Geekhack LGBTQ+ thread

[demik]

What it comes down to for me, is that people should be allowed to be who they are without fear of discrimination. I have to believe that one of the worst ways to live is pretending to be something you are not, because of fear of acceptance or personal safety.  Often the ones who so staunchly profess "it is a choice, and you are choosing wrong" is because they struggle so hard to "choose right" and that must be an awful existence.

I agree with two exceptions.  First is "kin" people.  I work with people with schizophrenia and most of the tumblr-esque "kinfolk" I've heard sound like schizophrenics.  If you want to dress up as a vast abd **** someone's brains out while meowing, that's your thing.  I don't get it, but whatever.  Just don't go around telling me you're dolphin kin stuck in a person's buddy and you have conversations with dolphins in your headspace.

The second exception is people who engage in sex with persons or things that do not have capacity or ability to consent.  If you're attracted to children or animals or even bridges, that's fine.  Acting on it is not, be it through direct action it consumption.

demik really just hopes you're gay nubbs. It would crush him to think that he has no chance with you.

Mainly it's because I keep turning him down for a beehatch threesome.  He just can't understand how I could be monogamous.

Sending her to the store while you try to have your way with me is not a damn threesome.

[Sed8op8]

Well I must say I'm glad to see so much support from people! Hopefully this can be an ongoing thread, because I would love to connect with some other queer keyboard nerds because, as clacktalk was saying, it seems we're a bit of a minority.

yo wassup ★~(◡‿◡✿)

Hello?

I don't identify as gay(nor straight for that matter) but I was in a relationship with another women for a decent part of my late teens and early twenties. I'm an equal opportunity lover and hope to one day live in a world where people need not be gay or straight.

Its a pleasure to see another Vermonter who loves keyboards here on the forum 

[iri]

What it comes down to for me, is that people should be allowed to be who they are without fear of discrimination. I have to believe that one of the worst ways to live is pretending to be something you are not, because of fear of acceptance or personal safety.  Often the ones who so staunchly profess "it is a choice, and you are choosing wrong" is because they struggle so hard to "choose right" and that must be an awful existence.

I agree with two exceptions.  First is "kin" people.  I work with people with schizophrenia and most of the tumblr-esque "kinfolk" I've heard sound like schizophrenics.  If you want to dress up as a vast abd **** someone's brains out while meowing, that's your thing.  I don't get it, but whatever.  Just don't go around telling me you're dolphin kin stuck in a person's buddy and you have conversations with dolphins in your headspace.

The second exception is people who engage in sex with persons or things that do not have capacity or ability to consent.  If you're attracted to children or animals or even bridges, that's fine.  Acting on it is not, be it through direct action it consumption.

Agreed on the limitations...I mean, within reasonable limits. Like, no it is not okay be to attracted to your sister
(...)
I was speaking more the of the healthy forms of consent that people can give when they are of age and sound mind.

Why is it "not okay" to be attracted to your sister? Do you know that "not okay" goes perfectly with "to be gay"? Do you know that back in Roman Empire "not okay" was barely a thing? Who defines "not okay"?

Do you know that age of consent differs wildly in different communities?

What is "sound mind"?

[demik]

Sometimes sisters are pretty!

[nubbinator]

Sometimes sisters are pretty!

[Findecanor]

As for pride events, I recognize their significance but I do believe they hurt the cause of seeking inclusion and acceptance. I am opposed to public displays of affection (by anyone of any sex or gender towards anyone), not because it bothers me but because I believe it just doesn't belong in the public realm. As you might imagine I am therefore rather opposed to the typical format of a pride parade, at least in a larger city - the nudity and sexuality goes counter to the goal of being acknowledged as functional, non-sex-crazed members of society who are in no meaningful way different from anyone else...

I'm 100% straight, well, maybe 95%, but I love watching Pride Parades because they are so full of happy people. Such positive expressions of sexuality. You don't often see any other parades that are that .... well.. gay in the traditional meaning of the word as well as the modern.
What I don't like about them is that politicians are taking up such a large space in the parades, especially during election years. As if they would be afraid that people would consider them to be anti-gay if they didn't walk in the parade.

[inanis]

What it comes down to for me, is that people should be allowed to be who they are without fear of discrimination. I have to believe that one of the worst ways to live is pretending to be something you are not, because of fear of acceptance or personal safety.  Often the ones who so staunchly profess "it is a choice, and you are choosing wrong" is because they struggle so hard to "choose right" and that must be an awful existence.

I agree with two exceptions.  First is "kin" people.  I work with people with schizophrenia and most of the tumblr-esque "kinfolk" I've heard sound like schizophrenics.  If you want to dress up as a vast abd **** someone's brains out while meowing, that's your thing.  I don't get it, but whatever.  Just don't go around telling me you're dolphin kin stuck in a person's buddy and you have conversations with dolphins in your headspace.

The second exception is people who engage in sex with persons or things that do not have capacity or ability to consent.  If you're attracted to children or animals or even bridges, that's fine.  Acting on it is not, be it through direct action it consumption.

Agreed on the limitations...I mean, within reasonable limits. Like, no it is not okay be to attracted to your sister
(...)
I was speaking more the of the healthy forms of consent that people can give when they are of age and sound mind.

Why is it "not okay" to be attracted to your sister? Do you know that "not okay" goes perfectly with "to be gay"? Do you know that back in Roman Empire "not okay" was barely a thing? Who defines "not okay"?

Do you know that age of consent differs wildly in different communities?

What is "sound mind"?

Didn't think that opinion would be so controversial! To clarify, I mean it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find your biological sibling sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing your sibling is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them. As for this the "not okay" part, I thought my intent was clear, but it certainly was not, so I will clarify. I'm all for being whatever you want to be, and being with whomever you want to be with - assuming it is a healthy relationship between to consenting individuals that are capable and able to make informed decisions. Furthermore, I did not mean to imply anything about the age of consent. It was more about being of sound mind (ie, no influence of drugs/alcohol or mental and/or physical impairment, particularly where one individual may be able to hold undo power and influence over another).

Generally, my point was that people should be able to love who they want to love.

[CPTBadAss]

A wise man once told me: "Do you".

I liked you before trenzafeeds and I like you after this thread. To me, it's like telling me you're a Muslim or Canadian or Bisexual. We're cool all the same. Let's save the hate for those filthy Azerty and Topre lovers (I kid of course).

[nubbinator]

I dunno CPT, a bisexual white Muslim man from Toronto, Canada is a hard person to accept.

[CPTBadAss]

I dunno CPT, a bisexual white Muslim man from Toronto, Canada is a hard person to accept.

I would only find them hard to accept if they loved Topre and no other switch .

[digi]

Let's save the hate for those filthy Azerty and Topre lovers (I kid of course).

Whoa...whoa....WHOA!!!! Easy there Pal!! Topre is looovveee!

PSA - Buckling springs are for old farts who have no feeling left in their finger tips.

[nubbinator]

I dunno CPT, a bisexual white Muslim man from Toronto, Canada is a hard person to accept.

I would only find them hard to accept if they loved Topre and no other switch .

To be fair, it's mainly the Toronto thing that makes them hard to accept.

[Air tree]

So many dirty mx heathens in this thread.

I can't accept this.

[inanis]

So many dirty mx heathens in this thread.

I can't accept this.

I consider myself bi-switchual. I use both MX and BS every day. Come at me. 

[clacktalk]

STR8 PRIVILEGE IS A HELLUVA DRUG

[nubbinator]

So many dirty mx heathens in this thread.

I can't accept this.

I consider myself bi-switchual. I use both MX and BS every day. Come at me. 

We all have our kinks.  Sometimes I like it dry, sometimes I need it nice and lubed.  Sometimes I need to just hit that bottom hard, sometimes I just go slow and gentle.  Sometimes you just need to use rubber, sometimes you just want to insert and push a naked stem.




I think I've used up all the sexual innuendos I could think of.

[demik]

Hold the **** up. Topre hate I will not tolerate.

1v1 me all you heathens.

[paicrai]

LGBTBDSMRTFM

dont ur gay rights movements n stuff look like this where u come from

Show Image

more like this

(Attachment Link)

wow cool

hang ppl who make joke
edgy bad
scared of fire

[tp4tissue]

Hold the **** up. Topre hate I will not tolerate.

1v1 me all you heathens.

Topre...  Meh...

[meiosis]

Hold the **** up. Topre hate I will not tolerate.

1v1 me all you heathens.

topre is da best

[tp4tissue]

Hold the **** up. Topre hate I will not tolerate.

1v1 me all you heathens.

topre is da best

Switches don't matter..

[vivalarevolución]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

[Jokrik]

MX BLUES FOR LIFE 
FOR LIFE
FOR LIFE

[trenzafeeds]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

I agree that it is a bit impractical, if we could make it non-straight, non-cis that would cover everything. There is actually a movement I believe to change it to just GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which makes the most sense to me.

[vivalarevolución]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

I agree that it is a bit impractical, if we could make it non-straight, non-cis that would cover everything. There is actually a movement I believe to change it to just GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which makes the most sense to me.

GSM could be tough, the cell phone industry already has that acronym cornered.

[clacktalk]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

I agree that it is a bit impractical, if we could make it non-straight, non-cis that would cover everything. There is actually a movement I believe to change it to just GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which makes the most sense to me.

GSM could be tough, the cell phone industry already has that acronym cornered.

something along those lines beats a title that describes a group through exclusion though

let's meet halfway and have the world agree on Sexual and Gender Minorities

[trenzafeeds]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

I agree that it is a bit impractical, if we could make it non-straight, non-cis that would cover everything. There is actually a movement I believe to change it to just GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which makes the most sense to me.

GSM could be tough, the cell phone industry already has that acronym cornered.

something along those lines beats a title that describes a group through exclusion though

let's meet halfway and have the world agree on Sexual and Gender Minorities

OK, well if we have clacktalk's approval the changeover should go quite smoothly.

[vivalarevolución]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

I agree that it is a bit impractical, if we could make it non-straight, non-cis that would cover everything. There is actually a movement I believe to change it to just GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which makes the most sense to me.

GSM could be tough, the cell phone industry already has that acronym cornered.

something along those lines beats a title that describes a group through exclusion though

let's meet halfway and have the world agree on Sexual and Gender Minorities

I'll support anything that makes the conservative members of my family squirm when they hear it.

[paicrai]

Honestly, I wonder why we can't just start saying "non-straight" instead of adding another letter to the acronym every year.

I agree that it is a bit impractical, if we could make it non-straight, non-cis that would cover everything. There is actually a movement I believe to change it to just GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) which makes the most sense to me.

but how about that recogniseability
everyone knows what at least lgbt means
change it to msg or some **** it's gonna take an early retirement and a couple billion campaign ads to make sure like 7 people are aware of the switch

[iri]

it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find your biological sibling sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing your sibling is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them.

it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find a person of the same gender sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing a person of the same gender is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them.

[sth]

it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find your biological sibling sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing your sibling is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them.

it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find a person of the same gender sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing a person of the same gender is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them.

why

[baldgye]

it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find your biological sibling sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing your sibling is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them.

it is not typically considered a healthy behavior to find a person of the same gender sexually attractive and want to act on it. There is a great big old difference between knowing a person of the same gender is pretty (or handsome) and wanting to engage in physical, sexual intercourse with them.

Wait, so you see incest as on par with homosexuality?

[iri]

I am using the same logic.

[kishy]

As much as I hate to say it, iri is not wrong. Note my very careful selection of the words "not wrong" rather than "right"...

I am not in favour of incest, but the same logic that allows sex without procreation between two consenting adults of different sex/gender AND also allows sex between two consenting adults of the same gender also allows sex without procreation between two consenting adults of the same family.

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

[inanis]

Oh geez. This went somewhere I did not expect it to go.

I will say this - I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and can feel however they want. I feel my way, you feel yours. If that is the same, that's cool. If that is different, that is cool too. What I was expressing was my opinion, I do not have any control over society as a whole.

Let love rule and all that.

[azhdar]

Thx a lot kishy for your posts, you're explaining it so well.

[demik]

I have no beef with two consenting adults doing the dirty. Related or not. Not something I'd participate myself in, but if they're both okay with it... who am I to judge?

[kishy]

Oh geez. This went somewhere I did not expect it to go.

I will say this - I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and can feel however they want. I feel my way, you feel yours. If that is the same, that's cool. If that is different, that is cool too. What I was expressing was my opinion, I do not have any control over society as a whole.

Let love rule and all that.

That's what happens when you bring a lot of people of different backgrounds, different intelligence levels, different life experiences and different personal beliefs to discuss a polarizing topic.

This whole topic ultimately comes back to one essential concept - are we living our lives to fulfill our biological purpose or are we living our lives for our enjoyment and experience?

In modern society we are doing the latter, and so long as it is not done in a harmful way, there's nothing wrong with that...

[inanis]

Oh geez. This went somewhere I did not expect it to go.

I will say this - I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions and can feel however they want. I feel my way, you feel yours. If that is the same, that's cool. If that is different, that is cool too. What I was expressing was my opinion, I do not have any control over society as a whole.

Let love rule and all that.

That's what happens when you bring a lot of people of different backgrounds, different intelligence levels, different life experiences and different personal beliefs to discuss a polarizing topic.

This whole topic ultimately comes back to one essential concept - are we living our lives to fulfill our biological purpose or are we living our lives for our enjoyment and experience?

In modern society we are doing the latter, and so long as it is not done in a harmful way, there's nothing wrong with that...

Much agreed good sir. 

[iri]

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

As soon as procreaction is involved, same sex couples are wrong.

[baldgye]

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

As soon as procreaction is involved, same sex couples are wrong.

This thread is producing amazing statements

[demik]

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

As soon as procreaction is involved, same sex couples are wrong.

This thread is producing amazing statements

But he's right.

The church's main argument against gay marriage is that they can't procreate. So let's starts taking away marriage licenses to infertile couples. Also, test tube babies are against god's will. So, no marriage for those going that route.

[nubbinator]

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

As soon as procreaction is involved, same sex couples are wrong.

This thread is producing amazing statements

But he's right.

The church's main argument against gay marriage is that they can't procreate. So let's starts taking away marriage licenses to infertile couples. Also, test tube babies are against god's will. So, no marriage for those going that route.

Also, if the main reason for marriage is procreation, older, still virile men should not be allowed to marry women who have gone through menopause or going through menopause.

That's mainly the Catholic church that holds the procreation argument.  Most other churches make the "because it's gross" argument or point to the old testament, ignoring that the scriptures they so happily quote also ban divorce, state that you should marry your rapist, ban the wearing of mixed material clothing, tell women to keep their heads covered in church, tell women to be subservient to their man, and so on.

[demik]

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

As soon as procreaction is involved, same sex couples are wrong.

This thread is producing amazing statements

But he's right.

The church's main argument against gay marriage is that they can't procreate. So let's starts taking away marriage licenses to infertile couples. Also, test tube babies are against god's will. So, no marriage for those going that route.

Also, if the main reason for marriage is procreation, older, still virile men should not be allowed to marry women who have gone through menopause or going through menopause.

That's mainly the Catholic church that holds the procreation argument.  Most other churches make the "because it's gross" argument or point to the old testament, ignoring that the scriptures they so happily quote also ban divorce, state that you should marry your rapist, ban the wearing of mixed material clothing, tell women to keep their heads covered in church, tell women to be subservient to their man, and so on.

You mean there is hypocrisy in religion? Get out of here!

[kishy]

As soon as procreation is involved, incest is objectively (not just subjectively according to societal rules) wrong.

As soon as procreaction is involved, same sex couples are wrong.

This is not sound logic because procreation is not possible between two same sex people, therefore same sex couples cannot be wrong in the same way that incest resulting in pregnancy is wrong.

What can be inferred from what you're saying is that you believe sex for the sole purpose of enjoyment is wrong, and any time sex happens without the sincere intent of resulting in pregnancy is wrong. I do not agree with this.

Furthermore: you are neglecting to address the situation (which absolutely does occur) where two people of the same sex are involved in a relationship of the same nature as one might find in a marriage except that sex itself does not take place. You're trying to invalidate the emotional relationship due to not believing the physical relationship is valid.

[nubbinator]

My understanding of what he was saying is that if we are to believe that marriage and relationships are for procreation (which is a myopic and narrow point of view), then homosexuality would be objectively wrong since you cannot procreate in such a relationship.  You were making a point of genetics and the increased probability of problems arising in such a relationship, he was making a point of biology, stating that procreation is impossible in that kind of relationship.  Both are true facts and both are narrow, essentialist arguments that ignore the broader scope of the purpose that relationships serve.

[paicrai]

why is there talk about incest in here what the ****

[trenzafeeds]

why is there talk about incest in here what the ****

Someone asked "If the gays can marry, why can't me and my sister?"

[paicrai]

why is there talk about incest in here what the ****

Someone asked "If the gays can marry, why can't me and my sister?"

what even

[trenzafeeds]

why is there talk about incest in here what the ****

Someone asked "If the gays can marry, why can't me and my sister?"

what even

I mean not literally, it was marginally more reasonable sounding than that I think