B: The Forgotten Letter in LGBT

B: The Forgotten Letter in LGBT

There are 46 comments on the EDGE story from Apr 20, 2014, titled B: The Forgotten Letter in LGBT. In it, EDGE reports that:

You're a friend to everyone and subsequently an enemy to many. It must be so easy for you, people might say, you can just switch it off, and go for her or him, or whatever you wish.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#1 Apr 20, 2014
Bisexuals would get a lot more respect if gay men who are still partly in the closet and straight women who want to "experiment" stopped identifying as such. There most certainly are real bisexuals - my first partner was one, but there are also a lot of folks applying the label who are not. Unfortunately, the latter give bisexuality a bad rap.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3 Apr 20, 2014
And there we have it, Absolute projection!
Absolutely

Bladensburg, MD

#4 Apr 20, 2014
If you don't like the truth, don't read it.
CitizenKane201

Cedar Knolls, NJ

#5 Apr 20, 2014
Absolutely. You are a straight up dumbass.I don't get any impression that you add any value or substance to our shared world. You need to crawl back under your dark and stinking rock you pointless buffoon. Have a nice day.
Amos

Tempe, AZ

#7 Apr 20, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
If you suk a d!ck, you're a [email protected], simple as that.
Bingo!
Absolutely

Bladensburg, MD

#8 Apr 20, 2014
CitizenKane201 wrote:
Absolutely. You are a straight up dumbass.I don't get any impression that you add any value or substance to our shared world. You need to crawl back under your dark and stinking rock you pointless buffoon. Have a nice day.
Get lost [email protected], you're a waste of good oxygen.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#9 Apr 20, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
If you suk a d!ck, you're a [email protected], simple as that.
And if you never suk d!ck, you're a lesbian, simple as that. So which are you?
CitizenKane201

Dumont, NJ

#10 Apr 20, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
Get lost [email protected], you're a waste of good oxygen.
Whatever asshat! You WISH you were even half the man I am!! And regarding oxygen, it would be my distinct pleasure to take yours away if you have the balls to bring your coward mouth to Newark! And regarding waste, I imagine that you are a waste of a whole hell of a lot of space!! You are what's wrong with this country and the sooner you and your kind die off, the better it will be. Have a nice day absolute pussy.
Abe

Tempe, AZ

#11 Apr 20, 2014
CitizenKane201 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever asshat! You WISH you were even half the man I am!! And regarding oxygen, it would be my distinct pleasure to take yours away if you have the balls to bring your coward mouth to Newark! And regarding waste, I imagine that you are a waste of a whole hell of a lot of space!! You are what's wrong with this country and the sooner you and your kind die off, the better it will be. Have a nice day absolute pussy.
You mad bro?
CitizenKane201

Dumont, NJ

#12 Apr 20, 2014
Abe wrote:
<quoted text>
You mad bro?
Nope. Just tired of morons! You?
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#13 Apr 20, 2014
CitizenKane201 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever asshat! You WISH you were even half the man I am!! And regarding oxygen, it would be my distinct pleasure to take yours away if you have the balls to bring your coward mouth to Newark! And regarding waste, I imagine that you are a waste of a whole hell of a lot of space!! You are what's wrong with this country and the sooner you and your kind die off, the better it will be. Have a nice day absolute pussy.
Always provided " manhood " were synonymous with mental incapacity .. But if that's the case, you're right .
CitizenKane201

Dumont, NJ

#14 Apr 20, 2014
david traversa wrote:
<quoted text>Always provided " manhood " were synonymous with mental incapacity .. But if that's the case, you're right .
Por favor. Aprenda el idioma antes de intentar de estar 'clever' gillipolla.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#16 Apr 20, 2014
CitizenKane201 wrote:
<quoted text>
Por favor. Aprenda el idioma antes de intentar de estar 'clever' gillipolla.
Parece ser que es usted el que no llega a mi nivel .. y yo rehuso descender al suyo , ignorante !.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#17 Apr 20, 2014
PD " antes de intentar DE estar clever " es un solemne disparate .. y ¿ que le pasa ?¿ no sabe el equivalente de "clever " en español ?
Christshariahns R Cumin

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Apr 20, 2014
Abe wrote:
<quoted text>
You mad bro?
Now where have I heard that here?(Rizzo.)
Christshariahns R Cumin

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Apr 20, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
<quoted text>
If you suk a d!ck, you're a [email protected]
No one took you for bisexual.
ravett

New York, NY

#20 Apr 20, 2014
Let's go through the argument:
1) sexual preference is partially innate. Yes, it is.
2) that part must be based on physiology, not culture
3) but what aspect of physiology could influence infants?
4) vision is bad and ambiguous in infants.
5) therefore we must consider smell and taste.
6) virtually all other mammals are influenced by pheromones
7) recent evidence indicates we are too.
8) given that, what could cause an initial bias toward homo- and or bisexuality?
9) if our pheromone receptors responded to same-sex in preference to other-sex pheromones, our initial bias would be toward homosexuality.
10 if our pheromone receptors responded to both same- and other-sex pheromones, our initial bias would be toward bisexuality.
11) if our... blah, blah... our initial bias would be toward heterosexuality.
12) the sexual hormone receptors are very old, evolutionarily speaking, and not as well differentiated as "newer" receptors
13) therefore it would be easier for them to have small variants which would respond to multiple pheromones, than, say, receptors in the brain requiring precise responses.

Ok, people?

NOW, let's address another question. WHY would it be bad to CHOOSE to be a homo- or bisexual??
Well, it would if homosexuality was *intrinsically* immoral. Is homosexuality intrinsically immoral? Why?
a) it leads to child molestation? Go look on the web for HETERO child porn if you think that... and also, look at the numbers of young girls abused by fathers, brothers, etc. Homosexuality is no more likely to lead to that than any other sexual orientation.
b) anal sex is immoral? Come on. If you believe that, half the hetero porn on the web is equally immoral.
c) it's "unnatural"? Well let's go to the worst case and say it is. So is driving a car. So is wearing clothes. So is eating cooked food. And on and on... Clearly "unnatural" does not equal "immoral".

Since we can choose to wear clothes, etc., etc., why not be able to choose our sexual preferences, or at least modify the initial bias (above) if we want to?

Now, I know that the rationality here will not influence the dedicated irrational. But the above is for those who doubt themselves, if any of you read this. Cheer up! We're good!
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#21 Apr 20, 2014
ravett wrote:
Let's go through the argument:
1) sexual preference is partially innate. Yes, it is.
2) that part must be based on physiology, not culture
3) but what aspect of physiology could influence infants?
4) vision is bad and ambiguous in infants.
5) therefore we must consider smell and taste.
6) virtually all other mammals are influenced by pheromones
7) recent evidence indicates we are too.
8) given that, what could cause an initial bias toward homo- and or bisexuality?
9) if our pheromone receptors responded to same-sex in preference to other-sex pheromones, our initial bias would be toward homosexuality.
10 if our pheromone receptors responded to both same- and other-sex pheromones, our initial bias would be toward bisexuality.
11) if our... blah, blah... our initial bias would be toward heterosexuality.
12) the sexual hormone receptors are very old, evolutionarily speaking, and not as well differentiated as "newer" receptors
13) therefore it would be easier for them to have small variants which would respond to multiple pheromones, than, say, receptors in the brain requiring precise responses.
Ok, people?
NOW, let's address another question. WHY would it be bad to CHOOSE to be a homo- or bisexual??
Well, it would if homosexuality was *intrinsically* immoral. Is homosexuality intrinsically immoral? Why?
a) it leads to child molestation? Go look on the web for HETERO child porn if you think that... and also, look at the numbers of young girls abused by fathers, brothers, etc. Homosexuality is no more likely to lead to that than any other sexual orientation.
b) anal sex is immoral? Come on. If you believe that, half the hetero porn on the web is equally immoral.
c) it's "unnatural"? Well let's go to the worst case and say it is. So is driving a car. So is wearing clothes. So is eating cooked food. And on and on... Clearly "unnatural" does not equal "immoral".
Since we can choose to wear clothes, etc., etc., why not be able to choose our sexual preferences, or at least modify the initial bias (above) if we want to?
Now, I know that the rationality here will not influence the dedicated irrational. But the above is for those who doubt themselves, if any of you read this. Cheer up! We're good!
Reminds me of the golden age of dialectics .. Great job .
Chance

Grove City, PA

#25 Apr 20, 2014
ravett wrote:
Let's go through the argument:
1) sexual preference is partially innate. Yes, it is.
2) that part must be based on physiology, not culture
3) but what aspect of physiology could influence infants?
4) vision is bad and ambiguous in infants.
5) therefore we must consider smell and taste.
6) virtually all other mammals are influenced by pheromones
7) recent evidence indicates we are too.
8) given that, what could cause an initial bias toward homo- and or bisexuality?
9) if our pheromone receptors responded to same-sex in preference to other-sex pheromones, our initial bias would be toward homosexuality.
10 if our pheromone receptors responded to both same- and other-sex pheromones, our initial bias would be toward bisexuality.
11) if our... blah, blah... our initial bias would be toward heterosexuality.
12) the sexual hormone receptors are very old, evolutionarily speaking, and not as well differentiated as "newer" receptors
13) therefore it would be easier for them to have small variants which would respond to multiple pheromones, than, say, receptors in the brain requiring precise responses.
Ok, people?
NOW, let's address another question. WHY would it be bad to CHOOSE to be a homo- or bisexual??
Well, it would if homosexuality was *intrinsically* immoral. Is homosexuality intrinsically immoral? Why?
a) it leads to child molestation? Go look on the web for HETERO child porn if you think that... and also, look at the numbers of young girls abused by fathers, brothers, etc. Homosexuality is no more likely to lead to that than any other sexual orientation.
b) anal sex is immoral? Come on. If you believe that, half the hetero porn on the web is equally immoral.
c) it's "unnatural"? Well let's go to the worst case and say it is. So is driving a car. So is wearing clothes. So is eating cooked food. And on and on... Clearly "unnatural" does not equal "immoral".
Since we can choose to wear clothes, etc., etc., why not be able to choose our sexual preferences, or at least modify the initial bias (above) if we want to?
Now, I know that the rationality here will not influence the dedicated irrational. But the above is for those who doubt themselves, if any of you read this. Cheer up! We're good!
Not only is half the hetero porn on the web immoral, ALL of it is.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#26 Apr 20, 2014
Are you advertising for a relationship with either a man or a woman, or advertising to hook up with either one? By all means, declare your openness to either with the label "bisexual." if you are in a committed monogamous relationship, I don't understand why you have to label yourself as anything. Your relationship tells the world what you are. Calling yourself "bisexual" while you are in that relationship is unnecessary unless you mean to take on new sexual partners.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
JADE DiARY 6 min Butter Biscuit 3
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min barry 6,982
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 12 min anon 4
Straight man recalls horrific sexual assault at... 18 min Paul 9
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min Terra Firma 52,167
News This Gay Man Wants to End Texas' War Against LG... 27 min Tre H 27
News Charlize Theron admits to taking 'a dip in the ... 1 hr Wondering 16
News Blood donation rules relaxed for gay men and se... 7 hr Howser 30
News Gay couple grilled by judge about their sex liv... 16 hr TomInElPaso 108
News Catholic church in Cambuslang praised for issui... 22 hr Palin s Turkey Th... 3
More from around the web