Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

I did tell you how I believed it. I gave a few examples. For instance, if a guy with gay feeling principally and voluntarily decides not to give in (actionwise) to his gay feelings, how gay is he? To me... he's not gay. He's a guy struggling with his sexual feelings, to me it's no different from anyone else struggling with his sexual feellings. Compare it someone who doesn't get satisfaction with his partner and likes to have various sexual relations. Now, having more than one sexual partner is accepted these days, but if this person values the relationship with his partner so much and does decide NOT to go into it, he wouldn't be called a guy who sleeps around, even though he has the desire to do so.
What does your dictionary say about such cases?

It's not so much that I diagree with you. It does depend from what side of the coin you look at it. In case of my 'gay' example above, such a person may not even like to be called gay, he might find it offensive. So what do you do? Throw a dictionary at him?

Originally posted by queeq
I did tell you how I believed it. I gave a few examples.

I know. That's exactly what I said.

Originally posted by queeq
For instance, if a guy with gay feeling principally and voluntarily decides not to give in (actionwise) to his gay feelings, how gay is he? To me... he's not gay. He's a guy struggling with his sexual feelings, to me it's no different from anyone else struggling with his sexual feellings. Compare it someone who doesn't get satisfaction with his partner and likes to have various sexual relations. Now, having more than one sexual partner is accepted these days, but if this person values the relationship with his partner so much and does decide NOT to go into it, he wouldn't be called a guy who sleeps around, even though he has the desire to do so.
What does your dictionary say about such cases?

It says that sleeping around is defined by the act of sleeping with multiple partners. So that person obviously is not a guy that sleeps around. You seem to have a slight problem grasping the difference in definitions here.

Sleeping around = having sex with lots of people
Being gay = Being primarily attracted to persons of the same sex

Originally posted by queeq
It's not so much that I diagree with you. It does depend from what side of the coin you look at it. In case of my 'gay' example above, such a person may not even like to be called gay, he might find it offensive. So what do you do? Throw a dictionary at him?

No. It obviously depends on the person, but if I like them I would obviously not call them homosexual and endlessly argue endlessly with them. I would of course know that they are actually gay, but since it doesn't matter to me anyways, why needlessly harm them.

Sounds allright. BUt despite the dictionary, I think a definition is still a view agreed upon. Not so much truth.

Originally posted by queeq
Sounds allright. BUt despite the dictionary, I think a definition is still a view agreed upon. Not so much truth.

Well fine then. We follow the book and shut up.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know that in German and I'd bet that in French, where there are authorities on words (or in case of German at least a generally accepted standard) the word is defined by attraction.

why would germany even bother? didnt they kill off all the gay people there?

😂

Originally posted by Schecter
why would germany even bother? didnt they kill off all the gay people there?

Originally posted by queeq
Well fine then. We follow the book and shut up.

Why? You give the definition and say we should stick to it.

Originally posted by queeq
Why? You give the definition and say we should stick to it.

We should accept the definition. You may very well argue that this definition could or should be changed. But you should acknowledge it. And you should realize that it is that definition people use when they talk about homosexuality.

Oh.. the formality of acknowledging, I'll make a note of that...

I never disagreed with it. I was just wondering if it covered it all...

Originally posted by queeq
Oh.. the formality of acknowledging, I'll make a note of that...

I never disagreed with it. I was just wondering if it covered it all...

Does it matter? I must bow to the Wisdom of the Dictionary.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't be an idiot. He was just flat out wrong. It's not being pedantic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a simpleton then.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, the dictionary.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Now, to my understanding, a simpleton isn't someone who's flat out wrong, it's someone who's simple minded and essentially, not a hundred percent correct. So for you to call him one and argue with him, you're being pedantic.

Am I missing something here?

Now, I would be pedantic if a minor detail of his conclusion had been wrong, but his whole point was contrary to actual definitions of words he used. His point as right as it might have seen to him, was not in accordance with reality. To point that out and argue is hardly pedantic. Is it possible that you do not understand what pedantic means?

Originally posted by queeq
Does it matter? I must bow to the Wisdom of the Dictionary.

Who says I'm a victim? Putting words in people's mouth is like a contageous disease around here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

Well scissor me timbers; I've never heard of him doing THAT before!

Originally posted by Devil King
Well scissor me timbers; I've never heard of him doing THAT before!

I know! One page on and he still hasn't responded to my comments! msn-oh

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. As usual. He asked whether he was a simpleton for believing in this uncommon and unfounded definition of homosexuality. I said he is, partly due to his apparent inability to realize the fundamental difference there is between the definitions of a serial killer and a homosexual (not morally, just the actual definitions).

Now, I would be pedantic if a minor detail of his conclusion had been wrong, but his whole point was contrary to actual definitions of words he used. His point as right as it might have seen to him, was not in accordance with reality. To point that out and argue is hardly pedantic. Is it possible that you do not understand what pedantic means?

Oh yeah, you are a victim to common sense and accepted standards of language. Society hates you.