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: 1928

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.
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).

It already was 'hijacked'... probably more than once.
@ 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 don't see anything logical in stretching the defintion of a biological reproductive act to include all intimate activity.

Nobody is stretching it that far. It is being used to describe forms of intercourse that stimulate the sex organs for pleasure or for reproduction. I'm really not saying you have to agree with that, but it's not a linguistics issue. Scientific usage is almost always more specific and contextual that common usage of terms.

The objectionable part should be restricted to three letters 'sex'. You've used the term same-sex sex numerous times, but by classical biological definitions, the second 'sex' in that term isn't actually sex. Why is is that you are so lax with the term 'sex' but so tight with the term 'sexual intercourse'? It's inconsistent.
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.

Sorry. I'm not even disagreeing with your post so much as it is my sincere hope that people start to move away from religious monopolies on certain terms and traditions.

As for humans and bisexuality, I'd wager that most humans do not fall squarely into perfect heterosexuality or homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that everyone is bisexual or even that most people are. Sexual orientation is about whom you are sexually attracted to more than whom you have sex with.

A heterosexual man may get off because another man gave him a hand job, but how much of a statement on his sexuality is this? That same heterosexual man could have orgasmed while dry humping his pillow at night, or while humping a hole drilled into that wall. Do those instances of sexual gratification imply anything about his sexual orientation? Or do they just conform to the fact stimulation without sexual attraction can be enough to get someone off?

I think it's difficult to sort out sexual attraction in many cultures because of the fierce stigmatization of non-conventional sexuality. On top of any existing biological factors, I think that cultural and psychological factors further muddle our feelings on the matter. For instance, some people say that they are repulsed at the thought of acting against their sexual orientation. Is there any biological basis for this repulsion, or is it strictly (or dominantly) psychological?

And... I'm rambling.
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

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 0 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service