DumFarang

3. Show me where I ever said, gay sex is more common than straight sex? I can't believe I ever said such a thing, I accuse you of BLATANT LYING. To make this clear to more clear minded people, I don't believe there is more gay sex going on than straight sex.

Jing, you did say something like this. I recall reading it as well. I'm not going to waste my time looking for it as it's futile and makes me dumber. You can find it yourself.

I have no link. You'll need to buy a current Abnormal Psych textbook (where's it made clear being GAY is NOT abnormal).

Jingthing, I haven't read what you've read on this specific point, but textbooks say a lot things that hold water as well as a colander. I'd reference something else if I were you. Just Google what Gazan textbooks say if you don't already know. It's not even accurate to say textbooks are written by the winners. They're just written by people who believe in what they're writing. I'm not even saying I disagree with you here, but quoting textbooks is going into war without your bulletproof vest.

Do you think two men having sex with the same woman at the same time is gay?

This made me laugh after reading the posts above. I read the first page then the last. The last page seems to have no relevance to the topic.

Why are monks giving guidance on living as a man in this day and age?

I'm glad someone got a laugh.

I once asked a ho in Bangkok if she thought it was gay, and, she answered unhesitatingly, YES!

What's relevance got to do with anything. All you hear today is Gay/Lesbian, and one other thing that escapes me. Talk about not relevant (irrelevant is not a word).

That pic's hilarious. I never knew it existed.

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Of course the reason makes a difference. How we're born etc. is completely out of our control, but when it comes to our kids we have the opportunity to make decisions on purpose that we know will make a kid's life more challenging or easier, depends on the issue. There's productively challenging children like giving them chores in return for an allowance, for example. Conversely the average responsible parent is able to comprehend the fact that just giving kids things they ask for, especially if they start crying, is temporarily easier but not productive for the well being of the child.

Well I guess that's off topic, but it seems to me that we are able to have quite a profound impact on children.

If I was in that situation where I had a child doing so badly in school and it was solely because I was living with a same sex mate, I would consider something wrong with the school if they can't stop the hazing. If they don'ty consider switching schools. Chances are I would if possible find a local conducive to the lifestyle.

My daughter goes to a school with the older brother of a student who is quite obviously gay or ladyboy at night, comes to pick him up regularly, no one bats an eye and least of all the kids. My daughter is taught to be nice to anyone regardless of their being different, just to be intolerant of mean, aggressive and exploitive people.

That sounds like it's here in Thailand. I guess I never said in any earlier posts that I was envisioning most of my arguments taking place in the U.S. where the gay marriage issue is a fairly hot debate. Here in Thailand, to my knowledge, there is no gay marriage debate b/c there's no gay or ladyboy marriage if I'm not mistaken. However, despite that the society is completely accepting of it, with the exception of this one temple in the article that's located somewhere probably in a forest or something.

Since we're back on that topic how many ladyboys have been to this temple anyway 6,7, or 8 out of how many thousands of ladyboys in this country alone? Wow, you can really feel a tidal shift in the ladyboy community imminently approaching!

Saving time and effort:

Dumfarang:

OK, let's ignore what ever posting habits Aimatic allegedly has.

Now with the fat cut away, all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from inter-racial marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are bullied at school for any number of reasons can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. Well, what about a kid from a bi-racial family?

Furthermore, by interracial couple choosing to marry they automatically remove the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

(That sound like a reasonable argument to you?)

EDIT to add address line and fix format

I don't see why you brought interracial marriage back into it. With those words substituted in it doesn't sound right to me, but with gay marriage put back in it makes perfect sense.

Now with the fat cut away, all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from super hero families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are bullied at school for any number of reasons can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. Well, what about a kid from a super hero family?

Furthermore, by a super hero couple choosing to marry they automatically remove the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

(That sound like a reasonable argument to you?)

Why not much more to say? You've had plenty to say before.

But let's stick with what you did say already:

A poster says:

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

Another poster replies:

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

You reply to first by saying:

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Then you reply to second poster with:

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached.

Now leaving aside, as per your wishes, these many and/or significant differences you see but are unwilling to discuss, why did you agree that the social stigma matters regarding inter-racial marriages -- but then dismiss that stigma that is shared as being unimportant?

In other words, you say the stigma should/could be a reason for same-sex couples not to have children but then when someone points out that very same idea held in the past (now far less socially acceptable as it was based on race), you say it doesn't apply.

EDIT cuz I messed it up.

You realize that we're unlikely to ever reach a point of agreement on this right. It's obvious that we just believe different things. People are quick to change their minds but slow to change their beliefs.

But, since you asked...

The full quote is:

"Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share."

Animatic has consistently tried to substantiate arguments by citing something different like this and basically arguing: well it wasn't true there so it must not be true here. That's why the first two sentences belong in this discussion. When viewed in the proper context I think one can quickly deduce that I meant you can replace interracial marriage in that quote with anything in the history of forever that has ever had a social stigma attached to it, and it doesn't make it similar to gay marriage just because they share the word stigma in their respective legacies. That's all that meant.

Now with the fat cut away all that's really left is the argument about kids coming from same sex marriage families who might have a tough time growing up. Well, just look at some facts. We know kids who are gay can have a very tough time and some give up and kill themselves. That's essentially what the whole "It gets better" campaign was about. Well, how far removed is a kid growing up in a gay family? I guess it could be pretty far if he/she is able to make sure nobody meets the parents. That might not happen though.

Furthermore, by granting gay marriages the right to have children a government automatically removes the possibility that a kid will grow up in a family that, on the outside, resembles a majority of the other families in the world. This potentially is a tough thing to lay on a kid by the time their age gets into the double digits.

Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share.

And yet that social stigma -- and the possibility of consequential bullying etc -- is precisely what you offer as a reason why gay couples should not have kids.

And in fact they share a great deal more than that -- things they share with all marriages. remove the "social stigma and there's little left that sets them apart. (And gay couples don't necessarily have any inherent or potential cross-cultural issues.

Well if removing the social stigma leaves two marriages that are otherwise similar in your mind then this is definitely where we just disagree, not much more to say I guess.

Life's tough, bullies will find a reason if they want one.

Makes no difference the reasoning,

they are no less cruel if you're a skinny geek than have two dads.

Same thing for being one of 3 black kids in a 2000 person white school either you man up and deal with it or you don't. Either way it's understanding one or another form if prejudice and fear in others. Doesn't change the love within the home.

Of course the reason makes a difference. How we're born etc. is completely out of our control, but when it comes to our kids we have the opportunity to make decisions on purpose that we know will make a kid's life more challenging or easier, depends on the issue. There's productively challenging children like giving them chores in return for an allowance, for example. Conversely the average responsible parent is able to comprehend the fact that just giving kids things they ask for, especially if they start crying, is temporarily easier but not productive for the well being of the child.

Well I guess that's off topic, but it seems to me that we are able to have quite a profound impact on children.

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

That is the argument used to discourage mixed racial child bearing.

We know now that was a bad idea.

Very few arguments have never existed before, Animatic. That it already exists for something else proves nor argues anything. Racially mixed marriages are really quite different from non-heterosexual marriages. The only similarity is both have or have had social stigma attached. That's all they share.

Starting a family is easy, maintaining one is a lot harder.

Marriage 'theoretically' ensured that men didn't impregnate women and then abandon them. We now know that single moms or dads can successfully raise children. Widows and widowers have been around since families started too.

We also know it is easier for couples to do so.

We are not new to having gays raising children, been happening for millennia.

It's newer, but still 2-3 generations on, for un-closeted gays to be seen publicly raising children.

It seems to be much easier to accept two women raising a child than two men.

There is no real evidence to suport the reactionary theories that they don't do it well.

Single men can raise a good child, having help can't be worse.

The question is how does the child deal with the prejudice of others,

knowing he has two loving parents at home and yet some hassle him

over who they are.

Sociologically it's the environment that will cause more or most of the problem,

Two gay men in NYC or Bangkok raising a child will see much less hassle for the child than trying it in Dubuque Iowa or Mobile Alabama,

where the child can expect much more hassle from others.

And after you have said all that, do you really think that it is fair on the child knowing all the hassles he/she will get from peers? One would think that they would become very much introverted and lock themselves away from society to avoid the teasing and hassles. Children can be extreemly cruel.

I agree it's hard enough for a kid when he/she is frail, clumsy, very geeky, or just different because of how they were born. Imagine a kid who would get picked on because of one of these also coming from a same sex marriage family. That just sounds really hard to deal with for a child.

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or maybe they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?

Thomas Beatie, the "pregnant man" who gave birth to a daughter in 2008 and a son the next year , is a father for the third time.

You mean a man named Thomas Beatie was born with ovaries and has been impregnated two times? Wow, that's incredible!

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

There need not be sustainable numbers of procreating gays and lesbians, because no one is saying, nor advocating, that all should turn gay since they are free to do so. This has always been a strawman argument of the change adverse... 'if we let them freely do this they will subverte the culture entirely'.

I've never understood why joining any 'couple of individuals' together as sustained and devoted partners with legal rights of assignment and child custody should in anyway diminish another couples relationship.

From a medical point of view in the age of AIDS etc, bonding couple of what ever genders THEY choose is a public health benefit and running against any sense of decadence.

From a sociological point of view joining couples creates family units that aid in sustaining themselves with out state assistance. Often there are earlier spawned children involved regardless of the couples procreate intent, and official joining them makes for more stable child rearing regardless of parental sex preferences.

There is if anything a social imperative to limit numbers of births, with out removing all procreation completely.

And we adopted an orphaned pre-teen niece to raise as our own, because this helps the situation, versus the wife and I procreating.

Which in no ways means I do not intend to have sex with the Mrs. regularly, even if we plan no babies. I reject anyones telling me the true purpose of our deciding to make love together and not make a baby...

Decadence –noun

1.the act or process of falling into an inferior condition

or state; deterioration; decay: Some historians hold that the fall of Rome can be attributed to internal decadence.

2.moral degeneration or decay; turpitude.

3.unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence.

4.( often initial capital letter ) the decadent movement in literature.

Often a culture is called decadent when it is in a state of flux or transition from one state to another. Often caused by thing such as Industrial Revolution, invention of gunpowder, over-population, over reach geographically by leadership, medical advances that alter the status quo of generations.

Progress in general often can be blamed by some as causing decadence. Also freedom of choice in one segment of a culture, can be abhorred by less free areas of and culture.

Essentially like inner city urbanistas vs rural agri-belt fundamentalists.

In some case segments of a culture move at differing speeds for different reasons, and the slower ones often cry DECADENCE while their children often assimilate and gravitate to the new modality.

Well to be honest I don't think we as a society quite know yet what will come of same sex partners raising children. The kids might be completely normal or they might be messed up. It might just depend on the family in question like it does with any other family. We don't have a long history of that yet, so it's too early to tell what will happen there, if anything.

I guess at this stage of the debate it just starts whittling down to what people believe. I have certain beliefs, almost none of which are rooted in any religion, although some people might think I'm some sort of fundamentalist. I'm a big believer in the function of marriage and family. Although I would be lying if I said I haven't had those days where I concluded that marriage must have been invented by women for the purpose of crushing man's urge to be a man, but that's beside the point.

As for my views I believe marriage is mainly centered around the idea of starting a family, the current legal/tax benefits not withstanding. So, what about the argument that gays make about the legal benefits of marriage? Hell, give them the benefits and call it a legal partnership, who cares. Just stop masquerading it around like it's ever going to be a true family or marriage.

Some people far wiser than me need to think about the issue of adoption, because I don't know if it's a good idea raising children around homosexuals or not, but it doesn't sit right with me.

If they have no interest doesn't mean they could not donate does it ??

Well a donation usually means a person gives to a cause they will not directly be helping out with, hence the donation is the help they're giving. So, yeah, homosexuals can contribute and then who does the child rearing? Who are the role models? What about family? Doesn't sound like a good system to me.

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

QUOTE= If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race.

Rubbish, it doesn't mean gays could not "perform" if things in the world get desperate, and also sperm banks can exist, and if it was that only gays were left to impregnate, to your idea's they are sterile??

your attitude then would mean only hetro's are a useful form of continuing the species? maybe you would think like others on this thread that all the offspring would turn out to be gay :lol:

I didn't say only hetero's can forward our species, just that they typically do.

Non-heterosexuals just have no interest in procreating. If we're ever in a "fine pickle" again how do you know there will be sperm banks?

Of course they could still have a societal value whether it be social, work related, or whatever, but they wouldn't be putting more butts in diapers on average, so what would be their legacy if they don't contribute something like art or inventions?

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

I can't answer for Jingthing but I think your question implies a somewhat incorrect view of evolution.

Evolution is not purposeful or directional. Traits and behaviors of those that successful reproduced in a species' genetic history are be passed on... Many of those traits and behaviors increased the the chances of survival for those ancestors... hence, they lived to pass on their genes. But not every trait or behavior increases survival, some are just passed on along the way.

People (and other animals who sexually reproduce) like sex because it feels good. It's a lucky coincidence that increased sexual activities tends to increase the chance of passing on one's genetic (which include enjoying sex). Homosexuals (past and present) also have/had the genetic trait of liking sex... that same sex intercourse does not lead to reproduction is just a circumstance.

The genetic trait passed on = pleasure from sex... not a "hardwiring" for species survival.

...and you think my interpretation of evolution is simplistic, wow. You combined and separated concepts there to fit your argument, because your argument doesn't fit so neatly into the reality. Evolution may not be purposeful or directional, and I never said it was, however, oddly enough, it does follow a course. It doesn't take random turns and do weird things like grow a hand on a person's butt, unless that's a very unfortunate defect of course. So in humans the fact that procreation equals survival, and it happens to be so pleasurable, evolved along side each other for a purpose. It may not be a purpose that we understand the way we understand the decision making process, but whatever it is that makes evolution tick stuck those two together and has kept it that way.

For all we know non-heterosexuality in its various forms serves an evolutionary purpose, maybe it's a control mechanism meant to control the population, even though if that's the case it obviously failed miserably.

Your point about passing on successful traits is of course true, so I think it's safe to say the procreation and enjoying the hell out of it were successful which gives them unanimously heterosexual origins.

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

But if we told you the guys in this picture were just

two straight drinking buddies in a very noisy bar,

and ones telling him in his ear about the hot girl

back at the bar that asked about him,

you probably wouldn't go "yuck".

But because you believed they are gay you are repulsed.

A learned response from your upbringing no doubt,

but an intolerant one.

Of course having lived in France I have hug lots of men friends

and never once was there a sexual component, it's just custom,

and no one is afraid of some implication being made.

Point taken, but a hetero would never grab another hetero like that to whisper something to him. But, sorry, I'm splitting hairs. It doesn't change your point which is right on.

!There is nothing "abnormal" about hot steamy MAN TO MAN sex!

Most lovers of ladyboys are straight identified, BTW, and there is a definite preference of LBs for straight identified men (though of course they aren't all the same).

MSM (men sex with men) is actually not the same thing as gay identified. Many males have MSM all over the world and don't identify as gay.

You have to qualify as gay now? Is there a membership card?

You must take a test, it's an two hour oral exam...

You could call the macho guy bisexual if you're getting literal about the sex he has. But usually he wouldn't think of himself as bisexual. In macho culture dominating a "weaker" male is considered extremely masculine and men who wouldn't do that would be seen as more feminine than a man who does. I am not talking about all Mexicans but a large subculture of Mexicans, usually working class. Yes it's relevant because each culture has different attitudes about these things, so this is about much more than sex acts themselves.

It's interesting that you brought it up, but, for me, it seems to exist in a cultural vacuum akin to prison culture. It doesn't make the point for me that you claim. I believe the terms you have provided have already been provided. Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Transsexuals all exist. That's uncontested.

You have to qualify as gay now? Is there a membership card?

No. But if there was, I would vote to blackball you.

Sorry you don't get this but here is an example for you as you clearly aren't really up on this subject.

In Mexican culture it is very common for "macho men" to top gay men (and get oral sex, etc.). Not talking about ladyboy trans types, men who look like men.

In their culture, not only do the straight tops not consider themselves gay, their society doesn't. These tops are having MSM but they are NOT gay!

Gay is not only the sex you have but how you think about yourself and your sexual orientation.

Are those two guys having homosexual sex? Well, yes they are, but only one of them is homosexual/gay.

Now if the macho in the example was EXCLUSIVELY having MSM and had access to females and never pursued them, well then I personally would say they are gay but are in denial. But that usually isn't the case in Mexican culture.

Okay, so there's a tendency towards bisexuality in Mexican culture. I didn't know that. Am I allowed to use that word or do I have to identify something with the scientific method?

!There is nothing "abnormal" about hot steamy MAN TO MAN sex!

Most lovers of ladyboys are straight identified, BTW, and there is a definite preference of LBs for straight identified men (though of course they aren't all the same).

MSM (men sex with men) is actually not the same thing as gay identified. Many males have MSM all over the world and don't identify as gay.

You have to qualify as gay now? Is there a membership card?

You've heard of 'practising homosexuals'? Well, we have to keep practising till we get it right

Yes in your own very small mind of course you are. You never begin a sentence with And Mr phenomenal.

You're on grammar now? Beginning a sentence with a conjunction requires a comma to follow it. Why are we on this now? This was an interesting debate about homosexuality, ladyboys, and their place in a culture.

!There is nothing "abnormal" about hot steamy MAN TO MAN sex!

Most lovers of ladyboys are straight identified, BTW, and there is a definite preference of LBs for straight identified men (though of course they aren't all the same).

MSM (men sex with men) is actually not the same thing as gay identified. Many males have MSM all over the world and don't identify as gay.

You have to qualify as gay now? Is there a membership card?

Agree with you sentiments, but most gays on this board are attracted to masculine men not lady boys / transsexuals. Apparently lady boys are used by heterosexual men in the main? Do a search loads of information on this in previous topics.

Yeah, but I think his point is about the sexual orientation of the ladyboys. They don't care who takes them up on a sexual offer be it a straight man or a gay one. I completely agree with the point. A man who wants to have sex with men is gay. How he dresses, etc. etc. as far as it goes aren't disqualifying factors in my mind either.

Of course they don't because the whole thing is poverty related, as mentioned in my earlier post. your previous post did not go over my head ( arrogance) but don't see the relevance to this topic. and i still detest the emotion crap. Homosexuality was rife in Roman times, but we are discussing lady boys are we not. Not homosexuals. There appears to be a difference. I have been to Korea many times and i don't agree with your statement.

Well I didn't visit Korea. I lived there. Koreans will deny that homosexuality exists in their country. The funny part is you'll see men who lean on each other and rest on each other and stuff like that, while wearing pink sweaters mind you, but it doesn't exist, so they claim.

Anyway, I can't believe you're so caught up on the word homosexuality. If being a ladybody had been fashionable in ancient Rome and Athens then that would be my example. As this wasn't the case it's not.

What they were or condoned is immaterial. My point is cultural not sexual, not sexual, not sexual, not sexual.

Of course you can reply. You just have to delete two quotes. And, yes, I am phenomenal.