jimpeel
Well-Known Member
I'm done. Your mind is made up and no amount of facts will change that. You are as hard headed as that monkey in your avatar.
Hint: Frank Buck, coconut, rice.
Nature or nurture
- Thread starter Professur
- Start date
I'm done. Your mind is made up and no amount of facts will change that. You are as hard headed as that monkey in your avatar.
Hint: Frank Buck, coconut, rice.
spike
New Member
What facts Jim? The definition of homosexual that proves you wrong? The definition of latent homosexual that proves you wrong? The simple logic that proves you wrong?
Which facts?
You're just being idiotic and running away when you get boxed into a corner because of it. Go play with your "soul" then.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Dream on. Keep making up "facts" and calling them "logic". I proved that a person who is a latent homosexual is not yet an actual homosexual and pointed to the citations. You counter with things you make up in your head and call them common sense and logic; but you cannot point to a single citation to back up your "contention".
If "latent heterosexual" exists you should be able to find that citation with a few keystrokes; but you cannot. You made the term up and called it reality.
I, on the other hand, can present numerous citations for the term "latent homosexual" -- a term which has been in existence since the late nineteenth century. You, on the other hand cannot cite the term "latent heterosexual" at all without my help in pointing it out as a humorous juxtaposition in the title of a Broadway play.
Why should I continue a dead end dialogue with someone like that? All you do is come here to play Devil's Advocate because you simply like to argue. I could come out in full support of homosexuals and their activities and you would counter with the opposite viewpoint because that is what you do.
That is all you do.
You have become boring, trite, and tedious. "Play[ing] with [my] "soul"" would be a great step up from having to deal with the likes of you on a daily basis. At least that would be one asshole I could tolerate; and I couldn't get more shit out of it than I do out of you.
You cannot even recognize that what you call "running away" is actually me pushing you away.
We're done.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
Geez Jim, your never done.
To bad, wish you where.
So you are saying no one is a homosexual unless they commit a homosexual act, it doesn't matter what is their mind, what they are thinking?
So you are only bigotted against those who act gay, if they hide in the closet, that is fine?
To bad, wish you where.
So you are saying no one is a homosexual unless they commit a homosexual act, it doesn't matter what is their mind, what they are thinking?
So you are only bigotted against those who act gay, if they hide in the closet, that is fine?
spike
New Member
Jim the question was if homosexuality was defined by the act. According to the definition it isn't. A person who is exclusively attracted to the same sex is homosexual and a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex is heterosexual. No sex act required in either case.
You brought up latent homosexuality which is an entirely different subject covering "a hidden inclination or potential for interest in homosexual relationships, which is either suppressed or not recognised". You can see how that's a different topic right? Or are you completely blind?
What facts did I make up here? These are definitions from your own sources.
Jim, the citations were the definitions which have proven you wrong repeatedly.
Where did I call it reality? Go back and look again. I simply pointed out that a homosexual who had not yet experienced sex was no more a "latent homosexual" than a heterosexual who hadn't experienced sex was a "latent heterosexual". It's a direct correlation of logic.
The point being you can be a homosexual without having had sex yet and still not be a "latent homosexual". To explain further an example would be someone who is fully aware and comfortable with their attraction to the same sex but has not found a suitable partner yet. There is nothing "latent" about that.
Did I say somewhere that latent homosexuality doesn't exist? Go back and look, I'll wait.
The point was that you brought up another condition that does not apply to our conversation. A homosexual who has not had sex yet is not "latent" therefore your argument has no merit.
Are you able to follow logical sequence at all?
You should be able to back up your points. You say homosexuality is defined by some sex act. By definition you are wrong. So you brought up the definition for some other term that does not support your argument.
The only reason this is dead end is you won't admit your mistakes and are squirming around making excuses and trying to sidetrack things.
No, I do get some enjoyment out of pointing out all the flaws in your thinking though.
Sure you can't stand someone pointing out your bigotry, stupidity, and illogical thinking. I'm sure you would prefer to play with your soul then be forced to admit your mistakes.
Call it what you want. Push or run, just don't you dare admit when your wrong. That would be too honest.
You certainly are.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Yes. If thinking is doing then we may as well go to the premise of the movie "Minority Report".
Acting gay is not being gay. Being gay is doing gay. I have known several men in my lifetime who "acted gay" who were merely effeminate.
I do not have to accept people who are engaging in dangerous behavior. I do not have to associate with people who are engaging in dangerous behavior. Be they gays or Evel Knevil it doesn't matter. Dangerous behavior is simply that. The only difference is that Evel Knevil didn't have an agenda to spread his brand of dangerous behavior.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Note the wording:
"a homosexual -- Which is calling someone who has not yet done any homosexual act a "homosexual". That is akin to saying that a person who holds an unassailable belief that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment is a "murderer".
Is someone who thinks about how nice it would be to assassinate a public figure an assassin? Is someone who thinks about how nice it would be to burn down a slum an arsonist? Is a man who thinks about how nice it would be to have sex with a famous actor a homosexual? Is a woman who thinks about how nice it would be to have sex with a famous actress a homosexual?
Who says that these people being called "homosexual" are not merely bisexual in thought but heterosexual in deed?
One can act without thinking; and one can also think without acting.
Thinking is not acting. PERIOD.
who has not yet acted upon -- It is the ACT that makes a person a homosexual not the thought. If it were the mere thought then everyone on the face of the Earth is a homosexual because I don't care who you are you have wondered about it at least once in your life.
his or her sexual preference." -- So they know what their sexual preference would be yet they have not actually committed a homosexual act through conscience, fear, or whatever.
It is the deed which makes you a homosexual. Until that deed is committed you are merely someone with a kinky thought.
But that's okay Jim, you interpret it however you want to.
Thank you for that show of benevolence; and you feel free to do likewise as well.
spike
New Member
What is the malfunction here with you? Nobody said "thinking is doing". The fact is you don't have to "do" anything to be heterosexual or homosexual.
Again you're off on a tangent. Nobody said anything about "acting gay" either. You don't have to "do" or "act" any special way to be homosexual or heterosexual. It's a matter of which sex you are attracted to.
That is just total ignorance. What the fuck is this "dangerous behavior". Homosexuals aren't trying to spread their fucking brand, they just want fair treatment instead of you're idiotic bigotry.
spike
New Member
Actually, no it's not the same at all. It's akin to calling someone who is attracted to the opposite sex a "heterosexual".
No, those are crimes. Which you are not guilty of until they are committed.
By definition homosexuality and heterosexuality are those who are exclusively attracted to the same or opposite sex. They require no act.
If she is exclusively attracted to females then yes. Otherwise she is probably bisexual to some degree. Jim if you ever thought how nice it would be to have sex with some actor I'd say you were bisexual to some degree too.
Yeah, who did say that?
Which does not relate to the conversation. Homsexuality or heterosexuality is a matter of which sex you're attracted to. Look it up again if you need to.
Look this is a definition YOU POSTED:
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
It clearly says desire OR behavior. Case closed. No act needed.
No, I haven't.
I think we've gotten down to the cruxt of biscuit the here though. You seemingly often have sexual thoughts about other males. That's might be how you end up in drag queen cabarets and why you think your soul is in your butt.
So instead of coming to terms with your homosexual tendencies you ignore all standard meanings of the word try to redefine it so that you can write off your homosexual thoughts as long as you don't ACT on them. In the process becoming suspiciously hostile to other gays who are doing nothing that affects you. Sounds a lot like that "latent homosexuality" link from earlier.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
I love the expression "a nip in the air". I always visualise a rather startled looking jap suspended in mid-air.
2minkey
bootlicker
chcr
Too cute for words
Sorry Jim, a homosexual is someone who has sexual attraction for their own sex to the exclusion of the opposite sex regardless of whether they act on those feelings or not. Just as someone attracted to either is bisexual whether or not they act on it. your murder analogy is meaningless, apples and oranges. Murder is an action, homosexuality is a preference. An overt act or lack thereof changes nothing.
chcr
Too cute for words
this seems to be an important distinction to you, in a personal sort of way.
It's not really that funny, he's a classic case.
BeardofPants
New Member
Wait, what? What about people BEFORE they lose their virginity? Are they in limbo until they perform sexual acts with the relevant partner?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Nope. They are simply a latent homosexual. Once they consummate the act they can then drop the "latent". Then they are an "active homosexual".
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Am I the only person on this board who knows the meaning of "latent"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/latent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/latent
BeardofPants
New Member
Oh, I see where you're coming from, I guess. Don't agree, but ok.
So, is someone also a latent heterosexual until 'consumated'?
So, is someone also a latent heterosexual until 'consumated'?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
By the by ... "active homosexual" is a common term for sexually active homosexuals and, for those of you who do not know what that means, it means that they currently have sexual -- yes actual, physical, touchy-feely, sexual -- relations with other men or women.
If someone is already a homosexual, when described as a "latent homosexual", why then is there any need whatsoever to refer to active homosexuals as "active homosexuals" as differentiated from latent homosexuals?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/10/635
http://www.vitroman.com/en/info_en2.asp?pageID=impotence-homosexual
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06032201.html
http://www.forgottenword.org/active.html
If someone is already a homosexual, when described as a "latent homosexual", why then is there any need whatsoever to refer to active homosexuals as "active homosexuals" as differentiated from latent homosexuals?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/10/635
http://www.vitroman.com/en/info_en2.asp?pageID=impotence-homosexual
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06032201.html
http://www.forgottenword.org/active.html