Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny

Homosexuality isn't just about sex. Like heterosexuality, love and companionship are also aspects of it....i know thats extremely hard for you to get Quiero Mota, but you can take my word for it.

I never once thought or said that a gay couple was incapable of love or companionship.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
many people who aren't Gay think of being gay as being this lustful out of control Lord Urizen.

Because posting giant penises and talking about guzzling 'protein shakes' isn't really helping the cause, or bridging any gaps of misunderstanding.

I think he gets it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I never once thought or said that a gay couple was incapable of love or companionship.

Shut up you homo

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because posting giant penises and talking about guzzling 'protein shakes' isn't really helping the cause, or bridging any gaps of misunderstanding.

If anyone actually takes that to heart, then they should commit suicide

Originally posted by Schecter
your butthurt gives me strength

😆 😆 😆

LOL! Dude, I couldn't help but laugh at your post...I see your point.

but in my defense, I can't but help to feel butthurt when you rape me. 😐

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
DK is right about that though...many people who aren't Gay think of being gay as being this lustful out of control Lord Urizen.

The truth is, there's no real absolute diffrence between people who are gay or straight. Straight guys are just as slutty as gay guys, the only difference is that straight guys need to give better game, since girls are harder in general to score.

Gay guys have it easier.

Homosexuality isn't just about sex. Like heterosexuality, love and companionship are also aspects of it....i know thats extremely hard for you to get Quiero Mota, but you can take my word for it.

I agree. If someone is homosexual and they fall in love with someone, the relationship shouldn't completely rely on homo-sex. They should be in love with the person, not the genitals. I may have just opened a can of worms concerning everyone being different degrees of bisexuality...but that is not the direction I wanted it to go in.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. If someone is homosexual and they fall in love with someone, the relationship shouldn't completely rely on homo-sex. They should be in love with the person, not the genitals. I may have just opened a can of worms concerning everyone being different degrees of bisexuality...but that is not the direction I wanted it to go in.

Dude, i hope ur not saying that homos shouldn't have homo sex

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. If someone is homosexual and they fall in love with someone, the relationship shouldn't completely rely on homo-sex. They should be in love with the person, not the genitals. I may have just opened a can of worms concerning everyone being different degrees of bisexuality...but that is not the direction I wanted it to go in.

So, it should what, rely on hetero-sex? Or should it just not rely on sex, period?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Dude, i hope ur not saying that homos shouldn't have homo sex

no.....that it isn't all about sex.

I was agreeing with you.

How many relationships do you know can last for decades JUST on sex alone?

Originally posted by dadudemon
no.....that it isn't all about sex.

I was agreeing with you.

My mistake. I apologize.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How many relationships do you know can last for decades JUST on sex alone?

Plenty..trust me.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
My mistake. I apologize.

Holy shite! You apologized!!!!???!!!?? ZOMG!!! I guess your ego is small enough to do that....😉

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Plenty..trust me.

I don't know of any. They usually last a year or two at the MOST...from what I have seen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shite! You apologized!!!!???!!!?? ZOMG!!! I guess your ego is small enough to do that....😉

I would have found that funnier if SOD often refused to apologize when he ought to.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
DK is right about that though...many people who aren't Gay think of being gay as being this lustful out of control Lord Urizen.

The truth is, there's no real absolute diffrence between people who are gay or straight. Straight guys are just as slutty as gay guys, the only difference is that straight guys need to give better game, since girls are harder in general to score.

Gay guys have it easier.

Homosexuality isn't just about sex. Like heterosexuality, love and companionship are also aspects of it....i know thats extremely hard for you to get Quiero Mota, but you can take my word for it.

Love and companionship are generic human needs that transcend any sexual need. Childred need love an companionship, celiabte priests needs love and companionship, hookers need love and companionship, people who like sex with little children need love and companionship. That definately does not define homosexuality. If it did, we could do away with the entire term altogether.

I'll give you an exxagerated and extrapolated comparison, NOT TO SAY THE ACT IS THE SAME OR SIMILAR OR IN ANY WAY ON THE SAME LEVEL!!! (before you start hollering and miss the point). It's like saying: hey I'm a serial killer. But I don't practise it. Being a serial killer is about a lot more than killing people you know... it's about getting to know other people and their daily habits, dealing with your personal frustrations and doing some retrospect on your own life.

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but to me a serial killer is someone who kills people on a regular basis. A heterosexual to me is someone who has sex with someone of the opposite sex, a homosexual is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, a pedophile is someone who has sex with children... I do believe your acts at least partly define who you are.

Originally posted by queeq
Love and companionship are generic human needs that transcend any sexual need. Childred need love an companionship, celiabte priests needs love and companionship, hookers need love and companionship, people who like sex with little children need love and companionship. That definately does not define homosexuality. If it did, we could do away with the entire term altogether.

I'll give you an exxagerated and extrapolated comparison, NOT TO SAY THE ACT IS THE SAME OR SIMILAR OR IN ANY WAY ON THE SAME LEVEL!!! (before you start hollering and miss the point). It's like saying: hey I'm a serial killer. But I don't practise it. Being a serial killer is about a lot more than killing people you know... it's about getting to know other people and their daily habits, dealing with your personal frustrations and doing some retrospect on your own life.

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but to me a serial killer is someone who kills people on a regular basis. A heterosexual to me is someone who has sex with someone of the opposite sex, a homosexual is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, a pedophile is someone who has sex with children... I do believe your acts at least partly define who you are.

serial killer
n. A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents.

het·er·o·sex·u·al (hět'ə-rō-sěk'shōō-əl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex

n. A heterosexual person

I suppose you see the difference.

Originally posted by queeq
NOT TO SAY THE ACT IS THE SAME OR SIMILAR OR IN ANY WAY ON THE SAME LEVEL!!! (before you start hollering and miss the point).

*sigh*

You know... some people just don't WANT to read...

Originally posted by queeq
I do believe your acts at least partly define who you are.

I suppose you don't get or read my point.

And if you can't read, who's the simpleton?

Why did you post twice in a row? Very unnecessary. Also, He's calling you a simpleton because you allowed so by suggesting the comparison between a serial killer and a homosexual need to commit said acts in order to be defined (at least in some degree) as such. Bardock, clearly called you one because he proved you wrong. Nothing about opinion, just look at the said dictionary definition.

Originally posted by queeq
*sigh*

You know... some people just don't WANT to read...

Originally posted by queeq
to me a serial killer is someone who kills people on a regular basis. A heterosexual to me is someone who has sex with someone of the opposite sex, a homosexual is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, a pedophile is someone who has sex with children...

So my post stands.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Why did you post twice in a row? Very unnecessary.

Yes, this is the approach these days: nitpicking so you can dodge and not go into the arguments. And of course we have to say that it cannot be compared because we have to be so very politically correct. No, we don't want to offend anyone except when we can nitpick his posts and use a magnifying glass to find inconsistencies. Then we can insult, then it's politcally correct. But to say something sensitive without any intent to be offensive as is clearly said so: load your guns and release hell.

So you think actions do not define a person? In other words: does the homsexual act define a gay person or not? Would a gay still be a gay if he didn't practise any form of sex.
Here's one. There's a well known priest in my country, he's written a biography and told about being gay before he became a priest. When he did, he vowed (voluntarily of course) celibacy. Now when it comes to struggles with lust and that kind of feelings, I don't think there's any difference between him and a fellow priest who gets tingly feelings from a woman. In other words, is this priest still gay? I think not.

Originally posted by queeq
Yes, this is the approach these days: nitpicking so you can dodge and not go into the arguments.

So you think actions do not define a person?

Actions might define a person, but homosexuality is not defined by the act of sex with a partner of the same sex, so your whole last paragraph was wro ng, ergo why I responded.

Also, highly ironic what you said there.

Of course, we can't be outspoken. So what is gay about someone who practises no sex then? What is straight about someone who doesn't practise sex at all? And this is meant to be a philosophical question... for you sensitive people out there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So my post stands.

What? That there is a difference? I don't think we disagree there. Did you see me disagreeing with you?