Chitchat LG-B-T?

[Project Naiad]

No I am not confusing the two, however, I am reminding that they are related. Romance and sexuality don't identify, but they are not completely separate either.
That "romantically" speaking, platonically, such relations are at the same level, that I have even expressed myself over this discussion, I am not denying that. But in favoring one or the other, then considering they are at the same level romantically, but biology favors heterosexual ones, if any were to be promoted (and I took the time to underline that cause it's a set of words that has already been missed three times by the people who responded to me, or ignored at least), that would be the heterosexual relationship.

Yes, they can be related. But they don't have to be. One can have children without being in a romantical relationship, and can be in a relationship without having children.
Also I don't think we're ignoring your choice of words, you're speaking hypothetically, so are we.

 

[Idea]

Yes, they can be related. But they don't have to be. One can have children without being in a romantical relationship, and can be in a relationship without having children.

True, but also not something that goes against my point?

Also I don't think we're ignoring your choice of words, you're speaking hypothetically, so are we.

Yeah, but you did on several occasions make a strawman out of my point by assuming claims I didn't make

 

[Project Naiad]

True, but also not something that goes against my point?

Seems to me that it does. It's not heterosexual relationships that should be promoted. Just heterosexual sex. A 100% gay world would still function as well as a 100% hetero world.

Yeah, but you did on several occasions make a strawman out of my point by assuming claims I didn't make

And this is normal. We're speaking hypothetically, not of something that's very likely to happen. Light behavior is inevitable.

 

[Idea]

And this is normal. We're speaking hypothetically, not of something that's very likely to happen. Light behavior is inevitable.

It's not light, just in very poor taste. Instead of adressing what I actually said, some choose to claim that I said things I didn't.

Seems to me that it does. It's not heterosexual relationships that should be promoted. Just heterosexual sex. A 100% gay world would still function as well as a 100% hetero world.

Children are exclusively conceived from heterosexual type relationships. Even if science advances far enough to induce pregnancy, female organs and male organs are both still needed. This implies heterosexual relationships are, in a choice of exclusives, a higher priority. Alternates sexualities are a luxury of the individual. A luxury created in an environment of both advanced and reckless science, and a large population density. They exist and mean only in the individual's own sphere, but are only viable due to a larger structure that is capable of sustaining that luxury even as it doesn't contribute.

 

[Project Naiad]

Children are exclusively conceived from heterosexual type relationships. Even if science advances far enough to induce pregnancy, female organs and male organs are both still needed. This implies heterosexual relationships are, in a choice of exclusives, a higher priority. Alternates sexualities are a luxury of the individual. A luxury created in an environment of both advanced and reckless science, and a large population density. They exist and mean only in the individual's own sphere, but are only viable due to a larger structure that is capable of sustaining that luxury even as it doesn't contribute.

Once again you seem to imply that one has to be in a relationship to produce offspring. Love is not necessary to reproduction, which means that one can reproduce even while in a gay relationship, which means that a gay and hetero relationship are on the exact same level.

 

[Noble Scion]

The point Idea is after is that, if a relationship were to be promoted, as well as should the need arise, sexual relations that result in offspring would be promoted. He's not saying that a gay relationship would be frowned on, everything would still remain the same and nothing would be told to stop.
At least, that's my take on it.

 

[Project Naiad]

The point Idea is after is that, if a relationship were to be promoted, as well as should the need arise, sexual relations that result in offspring would be promoted. He's not saying that a gay relationship would be frowned on, everything would still remain the same and nothing would be told to stop.
At least, that's my take on it.

I'm well aware.
But there's a huge difference between saying: "Heterosexual relationships should be promoted" and "Heterosexual sex for reproduction should be promoted".

 

[Noble Scion]

I'm well aware.
But there's a huge difference between saying: "Heterosexual relationships should be promoted" and "Heterosexual sex for reproduction should be promoted".

Well you obviously knew what he meant. You're just trying to be a smart ass about it .-.
He mis-worded it, and instead of telling him that, you try to sound superior xp

 

[Idea]

Once again you seem to imply that one has to be in a relationship to produce offspring. Love is not necessary to reproduction, which means that one can reproduce even while in a gay relationship, which means that a gay and hetero relationship are on the exact same level.

We're going in circles here, so I will simply try one last time to put this in the simplest way I possibly can:
The only accountable difference in value between heterosexual and non-heterosexual relationships, which includes BOTH the romantic and sexual aspect, is the ability to reproduce. Thus, IF one WERE to be promoted, that would be the heterosexual relationship.

Not accounting for the sexual aspect is merely absurd, because it still exists.

In addition promoted does not mean the other should be rejetced or rights taken from it, but simply that , as a staple, one would favor the promoted one.

 

[Project Naiad]

Well you obviously knew what he meant. You're just trying to be a smart ass about it .-.
He mis-worded it, and instead of telling him that, you try to sound superior xp

Actually, Mr/Mrs White Knight, I've been telling them that since the beginning, you must have missed a post or two:

One can have children without being in a romantical relationship, and can be in a relationship without having children.

It's not heterosexual relationships that should be promoted. Just heterosexual sex. A 100% gay world would still function as well as a 100% hetero world.

Once again you seem to imply that one has to be in a relationship to produce offspring.

 

[Project Naiad]

We're going in circles here, so I will simply try one last time to put this in the simplest way I possibly can:
The only accountable difference in value between heterosexual and non-heterosexual relationships, which includes BOTH the romantic and sexual aspect, is the ability to reproduce. Thus, IF one WERE to be promoted, that would be the heterosexual relationship.

Not accounting for the sexual aspect is merely absurd, because it still exists.

In addition promoted does not mean the other should be rejetced or rights taken from it, but simply that , as a staple, one would favor the promoted one.

We're clearly not getting each other here.

 

[Idea]

Project Naiad I did also specifically mention that yes, they were separate, but no, they were not unrelated and inconsequential to one another (the romantic and sexual aspects of relationships).

In any case, you're right that we are not getting each other. I do have other more important matters to attend to, so I will be pulling out here.

 

[Tamara Vakarian]

A bi guy in a relationship with a girl is bi. Same if you were with a guy. I'm a bi girl, and I know exactly what you're talking about. I've been told I'm saying I'm bi for attention, I should pick a side, etc. But above all, we are the "B" in "LGBT+". Don't let people erase your idenity over something like this. You already get treatment like this from straight people. (I do, anyway.) You shouldn't have to take it from your allies, especially at Pride.

TLDR: It's not right. I want to scream when this happens.

 

[Error 420]

This got too close to flame war.

 

[bobbo_mush]

This got too close to flame war.

sadly, that seems to be a pretty common occurrence in threads about LGBT+.