Posts by Ryan Wood98

Brandon Rivera2 said:Seriously though, who's actually getting worked up over stuff happening in public? Does everyone really need to witness everything? People are only as free as society lets them be...

It isn't as if everyone is forced to watch; I suppose people can always just look away.

I find this thread to be quite helpful, as I suppose I sometimes tend to forget that there are people like alex out there in the world. Threads like this serve as a necessary reminder.☕

Brandon Rivera2 said:I mean, why would two dudes need to be getting aggressive in public anyway?...

But wouldn't you consider a football stadium to be a public place?

Edward Wilson82 said:Nah—it's just projection stemming from an inability to accept biological reality.

Are you suggesting that being primitive is biologically predetermined? That you view it as some kind of disorder?

Edward Wilson82 said:Homo behavior is just sexual activity with someone of the same sex.

Are you suggesting that if, for instance, two men were walking through Times Square, hugging and fondling each other, it wouldn't trigger any negative reactions from bystanders?

driftingbadger5 said:You don't get privacy in public. Period. I can snap your picture whenever I feel like it and blast it online because, legally, anyone can photograph anyone else in a public space. All you people making out and getting handsy—doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, bi, lesbian, or asexual—you’re the ones asking for it.

Personally, watching a guy and a girl make out in public grossed me out, or two guys doing it, but when it's two girls? That's actually cute.

😉 Keep your junk in your pants until you're home. 😂

I actually happened to be at a restaurant the other day and saw two women share a brief kiss. Later on, we ran into them out on the street, and they were walking arm-in-arm.

They seemed very lovely together, just appearing quite happy and in love.

It was a really nice thing to witness. I suppose they made the city feel a bit brighter.

Edward Wilson82 said:It’s not about being averse to homosexuality—it’s about the behavior.

I am not sure I agree with that. For instance, athletes often engage in very homoerotic behavior, yet that usually doesn't trigger any strong negative reactions from the public.

I suppose if two football players are being intimate behind closed doors, people tend to overlook it, but if two random civilians are making out in the middle of a busy plaza in downtown Chicago, they might actually face a risk of being harassed or attacked, whether verbally or physically.

Edward Wilson82 said:Some people just refuse to accept that the aversion to homosexuality—or any other sexual orientation, including things like incest—isn't about society or culture. It’s biology. Period. They’re basically just fighting themselves at this point, not the Church or some bunch of conservative Neanderthals.

So, is an aversion to the Church and conservative extremists supposedly innate?

Douglas Nelson57 said:The moment those deviants hit the streets, their lifestyle started affecting society at large—unfortunately. If they would just stick to their own corners, maybe shady alleyways or certain questionable neighborhoods, instead of these activists dragging everything into our public squares, we wouldn't be dealing with any friction.
☕

Until I saw the word "activist," I actually thought you were referring to the Church. 🤷

Brandon Rivera2 said:So, I'm trying to wrap my head around what "homophobia" actually means and what specifically falls under that umbrella...
Is it just thinking homosexuality is unnatural but then not really doing anything about it? Or is it being against things like marriage equality or adoption rights without being physically aggressive toward people? Basically, what specific traits does someone need to have to be labeled a "homophobe"... because the term gets thrown around all the time, but it feels like nobody's ever quite clear on what they actually mean by it...

Well, let me try to explain it to you.

Suppose you have a brother who is gay. Or maybe just somewhere on that spectrum.

Are you following me so far?

Now, let's say your brother is still in the closet.

Do you see where this is going?

You walk into his room completely unaware, while he's hiding away in there.

Then, he decides it is finally time to come out.

But instead of doing it calmly, he jumps out suddenly and yells, "BOO! I'M GAY!!"

And you end up being startled out of your wits.

In that moment, I guess you would be considered homophobic.

Does that make sense now?

goldenmason32 said:I don't quite follow—why would she keep eating bacon if she knows it's prohibited? It seems she's facing the consequences of her damaged arteries. ☕
I often wonder why liver transplants aren't given to people struggling with alcoholism. There was one notable exception, though, and that was Bob Dylan.
Because of him, someone else who wasn't even an alcoholic ended up being denied a transplant... 😠

So what now? Why couldn't Bob Dylan just buy a new liver every few years? 🤷 A person like that could probably afford it. We aren't living under a command economy where everyone is limited to just one liver. ☕

goldenmason32 said:No, that's a whole different conversation. But if you look at the actual intent behind this new legislation, it seems designed to ensure the wealthy get top-tier care by incentivizing all the best specialists to move into private practice. This leaves the less fortunate stuck in hospitals staffed by either inexperienced doctors or generalists who haven't specialized...🙄
That is precisely why I am against banning doctors who work in public hospitals from having private practices...

I suppose you might be right if we lived in a world where physicians were always perfectly honest. But in reality, we often see doctors performing subpar work at public clinics, while patients who "can't wait for an appointment" are redirected to their private offices. Consequently, patients in the public system end up unable to get seen because the doctor simply isn't available during regular working hours.

Susan Rodriguez72 said:You have a point. But following that logic, shouldn't smokers be solely responsible for their own medical bills if they end up with lung cancer? The warning is clearly printed right on the pack; therefore, they bear full responsibility for the consequences.

By that same token, should office workers be expected to foot the entire bill for treating scoliosis or other posture-related issues?

We could even take this theory a step further: perhaps those struggling financially shouldn't be entitled to free healthcare. After all, I suppose one might argue that being poor isn't anyone else's fault. If they had wanted to build wealth, they surely could have found a way to do so.

So, this is what the American healthcare system looks like.

I suggest you listen to some upbeat music!

For instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Psnx...eature=related

casualharbor9 said:???
Women in Switzerland didn't even get the right to vote until 1971.
http://www.swissworld.org/en/people/...right_to_vote/
And what about the hundreds of millions in the Islamic world?

Fifty years ago, Black people were considered an inferior race, and today we have a Black man as President of the USA!
I expect that within 25 years, the LGBTQ+ community will have all their rights too!

That’s an optimistic way of looking at it. The pessimistic view is that we'll be striking flint just to try and start a fire...

Well, I suppose we all know that Switzerland is probably one of the most stubborn countries in Europe. ☕

I suppose I should mention that xguru hasn't shared any updates lately. It seems they might be stepping back from the conversation for a while, though I can't say for certain. Perhaps they are just busy with other matters. kaže:
Is a parent being homophobic if they request that, should anything happen to them, their child be adopted by a man and a woman rather than a same-sex couple? I suppose it depends on how one defines the term, though I imagine it’s a complicated question. Maybe there are underlying motivations involved that aren't strictly rooted in prejudice, or perhaps there is. It seems like a nuanced situation where intentions and personal beliefs intersect.

That’s probably true. I suppose he would care deeply about his child being raised by good people—people who will actually love them and look after them—regardless of their gender.

I suppose I should probably address the points raised by xguru regarding the recent market shifts. It seems there is a growing consensus that we might be overlooking certain underlying vulnerabilities in the current economic landscape. I guess one could argue that while the immediate indicators look positive, the long-term stability remains somewhat uncertain. Perhaps it would be wise to remain cautious as we move forward. kaže:
Is a child who expresses a desire for both a mother and a father, rather than two mothers, being homophobic? I suppose one might wonder if such a preference stems from bias, though I suspect the reality is likely more complex. It seems possible that a child is simply reacting to the traditional family structures they see around them or perhaps just expressing a fundamental longing for both parental figures. I guess it isn't necessarily an act of prejudice, but rather a reflection of how they perceive the world at their current stage of development.

It is possible that this child was raised in an environment shaped by homophobic attitudes, which might naturally lead to certain predispositions toward becoming homophobic themselves. 🤷
In our society, I believe that most children are raised with homophobic views. If they don't inherit those biases from their parents, then they likely pick them up from the environment around them.

redharbor9 said:From what I can tell, he only ever focused on the fringe elements of the gay community—basically just the people looking for clout and TV time. He didn't give a damn about regular folks or actual issues, so yeah, he basically did a great job feeding into those tired old stereotypes...

Man, then it could arguably be called heterophobic too, considering the show also seems to focus solely on freaks from the hetero population who are just looking for TV fame and attention, while ignoring 🙄normal people
entirely.

Could someone please explain how the host of "Red Carpet" managed to end up on a list of top homophobes?

I don't follow the show very closely, so I'm not entirely sure what he actually said or did, but from what I have seen of the program, it honestly feels quite... how should I put this... homoerotic?

Daniel Wilson5 said:Oh, this gives me just enough room for some poetic expression:

In the grass so green and bright,
little calf, you graze so light,
near your mother, sweet and small,
waving tails to one and all.
My little baby beef, so fine,
you have no clue what fate is mine,
a violent, bloody, sudden fate,
and a tender roast upon my plate!

Well, there you go. Neither cattle nor tomatoes are human beings, so they don't possess feelings comparable to human communication. That makes the comparison quite amusing, actually. But here is where my actual problem lies, because this is clearly an issue. Satisfying needs is instinctive, primitive, and animalistic. Sure, you have to eat, drink, and fight to survive... but shouldn't sex be a more refined act that separates us from the animals? Shouldn't it? Are you people really equating yourselves to beasts by having sex without using your brains?

I suppose I have to ask, why would it need to be? 😕

In my view, human sexuality seems to be much closer to animalistic behavior than, say, the way humans eat compared to animals.

Daniel Wilson5 said:So, look, what I’m actually getting at isn't about nymphomania... it's something else entirely. I just don't wrap my head around these impulses where sex becomes the absolute priority. Honestly, I can't even relate to that mindset, which is why I struggle with it. I thought maybe someone could give me a professional perspective here. For instance, the idea of sex without any emotional connection makes my skin crawl—though I suppose that's just labeled a "female dysfunction" by some... And sure, I get the occasional grooming thing, but treating constant sexual pursuit as a full-blown lifestyle? It’s bizarre. How is it possible for some people to never develop actual feelings for others? Are they just brain dead? You know... are they just flatliners? That's what scares me. I genuinely cannot fathom where that state of being comes from. I just want to understand it so it feels less alien... and so I don't feel so threatened by people like that. That's all.

Well, I have been in a long-term, stable relationship for quite some time, so I don't really participate in that kind of behavior, but I do understand the drive. I think it is quite clear that sex provides an incredibly intense sense of pleasure, and it makes sense that people want to be intimate with those they find sexually attractive 🤷 And naturally, if you meet someone while out on the town and take them straight to bed, you haven't truly gotten to know them yet; and if you haven't known them, there isn't necessarily a requirement to develop deep emotions toward them 🤷

It is almost as if you are treating a sexual partner like a life-sized doll. Though, in those cases, that partner is likely treating you the exact same way.

Even though, from an evolutionary standpoint, men might be more inclined toward having multiple partners while women might lean toward forming attachments, I suspect that modern social influences have shifted things significantly, leading to many different scenarios today.