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.
By this reasoning, a virgin is nether heterosexual nor homosexual. 🙄
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.
Wow, I think I just lost a brain cell reading that. Of course the preist is still gay. I've never had sex does that make me any less of a Hetrosexual? I don't think so. Your logic is overly stupid.
Originally posted by queeq
You forget intent. I mentioned that as well.No need to start calling names, it shows a lack of civilisation.
WTF? Did you even read my post? Where the hell did I call you a name? Just because a person doesn't have the intention of having sex with someone doesn't mean they aren't said orientation. For instance, what if a person finds sex disgusting or is afraid of it? Therefore preventing said person from engaging in sexual acts. Just like a priest who has taken an oath. That doesn't mean the person is any less of their claimed sexual preference. Just means they don't enjoy or engage in that aspect. They can still find an attraction to whoever, to say otherwise is absurd.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then by this reasoning, a virgin is not heterosexual or homosexual until he plans to have intercourse. This argument is just as foolish as the last one. 🙄
Would you call a five year old virgin homesexual or heterosexual?
And I suppose intent includes exual orientation. I don't think if you want to have sex it starts with the urge and then you have to wonder if you want it with a male or a female?
Originally posted by queeq
Would you call a five year old virgin homesexual or heterosexual?And I suppose intent includes exual orientation. I don't think if you want to have sex it starts with the urge and then you have to wonder if you want it with a male or a female?
Oi, don't dodge my post.
And your question is stupid. A 5 year old hasn't entered puberty and hence has no sexual attraction towards any gender. That's just science.
Originally posted by Kram3r
Oi, don't dodge my post.And your question is stupid. A 5 year old hasn't entered puberty and hence has no sexual attraction towards any gender. That's just science.
Wrong. I was attracted to the opposite sex since I was about 3. I am probably the exception to the rule...but some children become aware of their sexuality much younger than others.
Originally posted by queeq
I wasn't dodging your point, I made mine quite a few posts back and was elaborating on it. Obviously you didn't read all of it.
WTF? Are you just hell bent on lying and making stupid comments? You did no in any shape or form reply or remark about this:
Originally posted by Kram3r
WTF? Did you even read my post? Where the hell did I call you a name? Just because a person doesn't have the intention of having sex with someone doesn't mean they aren't said orientation. For instance, what if a person finds sex disgusting or is afraid of it? Therefore preventing said person from engaging in sexual acts. Just like a priest who has taken an oath. That doesn't mean the person is any less of their claimed sexual preference. Just means they don't enjoy or engage in that aspect. They can still find an attraction to whoever, to say otherwise is absurd.
Also, nice way of dodging my point in the post I used to address you on this and just bringing up what I said about dodging, dodger.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong. I was attracted to the opposite sex since I was about 3. I am probably the exception to the rule...but some children become aware of their sexuality much younger than others.
That's not my point and of course there are exceptions to the rule. My point is that the general consensus of people below like 8 don't show those kind of feelings towards the opposite sex because of human biology.
edit: Also, I don't think you were thinking about sex at 3, even if you were attracted. Which also goes to show that you can be attracted to a gender, not have the intent of sex and still be hetrosexual.
Originally posted by queeq
I never said you were wrong.
I know. I said you were. Makes sense, too, as I happen to be right.
Originally posted by queeq
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?
How is a dictionary definition lame? What definitions should we go by in your opinion? And of course attraction is enough. That is the whole idea of homosexuality. You would completely redefine the words if you would not consider it based on attraction. It would be something entirely different. Why are we even having this discussion?
Originally posted by queeq
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.
It's not strange to me. It's just wrong.
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.
As does the English language. And everyone else that knows the definition of the word "homosexual"
Originally posted by queeq
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)
Yes, gay. Because they are gay. By definition.
To give you one of them analogies, what should you call a cucumber that really wants to be a tomato...that even cuts itself so it is shaped like a tomato, that paints itself all red and that gets eaten on a Ciabatta with some Mozarella?
The answer is a ****ing cucumber, because that is what it is by definition and reality.
Originally posted by queeq
See, here I am confused. To me the guy is straight with gay feelings. Hence my outlook on: actions define sexual identity.
That's good for you. But that's not the case for the English language (nor the German), which happens to be the authority on definitions.
Originally posted by queeq
Do I sound less foolish or is the hole even deeper?
Deeper.
Though I am sorry I called you an idiot. That was unnecessary. I still think you are foolish in this aspect though.
Why? I am not saying I am right. I was just posing a question and gave some examples where my question came from. Guess I should have come to the expert who knows all from the beginning. That was my mistake.
*makes mental note: always consult one of the oracles of truth on KMC... better yet, only post politically correctly formulated posts and consult one of the oracles of truth for the currently accepted view and formulation*
Thank you for the spanking, sir. May I have another?
Originally posted by queeqYou said that to you it constitutes an act or at least intent. I just pointed out to you that by definition it does not. Your mistake was to say that it is that way for you, not to post a question. If you wanted just to discuss this you could have asked instead of saying how you believe it. Because once you believe it you are wrong compared to the definition, while if you just ask you of course aren't wrong as you didn't state a believe.
Why? I am not saying I am right. I was just posing a question and gave some examples where my question came from. Guess I should have come to the expert who knows all from the beginning. That was my mistake.*makes mental note: always consult one of the oracles of truth on KMC... better yet, only post politically correctly formulated posts and consult one of the oracles of truth for the currently accepted view and formulation*
Thank you for the spanking, sir. May I have another?
You just got one.