Originally posted by lord xyzOk, cool.
No, I have full understanding of the word pedantic and I'm only mentioning that because if I argued about anything else in your post, I'd be wrong.
Originally posted by queeqI said you are a victim. It was an exaggerated satire to your actual behaviour as I understand it.
Who says I'm a victim? Putting words in people's mouth is like a contageous disease around here.
Originally posted by queeq
So here's your answer: I don't care about your sexual orientation. What do you want from me? Sex? Or to tell you you are straight?
Probably to tell him whether you think he is straight given this scenario.
I deducted that by it being the matter of conversation for the last 4 pages as well as reading and correctly interpreting.
Originally posted by dadudemon
lol....you just pulled a dadudemon with your numbering...😄 👆Anyway....usually, if someone asks me to answer a question that I have more than answered, if I am feeling nice, I quote it for them....if I am feeling lazy, I tell them to just check back a few pages for my answer.
Edit...it looks like you did the latter...so I am failing to see what the problem is....
Wait...it looks like Kramer is wanted you to answer his question specifically.
Funny. I also saw similarities in his style and yours.
On a side note. Lol for xyz's semi colon.
Originally posted by queeqI am sure you know whether anyone that read that laughed. After all it is not like they are all around the globe behind computer screens.
Well, since no one else was laughing, I felt you deserved a laugh.
Be that as it may, I was wondering, you say you asked a question, so I would like to know a) what exactly that question you asked was, in your opinion and b) what you personally think is the answer to the question.
Originally posted by queeq
This is totally outlandish... Is this the Twilight Zone?...So lemme get this right: I have to repeat the question I posed x pages back??? And then I have to answer it myself??
What in the world for???? What's the point?
The point is that you never stated the question clearly and also never gave your own believes. We can't base our discussion on your vague and cryptic posts and a shitload of dodging afterwards. I figure if we just get the question you say you posed straight and also understand your POV on this, we could solve the whole problem here without animosity between any of the parties.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The point is that you never stated the question clearly and also never gave your own believes.
Let's see then... A little historical research.
Exhibit A
Originally posted by queeq
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.
Sounds like a pretty clear question to me. But then some people call me stupid and a simpleton, so what would I know.
EXHIBIT B
Originally posted by queeq
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.
Sounds like an answer... and you know what? It's in the very same post.
And then there was this:
EXHIBIT C
Originally posted by queeq
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.
I dunno, that does sound like a certain POV... but then again, I may be wrong.
Just to avoid more aggressive posts, I never said I was 100% clear about the matter, I posted a question (Exhibit A) and gave some examples why I posed the question (Exhibit B and C). But the sh!t storm kinda blurred the debate.
Next time: RBYP.
Originally posted by queeqYes, that's what I thought. So we come all the way around and the answer to your question is that the homosexual act does not define homosexuality. That a person can be gay without having homosexual sex or the intention to do so. That homosexual is defined by the sexual attraction to the same sex. Nothing more nothing less.
Let's see then... A little historical research.Exhibit A
Sounds like a pretty clear question to me. But then some people call me stupid and a simpleton, so what would I know.
EXHIBIT B
Sounds like an answer... and you know what? It's in the very same post.
And then there was this:
EXHIBIT C
I dunno, that does sound like a certain POV... but then again, I may be wrong.
Just to avoid more aggressive posts, I never said I was 100% clear about the matter, I posted a question (Exhibit A) and gave some examples why I posed the question (Exhibit B and C). But the sh!t storm kinda blurred the debate.
Next time: RBYP.
Is that okay then, can we get over it now?
Originally posted by queeq
Eerrr..... yeah...... I was over it pages ago....Does anyone know a good insane asylum? I think I need one now.
Arkham.
To what conclusion did you come though? Do you agree that homosexuality is defined by the attraction and not the act, regardless of other things being defined by the act not the attraction to it?
Well... a dictionary is a linguistic definition of a word and I'll accept that. But it says very little about what defines a person.
Not to be pendantic but to make a point: a person according to the dictionary:
per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.
Idiom:
in person
In one's physical presence; personally: applied for the job in person.
But that doesn't say anything about an indiviual person... about who he is, what defines in as an individual. So a dictionary goes only so far.
So, is attraction enough to define a person? I guess in some instances it is, in some instances it's rather limited. I think the dictionary definition is limited but I'll settle for it. As I did several pages ago...
Originally posted by queeq
Well... a dictionary is a linguistic definition of a word and I'll accept that. But it says very little about what defines a person.Not to be pendantic but to make a point: a person according to the dictionary:
But that doesn't say anything about an indiviual person... about who he is, what defines in as an individual. So a dictionary goes only so far.
So, is attraction enough to define a person? I guess in some instances it is, in some instances it's rather limited. I think the dictionary definition is limited but I'll settle for it. As I did several pages ago...
I wouldn't say attraction is enough to define a person. I would say though that attraction is enough to define a certain aspect of a person, namely what they are attracted to. I can understand that you might dislike the idea that some people define homosexuals solely by their homosexuality, which happens to be the attraction to the same sex. But to me that's a mistake people make, by being ingorant and close minded. The word just stands for what it stands. To give you an analogy, someone might say leafs of a tree are green, now obviously this word "green" does not define and describe the tree in all it's nuances, but it does not intend to do so either. It's just a word describing one specific aspect of a tree (namely the colour of the leafs), just like homosexuality is a describing one specific aspect of a personl, their dominant sexual attraction towards the same sex.
It was a comparison.
But here's the thing: if the tree never gets any leafs it's still a green leafed tree, because genetically it belongs to the family green leafed trees. In this case it's hard if not impossible to say homosexuality is genetic. So it comes down to a feeling (in this case attraction). So is a person defined by his feelings or what he does with them? That's my question and I have no definite answer.
It gets even more complicated when it comes to forms of sexual attractions that are societally less acceptable . But I'm not going there because people will get upset for just suggesting a comparison.
Originally posted by queeqI know that the answer of the actual definition is that it comes down to feeling, not what they do with them. But you can argue that you don't like this common definition, if you want. I do see merit in it though.
It was a comparison.But here's the thing: if the tree never gets any leafs it's still a green leafed tree, because genetically it belongs to the family green leafed trees. In this case it's hard if not impossible to say homosexuality is genetic. So it comes down to a feeling (in this case attraction). So is a person defined by his feelings or what he does with them? That's my question and I have no definite answer.
It gets even more complicated when it comes to forms of sexual attractions that are societally less acceptable . But I'm not going there because people will get upset for just suggesting a comparison.
Also, how does it get even more complicated when it comes to those?
Originally posted by queeqYeah, I would like to know. Maybe I can clear something up for you or realize why it would be different.
See the merit.Why does it get more complicated? Do I really need to say it? The last time I referred to it I got flamed.
Besides every reasonable person realizes that after this exchange you are not comparing homosexuality to it, just view it as a different topic.
I hope so.
Well here goes.
Say we take a sexual attrraction like the one for liking small children. If feelings or attraction define a person's sexual orientation, then anyone with feellings for children would be a pedophaeliac. Now, that's illegal, and rightly so... but in theory one could already be condemned for having these feelings. That is scary.
Originally posted by queeqOh okay. I can explain that one to you. The definition of pedophile is having an attraction to small children. So everyone that has that attraction is in fact a pedophile. What you mean with pedophile is actually called child molester. A child molester is not just attracted to children he or she also acts on the urges and molest children.
I hope so.Well here goes.
Say we take a sexual attrraction like the one for liking small children. If feelings or attraction define a person's sexual orientation, then anyone with feellings for children would be a pedophaeliac. Now, that's illegal, and rightly so... but in theory one could already be condemned for having these feelings. That is scary.