Being Straight is a Lifestyle Choice

from JoeUser Forums
Benefits for straight married couples make no more sense than benefits for homosexual couples do. Because deciding to cohabitate with a person of the opposite sex, procreate, all that -- well, it's a lifestyle choice. Those people who argue that being straight is pure biology, like being black or white, need to wake up and smell the pheromones.

Nobody makes you act on your urges, whatever they are -- heterosexual or homosexual. And yet straight people seem to think they deserve some sort of compensation for giving into their urges while denying people with differing urges the same compensation. Deny them all, I say. Let everybody fend for themselves, and let the chips fall where they may.

Given all the people who think that that homosexuality is purely a personal choice, I must conclude that giving into any physical urge must be an anomaly. Therefore, a life of pure abstinence is the only natural choice for the human who wants to live his/her life to the fullest. Don't have sex with the same sex if you want to. Don't have sex with the opposite if you want to. Don't eat. Hell, don't even breathe. Those are all physical urges. You must deny them.

Where do we draw the line? It might be easier and more beneficial to a free society to give people the freedom to make their own choices. And if we don't support compensation for some of those choices (the dirty sex ones) then why support them for all the dirty sex ones? After all, there's only a couple of inches between sticking a penis into a vagina and sticking it into an asshole. And we've ripped the country apart over those couple of inches.

Don't give the homos any rights based on their sexuality. This is fine with me. But stop giving heteros rights, too. To hell with all you weak specimens who can't control your physical urges.
politics
17,134 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's a purpose in heterosexual sex beyond 'sticking it in' as you so crassly describe. Society is benefitted by stable homes cranking out healthy taxpayers. That's why there have always been benefits offered, all the way back to the Roman empire, to people who provide stable families.

In terms of homosexual sex you are right though. Just 'sticking it in' so since it has no value to society, and it shouldn't be promoted or rewarded. Frankly, I think it is patently obvious that many homosexuals can't tell the difference between building a family and screwing.

Kind of sad that you see these benefits rewards for sex, instead of what they reall are. Does nothing to overcome the stereotype that being gay is just about sex.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
And we've ripped the country apart over those couple of inches.


T'ain't it a shame...
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Ripped the country apart" is a joke. The vast majority of people give more thought to what brand of toothpaste they buy.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Baker.. not all straight sex is about
cranking out healthy taxpayers
if it was then there would be a hell lot more

healthy taxpayers


out there than the world could accomodate and there would be a whole lot of horny men and women out there too from lack of sex because they didnt want children. so sometimes..
Just 'sticking it in'


needs to be done.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course sex is more than just "sticking it in."

Which was my point.

Hetero-only advocates seem to think that homosexual sex is purely physical. It is not, just as heterosexual sex isn't. But thanks for proving the point -- a 'lifestyle' choice for some, then for all...biology for some, then for all.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Baker, PB and Shovel.  This guy is just a flame thrower.  Hiw very article cries out for some one to ask why is a beastiality life style not as valid.  necrophelia?

It is a straw dog meant to incite only.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
T'ain't it a shame...


Excellent! You gave me a great laugh!

Hiw very article cries out for some one to ask why is a beastiality life style not as valid. necrophelia?


I don't support compensation for necrophiliacs or bestialiacs, either. Although it says much for your own mindset that you would take sex between two consenting adults and liken it to sex with animals and dead people.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
" But Baker.. not all straight sex is about..."


The article is about those aspects that are rewarded by society. It isn't the 'sex' that is rewarded. To my knowledge there aren't any tax breaks or other extras for straight sex. The author is incapable of seeing the difference between creating families and sex, and then pretends that was his point.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
there aren't any tax breaks or other extras for straight sex


But there are for straight marriage. Which implies sex. Perhaps not for you, but for most.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you scratch your ass while donating money to charity, you aren't getting a tax break for scratching your ass. There is sex in marriage, but that doesn't mean the benefits are offered because of it.

Stupid point, made worse by you dancing around trying to keep it afloat.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can donate money to charity without scratching your ass. Can you have a marriage without sex? Perhaps you can tell us how it is done.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
See, there used to be a time in this world where "famliy" had more meaning than just political buzzwords. Society was smart enough to realize that strong family units = strong communities, and stong communities make up a strong nation.

Then people got selfish and decided that family don't mean crap, all the means anything is looking out for #1.

People somehow got the idea that sex doesn't cause kids. People somehow got the idea that we, as people, live in a vacuum and "my actions and decisions don't effect anyone but myself". People also started getting frustrated anytime someone else so thoughtlessly reminded us that their actions just might effect not only our decisions, but the choices that are available to us.

Couples said to heck with each other, and to heck with the kids, "my happiness comes first." Immature babies went to court, using their kids as nothing more than legal leverage in the hunger for revenge and "my happiness comes first". People without kids resented their tax money being spent on playgrounds and schools, because "my happiness comes first".

Now we have gay people using the immaturity of the above infantile adults as an excuse to join in on the "my happiness comes first" bandwagon.

Yes, you do (and should) have the right to decide who you want to love, who you want to live with and all that. However, the words "Husband""Wife""Marriage" and "Family" have legal and societal definitions. If you want those definitions changed, you'd better have a lot better reason than citing the excuses of immature heterosexuals.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Frankly, I think it is patently obvious that many homosexuals can't tell the difference between building a family and screwing.


Agreed Bakerstreet, except I would extend that to what society has become in general.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hetero-only advocates seem to think that homosexual sex is purely physical. It is not, just as heterosexual sex isn't. But thanks for proving the point -- a 'lifestyle' choice for some, then for all...biology for some, then for all.


Are you willing to qualify that "all" or should it be legal and socially acceptable for anyone to "stick it in" anyone that will accept it?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it is a grand example of how some homosexuals function, like in PB's recent 'intimacy' blog. Married people have sex, sex is all-important, so sex must be the point of marriage, and any benefits offered because of marriage are offered for sex.

Excellent example of why most people oppose gay marriage. The author doesn't seem to understand marriage or take it seriously, so the stereotype continues.

"Agreed Bakerstreet, except I would extend that to what society has become in general."

True, I know what you mean. In terms of homosexuality, though, the difference is all the more highlighted when someone makes a freudian slip like this.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ted >> Thanks for the most interesting comment I've had yet, one that had some real conviction.

But I'm not debating anyone's claim to the title of "family" -- I'm just saying that people can call family whatever they will, and every citizen gets the same rights. That means no marriage compensation for anyone.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hate to bust in on your ignorance, but married folks without kids have had it worse than single people for a long time. That's the 'marriage penalty' that has been addressed recently.

Maybe you should outline what kind of breaks or compensation you are bitching about.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't support compensation for necrophiliacs or bestialiacs, either. Although it says much for your own mindset that you would take sex between two consenting adults and liken it to sex with animals and dead people.

you did not specify 2.  how about 1 and  a dog?  3? 1 and  a corpse?  you opened the door.  i am equating nothing.  i am just stepping through metaphorically.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
married folks without kids have had it worse than single people for a long time


I always thought it was a punishment until they fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply. So the breeders are my true enemy here? Just checking.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
i am just stepping through metaphorically.


A metaphor is a comparison. Which means equating one thing with another.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you don't know what kind of compensation you are talking about, then you don't know if the compensation exists, and maybe you don't know enough to be whining about the government paying heterosexuals to screw. Perhaps it would be better to know what they hell you are talking about before you start blogging.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why, I was calling for no compensation for everybody. You seem to think there should be some.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Common Sensei, here is the mindset that is being further by everyone who wants to weaken the legal and social definitions of "family""husband""wife" and even "minor child".....

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad http://www.nambla.org/


When arguing for "Freedom" be careful whose "freedom" you are concurrently arguing for!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ted >> Thanks for the most interesting comment I've had yet, one that had some real conviction.But I'm not debating anyone's claim to the title of "family" -- I'm just saying that people can call family whatever they will, and every citizen gets the same rights. That means no marriage compensation for anyone.


Thank you!

You may not be arguing about what people can call "family" but you are arguing for a change of the legal and social definition of "family". Of course anyone who feels the need can say people are "like family", but it is through the legal and social definitions that what you call the "benefits" come. Many people argue that all this talk of "gay marriage" is nothing more than a means of weakening the family unit in our society. Your article goes far to reinforce their point.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, I'm arguing that "family" is a meanignless and stupid concept, and "marriage" even more so.