Results of first pornography poll

[_Yoda]

Droopy is not gay.

He's totally gay.

No, he really is not. And it is disingenuous to state that he is. Droopy is a member of the LDS Church in good standing, and is married.

[_Buffalo]

No, he really is not. And it is disingenuous to state that he is. Droopy is a member of the LDS Church in good standing, and is married.

Yes, many gay people fit that description.

[_Droopy]

Droopy is not gay.

They all know that, Liz. The entire anyone-who-disagrees-with-homosexuality-is-a-closeted-self-hating-homosexual himself who can then be conveniently "outed" in lieu of providing substantive counter-argument is an old and well polished tactic.

Proponents of the sexual revolution in the sixties and seventies used a very similar debate circumvention technique (opponents of pansexual hedonism and libertine sexual attitudes are really sexually repressed closet hedonists themselves, chomping at the bit to jump into as many beds as possible but for all their "hang ups.").

None of these folks - none of them - can actually defend the pro-homosexual position philosophically. Hence, throw popcorn at the screen.

[_Droopy]

No, he really is not. And it is disingenuous to state that he is. Droopy is a member of the LDS Church in good standing, and is married.

Yes, many gay people fit that description.

Not likely, as at 3% or less of the population, their simply aren't enough homosexuals to create a numerically substantial sub-group of that kind within the Church.

Within any such demographic, there are bound to be a tiny minority of people susceptible to SSA.

[Guest]

Droopy is not gay.

They all know that, Liz. The entire anyone-who-disagrees-with-homosexuality-is-a-closeted-self-hating-homosexual himself who can then be conveniently "outed" in lieu of providing substantive counter-argument is an old and well polished tactic.

Proponents of the sexual revolution in the sixties and seventies used a very similar debate circumvention technique (opponents of pansexual hedonism and libertine sexual attitudes are really sexually repressed closet hedonists themselves, chomping at the bit to jump into as many beds as possible but for all their "hang ups.").

None of these folks - none of them - can actually defend the pro-homosexual position philosophically. Hence, throw popcorn at the screen.

I'm not judging you, Droops. I'll be your shoulder to cry on when you're ready to come out.

And while it HAS been scientifically verified that homophobes statistically are more likely to become aroused by watching gay porn, that's not the only basis for thinking you're gay. It's the way, when the topic comes up, you obsess over the details of the mechanics of gay sex, over and over again, and how icky you claim to think it is.

[_Droopy]

And besides, he really IS gay.

Taking note that if this were a public newspaper, magazine, or other similar venue, and Buffalo was not an isolated anonymous internet coward but a real person with a real name, this would, at this point, probably be actionable, I'd like to call for a CFR on this assertion.

If you could be so kind as to provide your evidence in support of this claim.

[_Buffalo]

And besides, he really IS gay.

Taking note that if this were a public newspaper, magazine, or other similar venue, and Buffalo was not an isolated anonymous internet coward but a real person with a real name, this would, at this point, probably be actionable, I'd like to call for a CFR on this assertion.

If you could be so kind as to provide your evidence in support of this claim.

See above.

Again, not judging you, Droopy. It's not your homosexuality that makes you so reprehensible as a person. It's your personality.

[_Quasimodo]

None of these folks - none of them - can actually defend the pro-homosexual position philosophically. Hence, throw popcorn at the screen.

I've never called you gay, Droopy, but I think a philosophical defense of homosexuality is pretty easy. Gay people are gay.

They're born that way (oodles of scientific data supporting that). It's another natural, human condition that does not need to be vilified.

You should consider crusading against something that is an evil. Maybe bigotry.

[_Buffalo]

None of these folks - none of them - can actually defend the pro-left-handedness position philosophically. Hence, throw popcorn at the screen.

[_just me]

And besides, he really IS gay.

Taking note that if this were a public newspaper, magazine, or other similar venue, and Buffalo was not an isolated anonymous internet coward but a real person with a real name, this would, at this point, probably be actionable, I'd like to call for a CFR on this assertion.

If you could be so kind as to provide your evidence in support of this claim.

Hmmm. Kinda like how you've called me a pansexual hedonist? Which, by the way, I don't think you ever answered me when I asked what definition you are using for the term "pansexual."

Here is what I have found on the term. Just let me know how you are using it. http://dating.about.com/od/glossaryword ... sexual.htm

Definition:
The term pansexual can take on a variety of different meanings depending on which social group the term is being used in, but it is generally defined as someone who is attracted to other people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. The word pansexual is used as an inclusive term as opposed to bisexual, as bisexuality only refers to people liking both men and women, and does not including a wider variety of gender neutral or gender fluid terminology.

Pansexual can also refer to an organization, event or group. In this situation, the pansexual is defined as meaning open or welcome to all genders and not referencing one's sexual orientation or gender.

Occasionally, pansexuality is defined as a person who displays their sexuality in many different ways, or as someone who is open to a variety of sexual activities, although both of these definitions have become rare.