Originally posted by queeqDon't be stupid. It's not philosophical. The answer is the attraction to the opposite or same sex.
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.
Jesus, you made a mistake and instead of just accepting it you dig yourself deeper in the shit.
Originally posted by queeq
What? That there is a difference? I don't think we disagree there. Did you see me disagreeing with you?
No. That what you said homosexuality constitutes to you is contrary to the actual definition of the word. I disagreed with you. You didn't comment on the matter. You dodged.
Originally posted by queeq
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.
one can be heterosexual or homosexual without ever having sex. its defined by orientation/attraction and not the actual act of intercourse.
also, you'll probably receive less backlash and bitchiness by refraining from comparing homosexuality to extremely negative things like serial murder and kiddie rape. even if your intentions are not to present negative implications, they are still there. surely there are some morally neutral parallels you can draw.
:edit: for instance, a lumberjack cuts down trees...
...and dresses in womens clothing
Originally posted by Bardock42Don't be so pedantic.
You are a simpleton then.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.
So just one makes a comparison with something negative, the com[parison is per se wrong? That's only when you look at it with a certain form of morals. Does having the desire to kill someone make one a killer? No. Does having a strong desire to have sex make you a pervert? No.
Does having the desire to have sex with people from the same sex make you a homosexual? Well, that's the question I pose. The rest is sensiblities.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't be stupid. It's not philosophical. The answer is the attraction to the opposite or same sex.Jesus, you made a mistake and instead of just accepting it you dig yourself deeper in the shit.
What mistake? All you do is look for some moral judgement in my posts while frantically trying to avoid being accused of one. That's called political correctness which is the mortal enemy of freedom of speech.
Here's another for you then:
If I cut off my arm, it's me and my arm.
If I cut off my leg, it's me and my leg.
If I cut off my head, is it me and my head or me and my body? And in that condition, can one still be gay or straight?
Philosophical enough for ya, even though it includes sex and death?
Originally posted by queeqWow. You you are bent on making a fool out of yourself.
So just one makes a comparison with something negative, the com[parison is per se wrong? That's only when you look at it with a certain form of morals. Does having the desire to kill someone make one a killer? No. Does having a strong desire to have sex make you a pervert? No.
Does having the desire to have sex with people from the same sex make you a homosexual? Well, that's the question I pose. The rest is sensiblities.What mistake? All you do is look for some moral judgement in my posts while frantically trying to avoid being accused of one. That's called political correctness which is the mortal enemy of freedom of speech.
Here's another for you then:
If I cut off my arm, it's me and my arm.
If I cut off my leg, it's me and my leg.
If I cut off my head, is it me and my head or me and my body? And in that condition, can one still be gay or straight?
Philosophical enough for ya, even though it includes sex and death?
I did not comment on the moral aspect. I commented on your whole faulty conclusions in the last paragraph. You said that, to you, homosexuality is the act of having sex with a member of the same sex. I pointed out to you that the actual definition of the word is a sexual attraction to the members of the same sex.
That was all. Then you went on to spout pseudo-philosophical nonsense, dodge my points and pick which parts of other posts to reply.
The question is not whether an attraction solely to the same sex, as it has been answered. Your opinion on the subject is of no matter. The fact is that, yes, it does.
You know how we could settle all this? You just say "Yes, my view of homosexuality was wrong, it is actually an attraction to the same sex, not the act of having sex with a same sex partner".
How does that sound for a deal?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Wow. You you are bent on making a fool out of yourself.I did not comment on the moral aspect. I commented on your whole faulty conclusions in the last paragraph. You said that, to you, homosexuality is the act of having sex with a member of the same sex. I pointed out to you that the actual definition of the word is a sexual attraction to the members of the same sex.
That was all. Then you went on to spout pseudo-philosophical nonsense, dodge my points and pick which parts of other posts to reply.
The question is not whether an attraction solely to the same sex, as it has been answered. Your opinion on the subject is of no matter. The fact is that, yes, it does.
You know how we could settle all this? You just say "Yes, my view of homosexuality was wrong, it is actually an attraction to the same sex, not the act of having sex with a same sex partner".
How does that sound for a deal?
I never said you were wrong. I was asking if 'attraction' was enough to define it, because it seems so silly to me. A dictionary defintion is pretty lame, what does that mean?
So my view that homosexuality is more defined by the act than by the desire to for company or love, may sound strange to you but it isn't.
Lemme try to explain, you called me a fool and an idiot, can't get much worse.
I know for instance in christian circles some people who feel attratced to people of the other sex but principally refuse to give into it, call themselves gay. I find that strange if you don't practise it. Fine, you think they're gay.
But it goes on... I've even heard of people who have gay feelings but feel, principally and out of their own free will, they should lead a straight live with a woman, get married and stuff. (I don't really care how you feel about these things, it is irrelevant for the point I'd like to discuss). So such a person has gay feelings, is married and has kids. What would you call this person?
Gay? Dunno... married out of free will... kids... has a heterosexual relation
Straight? Hmmm, if it's just about attraction then one could assume his attraction isl aimed at men, not at women (don't ask me how they cope 😉 )
Bi? (see straight)
See, here I am confused. To me the guy is straight with gay feelings. Hence my outlook on: actions define sexual identity.
Do I sound less foolish or is the hole even deeper?
Originally posted by queeq
I know for instance in christian circles some people who feel attratced to people of the other sex but principally refuse to give into it, call themselves gay. I find that strange if you don't practise it. Fine, you think they're gay.
so what would you call a heterosexual who is celibate?
I am not disagreeing with you. Lemme make that clear. However, it feels incomplete, If there's no practise (or at least intent to practise), what is there?
Again: if I want to be writer, claim to be a writer but can't get more than a page full... am I a writer? Well, yes... in a way... then again, no.
Originally posted by queeq
I am not disagreeing with you. Lemme make that clear. However, it feels incomplete, If there's no practise (or at least intent to practise), what is there?Again: if I want to be writer, claim to be a writer but can't get more than a page full... am I a writer? Well, yes... in a way... then again, no.
a writer is something you choose to be, and something which requires skill to be successful at. doesnt take much effort to feel like having sex, does it?
Originally posted by queeq
Well yeah. But I practise it.... once in a while... 😉It's more this issue with people who say there are gay but don't practise it out of principle... How gay is that, ya know?
well thats not the issue. its not whether they choose to have sex, but whether sexuallity is defined by practice. there is no implication that such a lack of sex would be voluntary, nor is it relevant. if it was, 99% of the star wars forums would consist of eunuchs.