So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an erection...so were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 2566

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In French word usage is a little more specific:

fellation, sodomie, I love precise linguistics :)

These words are actually exchanged between lovers, ie «j'ai envie de te sodomiser»
It's not so much about the range of actions as it it linguistic hijacking. In the past couple of years, as is demonstrated by the pages and pages of discussion behind these topics in Wikipedia, non heterosexual lovers have been been tugging at the blanket and trying to redefine the term "sexual intercourse" to mean any sexual activity. Rendering the term sexual intercourse nearly useless. It's biological terminology valid across a large spectrum of the animal kingdom to mean the penetration required to reproduce. I think the blanket pulling going on over this terminology for the sake of PC is actually quite funny! Personally I don't use the word sex for any other use than sexual intercourse, everything else has it's own terminology. If I suck a dick, I don't call it sex, why should I call it sex if I suck a clit???

Anyway, it's been a real fun debate!
Hear, hear! I call for world meetings of ecumenical, agnostic and atheistic interests to finally hash out and settle on specific, sexual terms. Invite representatives from OED, Roget's, NYT, Watchtower... keynote speeches by experts in their field such as Clinton, Pinker, The Pope, massage therapists, a variety of Benobo specialists. (Optional) after hours social events, documented by PBS, NatGeo, Cosmo, and The Onion.
I hearby hijack the term hijacking. Now I can say that hijacking has been going on for centuries. I'm not being sarcastic... just playing with how I can hijack (and spin).

Meanwhile--as I mentioned earlier--lack of consensus on terminology has been a major flaw in this discussion, altho it's still been enlightening at times. I even found myself looking up the word "copulation" to see if perhaps its definition had changed recently, after reading about lesbian albatrosses having copulation. So I'm still wondering how penetration is allegedly achieved, since the word copulation was used.
@ Paul
"They were female couples, conscientious parents, and engaged in just about all the activities together that other couples do – except for physical sexual intercourse. Instead, they would find a male albatross purely for copulation so that they could produce a fertilized egg. "

somehow you seem to have erred on who was copulating with who! LOL
logical extension... or mr gadget rubber stretchable arm?

I don't see anything logical in stretching the defintion of a biological reproductive act to include all intimate activity.
@ T A A you seem to have erred on who was copulating with who! LOL

But... I read it in a blog! I was even starting to imagine devices they might have at the nest... smooth rocks from the beach, or something, right? Then I remembered that some female animals have penis-like parts. (Hyenas?)

Your info sounds more credible. Funny thing is, after all this, I don't even remember why this is important any more. I can't even remember what "bisexual" means, now. Is it something like "twice a week"?
I'll admit to using the three letter word loosely, not as pertains to my own actions but for others sake.

What I disagree with is taking a perfectly valid scientific statement "sexual intercourse" and turning it into some vague meaningless concept in order to be more 'inclusive'. I agree with media and politics and heads of corporation having more 'inclusive' hiring practices, but in matters of linguistics, I disagree with taking precise terms and reducing their precision. IF in 10 years all dictionaries place the imprecise definition as common as the precise defintion, then fine, I'll live with that, but until then, I will fight the degradation of words. But lets start a separate thread on linguistics, as we've run out of replies and derailed this one sufficiently :)

As for my personal nomenclature of same-sex sex, the purpose is to exclude 'personal preferences'. Since using the a term such as gay sex would have precluded all other categories. So same-sex sex can be said of folks of ANY gender preference. Sorry if I failed to make that clear.
This is so hilarious to me...... If I went to my wife and said 'lets have sex and she said "No, your penis hurts my vagina too much, lets go down on each other......or try anal."

ROFLMFAO I could give up 'sex' forever... Shit I could even call myself chaste.. I could have my cake and EAT it too..(or would that be pie? )

If sex was only penis in the vagina the porn industry would not exist.

The term sex as it is used by modern society has grown to cover MUCH more ground then just biological reproduction.

I mean if you poke you rod in for 3 seconds and ejaculate.. YOU might think you had sex...but I doubt if your partner would think that they did. Technically you'd be correct.....but if you gained a reputation for being a 3 seconder your numbers in the gene pool would go way down.
As the word sex as very imprecise and seems fluid (pardon the pun) in nature, I think context is everything.

We are not so much in disagreement about the word sex, which means all or nothing depending on who you talk to, but the specific biological term sexual intercourse.

Personally if a guy only got to third base with me he better not say he had sex with me. :P
Just to touch a side note and get it out of the way with; I wish people would stop perpetuating the notion that that marriage is a religious thing. Yes, the tradition as our cultures observe it is heavily steeped in religion, but the core concept itself, and the way that many people practice it in modern times has nothing to do with religion.

Haha! Yeah, as I was reading the original post, that was the first thing I was going to address in my comment. Thanks for saving me the trouble!
I agree as well.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service