Gay DNA found

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
What if a straight guy checks you out just because he's curious? Are you going to start interrogating everyone that takes a piss next to you? Make them fill out a questionnaire before they can unzip their fly?

WTF...because he is curious?? about what exactly conjur and just because they are curious does that make it OK...sorry but if I am pissing I DON'T want to have people checking out my wanker plain and simple and it is highly rude of people if they would do so, if I noticed someone doing it then I would tell them to back the eff up and if they kept it up I would either get the authorities or give them a nice smack in the head and then got the authorities.

If you are that hypersensitive, then you are just going to have to avoid the stalls in public restrooms, I guess. There are no laws outlawing individuals glancing at your "wanker" (to use your terminology) in the public rest room. If you choose to physically assault someone, then I assume you will be prosecuted.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You offer no convincing argument here that homosexual sex is immoral.

didn't know that it was my job to argue morality, i figure we've all got our convictions from the Lord how we act on them is a personal thing.

I am not a xian, I am an atheist, and I do not share your perverted xian beliefs.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

What exactly is traditional sexual morality, anyway?

sex as blessed by God in the covenant of marriage.

Which god are you referring to, there are so many after all.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

This is justifiable on public health grounds, & there is plenty of data indicating you can get communities of gay men to change their sexual behaviors towards safer sexual practices with highly targeted public health messages

I think the truth about the higher likelihood of breakage and disease transmission is something that we should make publicly available.

?if I could choose this why would I? people chose to be counter to the culture there in and often fight with all they are simply to hold on to the self-image they?ve created.

Greeks didn?t have any gays, but the men had sex with boys, it?s not a matter of ?gentics? but how those in a society react to weakness of flesh.

do you think that just because you can prove that the flesh is week that it means that you shouldn?t rise above that?

Your comments here don't seem to have much of a relationship to my comments.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
From an evolutionary perspective, sex has many more than 2 purposes. From our subjective, psychological perspective, sex serves many roles, including providing pleasure, relieving stress, strengthening romantic and social bonds, passing time, and so on. On rare occasions, sex will lead to procreation. (Of course, the vast majority of sex among humans that takes place does not result in the birth of a child).

Your requirements for ethical sex are arbitrary, and make no sense to me. In fact, your requirements for ethical sex are religious-based. (Altho a fvck-wit like you no doubt would argue they stem from natural law.) According to your criteria, someone masturbating at home, alone, is engaging in an unethical act. I find that to be silly.

My own, primary criteria for morally acceptable or ethical sex would be whether on not the sex is consensual.

I'm glad you see fit to call me a fvck-wit. It proves that your level of maturity and intellect are just about equal. It makes me glad because at least you won't be reproducing and spreading your idiocy to future generations.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
From an evolutionary perspective, sex has many more than 2 purposes. From our subjective, psychological perspective, sex serves many roles, including providing pleasure, relieving stress, strengthening romantic and social bonds, passing time, and so on. On rare occasions, sex will lead to procreation. (Of course, the vast majority of sex among humans that takes place does not result in the birth of a child).

Your requirements for ethical sex are arbitrary, and make no sense to me. In fact, your requirements for ethical sex are religious-based. (Altho a fvck-wit like you no doubt would argue they stem from natural law.) According to your criteria, someone masturbating at home, alone, is engaging in an unethical act. I find that to be silly.

My own, primary criteria for morally acceptable or ethical sex would be whether on not the sex is consensual.

I'm glad you see fit to call me a fvck-wit. It proves that your level of maturity and intellect are just about equal. It makes me glad because at least you won't be reproducing and spreading your idiocy to future generations.

I wonder why you assume I won't be reproducing? It's always been my intention to have kids at some point. I call you a fvck-wit because you are a fvck-wit. (I like to call a spade a spade). It's interesting that you can't get past what you perceive as insults, and deal with the meat and potatoes of the post. Hypersensitive, are we?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I wonder why you assume I won't be reproducing? It's always been my intention to have kids at some point. I call you a fvck-wit because you are a fvck-wit. (I like to call a spade a spade). It's interesting that you can't get past what you perceive as insults, and deal with the meat and potatoes of the post. Hypersensitive, are we?

There's no point in trying to debate issues with you. You claim to have all the answers, regardless of the level of education you have on the subject. You resort to insults to draw attention away from the fact that, generally, you have very little idea what you're talking about. You know you can't discuss ethics with me and have any hope of coming out on top, so you resort to petty name-calling. It's demonstrative of your stature as a person.

 

[Tab]

I'll ask again: do you disagree that the purpose of our sexual faculties are both unitive and procreative in nature?

That's what the intent is obiviously... Doesn't mean we can enjoy though...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: PsychoWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I wonder why you assume I won't be reproducing? It's always been my intention to have kids at some point. I call you a fvck-wit because you are a fvck-wit. (I like to call a spade a spade). It's interesting that you can't get past what you perceive as insults, and deal with the meat and potatoes of the post. Hypersensitive, are we?

There's no point in trying to debate issues with you. You claim to have all the answers, regardless of the level of education you have on the subject. You resort to insults to draw attention away from the fact that, generally, you have very little idea what you're talking about. You know you can't discuss ethics with me and have any hope of coming out on top, so you resort to petty name-calling. It's demonstrative of your stature as a person.

Actually, it is you who claims to have all the answers. Hence your absurd categorical statement that sex for purposes other than procreation or strengthening of the unity (lol) of a relationship is "unethical". LOL at your fvckwitted notion that sex can have only have 2 legitimate or acceptable purposes. LOL at your disingenuous over-stating of the risks associated with sex, and your black and white thinking re: the best way to deal with those risks. A little more honestly, and a little less arrogance from you, fvckwit, would be great.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Actually, it is you who claims to have all the answers. Hence your absurd categorical statement that sex for purposes other than procreation or strengthening of the unity (lol) of a relationship is "unethical". LOL at your fvckwitted notion that sex can have only have 2 legitimate or acceptable purposes. LOL at your disingenuous over-stating of the risks associated with sex, and your black and white thinking re: the best way to deal with those risks. A little more honestly, and a little less arrogance from you, fvckwit, would be great.

Maybe if you spent more time in school and less at the bar, you'd have as good a grasp of ethics as you do personal attacks. Until then.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
God I like being intellectual but you are going overboard dude. Some dude grabs your john area and you aren't going to hit him? Is what I did really that bad to you? Even women said it wasn't that bad.

If someone is grabbing your crotch, that is a form of sexual assault, and I'd guess you would be legally entitled to defend yourself from that.

Originally posted by: Proletariat
I don't understand the overcompensation part either. Believe me, I am not closet gay. I respect gay rights and marriage but I find what PhillyTim is doing annoying. It seems as if gays want to have their cake and eat it too. "I want to stay in men's locker rooms and check out their cocks and bodys and faces while they shower". DUDE I want to be able to do that in womens locker rooms. Can I? No.

Look either u get ur own locker room. Or I get to go to the womens one

The male locker room is my own locker room. I am male, after all.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Actually, it is you who claims to have all the answers. Hence your absurd categorical statement that sex for purposes other than procreation or strengthening of the unity (lol) of a relationship is "unethical". LOL at your fvckwitted notion that sex can have only have 2 legitimate or acceptable purposes. LOL at your disingenuous over-stating of the risks associated with sex, and your black and white thinking re: the best way to deal with those risks. A little more honestly, and a little less arrogance from you, fvckwit, would be great.

Maybe if you spent more time in school and less at the bar, you'd have as good a grasp of ethics as you do personal attacks. Until then.

If you object to personal attacks, why then do you employ them yourself? Hypocrisy much, fvckwit?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
If you object to personal attacks, why then do you employ them yourself? Hypocrisy much, fvckwit?

No, just making sure I haven't underestimated your stupidity and demonstrating that, unlike yourself, I can at least feign intellect above a third grade level.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
If you object to personal attacks, why then do you employ them yourself? Hypocrisy much, fvckwit?

No, just making sure I haven't underestimated your stupidity and demonstrating that, unlike yourself, I can at least feign intellect above a third grade level.

Your feigning of intellect above a third grade level isn't convincing:

"sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical." - PsychoWizard.

Your comment above demostrates a simplistic, black-and-white, egotistical thinking style, it is in fact a thinking style characteristic of a child.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Your comment above demostrates a simplistic, black-and-white, egotistical thinking style, it is in fact a thinking style characteristic of a child.

I'm trying to reach you on your level. Instead, you try to paint in hundreds of shades of gray to obscure the truth that is obvious when displayed in such contrast as I present it. I'm sorry if being educated makes me come across as egotistical, but I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon. Now, if you can deny that the two purposes that I laid out are at least two of the purposes of human sexual faculty, even if not the only two, then please explain.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Your comment above demostrates a simplistic, black-and-white, egotistical thinking style, it is in fact a thinking style characteristic of a child.

I'm trying to reach you on your level. Instead, you try to paint in hundreds of shades of gray to obscure the truth that is obvious when displayed in such contrast as I present it. I'm sorry if being educated makes me come across as egotistical, but I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon.

"sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical." - PsychoWizard.

Your incapacity to entertain the philosophical or moral vantage point of others, your overwhelming certainty that you alone are right (as evidenced in your absurd statement, bolded, above), your attitude that you are the arbiter of what is right (for everyone!) as far as ethical sex is concerned, is indicative of a self-centered (egotistical) viewpoint. Your black-and-white thinking style is also indicative of a gross cognitive immaturity. I'd be interested to know what you mean by "educated", certainly you don't display any of the critical thinking skills an educated person might be expected to possess.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Now, if you can deny that the two purposes that I laid out are at least two of the purposes of human sexual faculty, even if not the only two, then please explain.

There is no doubt sex serves the biological function of facilitating procreation. Similarly the notion that sex can result in deepened emotional intimacy between the participants is hardly controversial.

Sex has many other roles, tho. Sex can be a simple source of pleasure. It can be a way to relieve stress. It can strengthen friendships. It can be a source of income. And so on. To my mind these are all perfectly legitimate uses or roles for sex.

The onus is on you to explain why you think masturbation, or sex for pleasure's sake, is unethical:

"sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical." - PsychoWizard.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Your incapacity to entertain the philosophical or moral vantage point of others, your overwhelming certainty that you alone are right (as evidenced in your absurd statement, bolded, above), your attitude that you are the arbiter of what is right (for everyone!) as far as ethical sex is concerned, is indicative of a self-centered (egotistical) viewpoint. Your black-and-white thinking style is also indicative of a gross cognitive immaturity. I'd be interested to know what you mean by "educated", certainly you don't display any of the critical thinking skills an educated person might be expected to possess.

BS and MS in chemical engineering, a BA in philosophy of ethics, and on the way to a DSc in biomedical engineering. Sorry if I find it difficult to achieve your level of enlightenment, but what you see as your own open-mindedness is just a misunderstanding of ethical principles. You try to twist my own words in a childish way to excuse what you perceive as your own unethical behavior. You take my comments personally, not realizing that I'm here to debate ideas rather than attack you. Did I ever say I can meet all of these ethical goals? Did I say I expect anyone here to meet them? No to both, yet you try to make this a personal struggle. I can tell you what is or is not ethical and you can do with that information whatever you like. It's no skin off my back in any case.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Your incapacity to entertain the philosophical or moral vantage point of others, your overwhelming certainty that you alone are right (as evidenced in your absurd statement, bolded, above), your attitude that you are the arbiter of what is right (for everyone!) as far as ethical sex is concerned, is indicative of a self-centered (egotistical) viewpoint. Your black-and-white thinking style is also indicative of a gross cognitive immaturity. I'd be interested to know what you mean by "educated", certainly you don't display any of the critical thinking skills an educated person might be expected to possess.

BS and MS in chemical engineering, a BA in philosophy of ethics, and on the way to a DSc in biomedical engineering.

And yet you lack basic critical thinking skills. That is inexcusable.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Sorry if I find it difficult to achieve your level of enlightenment, but what you see as your own open-mindedness is just a misunderstanding of ethical principles. You try to twist my own words in a childish way to excuse what you perceive as your own unethical behavior.

I do not perceive my own behaviors as unethical. I don't engage in behaviors that I believe are unethical or immoral.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You take my comments personally, not realizing that I'm here to debate ideas rather than attack you. Did I ever say I can meet all of these ethical goals? Did I say I expect anyone here to meet them? No to both, yet you try to make this a personal struggle. I can tell you what is or is not ethical and you can do with that information whatever you like. It's no skin off my back in any case.

You can provide your opinion on what is and is not ethical. Unfortunately, you have a habit of stating your opinions as if they are established fact. For example:

"sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical." - PsychoWizard.


btw this is not a personal struggle for me, I respond to you the way I'd respond to ANY ignorant, arrogant and pompous blowhard.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

What is hard for you to understand? That is why we have seperate bathrooms and showers.

I don't understand why all the straight guys are getting so much flak for being concerned about it. I don't like the idea of gays checking me out and/or touching me and have in the past hit people for doing it. Even women would do that if you were staring at their pussy/boobs.

That's some type of insecurity within yourself. I won't try to venture into that. But you shouldn't hit people for looking at you. That is the worst type of overcompensation.

God I like being intellectual but you are going overboard dude. Some dude grabs your john area and you aren't going to hit him? Is what I did really that bad to you? Even women said it wasn't that bad.

I don't understand the overcompensation part either. Believe me, I am not closet gay. I respect gay rights and marriage but I find what PhillyTim is doing annoying. It seems as if gays want to have their cake and eat it too. "I want to stay in men's locker rooms and check out their cocks and bodys and faces while they shower". DUDE I want to be able to do that in womens locker rooms. Can I? No.

[n] excessive compensation
[n] (psychiatry) an attempt to overcome a real or imagined defect or unwanted trait by overly exaggerating its opposite

How am I doing that?

Look either u get ur own locker room. Or I get to go to the womens one

I didn't know the guy grabbed your crotch. If a guy grabs your crotch, well be my guest and hit him. I thought you meant you hit him because he looked at you funny.

I have been in locker rooms with naked guys. And I have seen some attractive guys naked. But I never talked to them nor did I try to touch them, nor did I give them a second look. Most gay guys won't. There are good gay people who aren't interested in getting into your pants. Chances are you know a few but are unaware. Then there are the gays that give homosexuality a bad image. You've seen them. The sun pails in comparison to those guys.

"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm
"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
What if a straight guy checks you out just because he's curious? Are you going to start interrogating everyone that takes a piss next to you? Make them fill out a questionnaire before they can unzip their fly?

WTF...because he is curious?? about what exactly conjur and just because they are curious does that make it OK...sorry but if I am pissing I DON'T want to have people checking out my wanker plain and simple and it is highly rude of people if they would do so, if I noticed someone doing it then I would tell them to back the eff up and if they kept it up I would either get the authorities or give them a nice smack in the head and then got the authorities.

Sounds like the attitude of the stereotypical ignorant southern redneck. "Ima gonna kick yer ass, i love you-boy!"


:roll:

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm
"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

True. But in rock climbing, football and sky diving you should always have your safety gear, and in sky diving don't you usually sign a waiver? But alot of guys don't use safety gear when having sex. And there is certainly no waiver.
In my opinion, it's a bad way to live. You risk getting infected, and infecting others with STDs. And I am not at all saying promiscuous homosexuals are the only people who contract and spread STDs.
And plus I just don't like that lifestyle. I think it's risky and pointless. If you are a man, and want to be with another man, go for it. But why be with 100 different men? Or even more in some cases? It makes no sense to me.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm
"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

True. But in rock climbing, football and sky diving you should always have your safety gear, and in sky diving don't you usually sign a waiver? But alot of guys don't use safety gear when having sex. And there is certainly no waiver.
In my opinion, it's a bad way to live. You risk getting infected, and infecting others with STDs. And I am not at all saying promiscuous homosexuals are the only people who contract and spread STDs.
And plus I just don't like that lifestyle. I think it's risky and pointless. If you are a man, and want to be with another man, go for it. But why be with 100 different men? Or even more in some cases? It makes no sense to me.

It's one thing to say that kind of lifestyle is risky and dangerous and that you don't like it, but it's another thing to say people living that lifestyle are bad people.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm
"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

True. But in rock climbing, football and sky diving you should always have your safety gear, and in sky diving don't you usually sign a waiver? But alot of guys don't use safety gear when having sex. And there is certainly no waiver.
In my opinion, it's a bad way to live. You risk getting infected, and infecting others with STDs. And I am not at all saying promiscuous homosexuals are the only people who contract and spread STDs.
And plus I just don't like that lifestyle. I think it's risky and pointless. If you are a man, and want to be with another man, go for it. But why be with 100 different men? Or even more in some cases? It makes no sense to me.

It's one thing to say that kind of lifestyle is risky and dangerous and that you don't like it, but it's another thing to say people living that lifestyle are bad people.

I didn't say bad people. I said bad gays. Referring to their homosexual lifestyle only. Calling someone gay refers to their homosexuality, but does not encompass their entire personality.
But that is just my opinion.
I have a friend, who has settled down since, but used to be pretty promiscuous. He would meet guys online and then meet them in parking lots. He would get in their car, and well, you know what would happen then. It scared me that he was doing this. I was dating a guy at the time, and we broke up, and within a few days my friend had had sex with my ex. That truely scared me. I consider what he was doing wrong and bad. I feared for him, and the people he was with. He was still my friend, and is a good person.
I guess he was just going through a phase.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
And yet you lack basic critical thinking skills. That is inexcusable.

According to you. But, then, you're just an ignorant, arrogant, blowhard as you so eloquently put it. I'll take the judgment of a roomful of PhD's over some internet jackass. Sorry to say, they tend to disagree with you mightily. Go read a book. Oh, and glad to see you laugh in the face of reason yet again just because you'd rather live in direct opposition to it.

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
And yet you lack basic critical thinking skills. That is inexcusable.

According to you. But, then, you're just an ignorant, arrogant, blowhard as you so eloquently put it. I'll take the judgment of a roomful of PhD's over some internet jackass. Sorry to say, they tend to disagree with you mightily. Go read a book. Oh, and glad to see you laugh in the face of reason yet again just because you'd rather live in direct opposition to it.

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong. I like gay guys. Alot.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm
"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

True. But in rock climbing, football and sky diving you should always have your safety gear, and in sky diving don't you usually sign a waiver? But alot of guys don't use safety gear when having sex. And there is certainly no waiver.
In my opinion, it's a bad way to live. You risk getting infected, and infecting others with STDs. And I am not at all saying promiscuous homosexuals are the only people who contract and spread STDs.
And plus I just don't like that lifestyle. I think it's risky and pointless. If you are a man, and want to be with another man, go for it. But why be with 100 different men? Or even more in some cases? It makes no sense to me.

It's one thing to say that kind of lifestyle is risky and dangerous and that you don't like it, but it's another thing to say people living that lifestyle are bad people.

I didn't say bad people. I said bad gays. Referring to their homosexual lifestyle only. Calling someone gay refers to their homosexuality, but does not encompass their entire personality.
But that is just my opinion.

So the "bad gays" are the gays who engage in sexual and other behaviors that you, personally, do not approve of, whereas the "good gays" are gays who lead a lifestyle that you DO approve of? That seems like a very arbitrary classification scheme. How is that any different to the religious right classifying all gay people as bad because of the sexual behaviors they imagine we all engage in (sexual behaviors they disaprove of)?

I wonder if you resent these "bad gays" because you think their behavior somehow reflects poorly on the "good gays" such as yourself?

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
I have a friend, who has settled down since, but used to be pretty promiscuous. He would meet guys online and then meet them in parking lots. He would get in their car, and well, you know what would happen then. It scared me that he was doing this. I was dating a guy at the time, and we broke up, and within a few days my friend had had sex with my ex. That truely scared me. I consider what he was doing wrong and bad. I feared for him, and the people he was with. He was still my friend, and is a good person.
I guess he was just going through a phase.

The fact he slept with your partner indicates a lack of loyalty to you as a friend, I would have thought.