional football players—then I suspect those same actions won't trigger that same aversion.

It follows, then, that it isn't merely the behavior itself (like hugging or physical familiarity) that causes the reaction; rather, the reaction seems to depend heavily on who is performing the action. ☕

Brandon Rivera2 said:I mean, who's actually getting into scraps there anyway...

It seems pretty obvious that whenever a soccer player scores, they tend to hug each other or grab one another by the backside quite frequently.