singlepurposeaccount

It seems like half of the questions in this category are some variation of "How do I get drunk?" Ignoring the question itself, if you don't have the sense to at least look at the first page of questions in the category, or even search Yahoo! Answers using the search bar that exists just for that purpose, do you really think you're smart enough to be trusted to get drunk?

to the face.

Even though we know that these are nothing more than senseless superstitions? I mean, they even teach it in schools. Why would we want to teach our kids something so irrational and pointless? Isn't that sending the wrong message?

That is to say, why do many people seem to insist that somehow non-standard English usage, even in a casual context, is somehow a sign of ignorance, lack of education, etc.? I can understand that standard English is appropriate in some contexts, but in other contexts, say a casual setting, when people can communicate and understand one another while deviating from the standard, would you say there is anything wrong with doing so?

Is it just me, or does it seem that people using the notion of homosexuality in the animal kingdom in order to justify homosexuality in humans end up contradicting themselves?

That is, I'd say that the most important thing that needs to be understood with regards to homosexuality and sexual orientation is that homosexuality isn't an action. That is, being gay isn't something you physically do, and no specific action is a determining factor in sexual orientation (that is, you could be gay and not have sex, you can be gay and have sex with someone of the opposite gender, and you can be straight and have sex with someone of the same gender).

That being said, doesn't turning around and saying "look, there are gay animals" contradict this? I mean, what is animal sexuality? It's behavior. It's nothing but behavior observed and recorded by humans. Sex in animals amounts for the most part to a purely physical act.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Human sexuality is rooted in physical attraction both sexual and aesthetic, as well as emotional desires and relationships. Animal sexuality, on the other hand, involves physical behavior and sexual intercourse.

So how can you equate one with the other without degrading human sexuality to the level of animals, or elevating animal sexuality to the level of humans?

When you think about it, we have this notion that if you're gay you can be either "open," by mking your sexual orientation known to the public, or "closeted," by not making your orientation known. But does this really make sense, or does it create the wrong idea?

I mean, it seems that we act as though if you keep your sexual orientation to yourself it's a sign of being ashamed or uncomfortable, whereas if you're proud of you're sexual orientation you'll be open, and public about it. But isn't that the wrong way of going about it?

I mean, I'm just saying, why is sexual orientation the sort of thing that should be brought out into the public sphere in the first place? I mean, sexuality, relationships, and all that are something that are inherently very intimate, and personal. So wouldn't the logical response be that your sexual orientation is nobody's business either way? What's the reasoning for taking what is itself personal and turning it into something public? And is keeping one's orientation to oneself necessarily a sign of shame, or could it just as easily be a display of discretion?

What I'm saying is this: In order for two groups to be equal, they first need to be separate and distinct from one another, right? But are gays and straights inherently different in any way that could or should reasonably play a prominent role in society?

Am I the only one who thinks it's silly, immature and childish that we go on about gay this, and gay that, and the gay community, as though sexual orientation were anything more than a gravitation towards a particular gender in the more intimate aspects of our personal lives?

We act as though somehow being gay makes you different, and means you belong to a distinct group, share in a distinct culture, have a distinct identity, and so forth, but really it's all a bunch of nonsense, isn't it? I mean, in a world of equality what reason is there for any sort of "gay identity" to exist in the first place?

I mean, I'm not against "gay rights" at all, but is the future we're ultimately working towards one where gays and straights are treated equally, or one where gays and straights aren't thought of as being different in the first place? Because are there any reasons for gays and straights to be thought of as meaningfully different, other than a societal whim?

If there are no antelope in North America?

They're saying this is an "original" idea, something that's never been done before, but didn't they have the exact same thing for the Hardcore title at WrestleMania 2000?

I know that screenwriters have the WGA, which is very strong, and active in terms of intellectual property rights, wage standards, and the like.

Just out of curiosity, is there any such equivalent for other writers, in the form of some sort of union, guild, or other institution? I was just wondering, because while it seems odd that such an institution wouldn't exist, I've never heard or read anything on the subject...so any answers would be appreciated.