Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

[ QUOTE ]
However, pedophilia is a very different story. You can fantasize about having sex with children, but this does not make you a pedophile. However, the moment you do make sexual contact with one, you ARE a pedophile - no questions asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what your saying. I'd say I'd be called a child molester (I realize people would also say pedophile). Similar to if I murdered someone I would be called a murderer. I use pedophilia to describe the desire or preference to have sex with children as I use homosexuality describe the desire to be with the same sex.

Still, I agree that homosexuality is not connected with pedophilia. One includes shared love and desire between adults, the other is preying upon children. Very, very different.

 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's true. The act does not define the person. I can put my dick in my hand and stroke it - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile. Homosexuality is an innate desire for the same sex. That's all.

Leave out the pedophelia when talking about homosexuality. I'm sure there are homosexual pedophiles. The two desires are unrelated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you are wrong. Before I go into this I need to explain or rather list a few more simple truths which are self explanatory.

1. While there are countless wrong answers there is only one right answer.
2. Genitals were designed to engage in intercourse with the opposite sex in order to produce children.

[ QUOTE ]
I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
NO YOU CAN'T!!! If you willingly put your dick in a guy's ass you are GAY.

[ QUOTE ]
I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ] I am going to assume that you meant to say "straight but still a pedophile." If you meant to say what you said, then you should explain yourself. Having said that, IF YOU WILLINGLY PUT YOUR DICK IN SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER, YOU ARE GAY. A little boy is not a female. That would mean that a man who has sex with a little boy is GAY, and a PEDOPHILE.

All of these issues are related because they are all deviations from the intended and proper use of sexual organs. While I am not saying that all or even a significant percentage of gay people are pedophiles, it is not unreasonable to ask if they are related. There are many ways for sexual behavior to be deviant. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are just two such ways some people vent their sexual energy in a way that can never produce offspring.

Homosexuality is the practice of willingly having sex with people of the same sex. (Now, by your definition the pedophile who abuses boys is still gay, but for a different reason.) When hospitals admit patients in order to find out their sexual orientation they don't ask whether the person is gay or not. They ask whether the person has sex with men, women, or both. They do this because they always get men who will say something like, "Sometimes I have sex with a man named John, but I'm not gay." Well such a man is clearly gay. The bottom line is who he choses to have sex with, what was going on in his head is on the top line.

If there was such a gene that determined homosexuality, it would either a) breed itself out of existence over time; or b) be a mutation of some other gene and therefore be an unhealthy gene.

The argument that nurture is a factor in determining sexual orientation works in favor of people who oppose gay marriage. If the environment has anything to do with determining the orientation of a person, then a case can be made that by legitimizing homosexual behavior society would in effect be creating an environment that would grow more homosexuals.

 

[ QUOTE ]
IF YOU WILLINGLY PUT YOUR DICK IN SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER, YOU ARE GAY.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean you wouldn't put your dick in another dude's ass because you don't want people think you're gay? What a homophobe!

 

[ QUOTE ]
If there was such a gene that determined homosexuality, it would either a) breed itself out of existence over time; or b) be a mutation of some other gene and therefore be an unhealthy gene.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree for a bunch of reasons. While you can argue that sexual function is reproduction oriented humans as a species do not approach it in that utilitarian manner. Sex has become sports and leisure with the knowledge that if you mess up and don't prepare correctly you may create a life. I wouldn't doubt that when homosapiens conquered certain aspects of life (shelter, food and water) that sex stopped being an act of expanding the tribe, maybe even before. Maybe its always been a multi-purpose act.

Even if gender preference is limited to a gene (its not, as other examples in this thread show...gender preference is definitely thermo setting) it wouldn't been seen as counter-productive to the ultimate goal of reproduction since it has its place socially. There is plenty of evidence that homosexual engagements are sometimes a natural way of preparing for actual heterosexual engagements. It might be that the gene and its function exists for a purpose with definite on/off switches. Why? Who knows? We’re constantly being proven that we don’t know everything why would this be any different.

It could be seen that the gene would throw itself on prior to mixed gender interactions to allow for safe sex play and evolving sexual sophistications. Then, perhaps it might shut off when the time comes for procreation. Maybe it stays on as a fluke, maybe it stays on because of a reward function (hey, this feels good)…again, who knows?

Moreover, in our techno marvel society the actual need for physical breeding is being displaced. Why would nature need to protect an act that is becoming superfluous to the goal?


GE

 

man this thread has got way too gay...........
i love how you guys are pressing this issues and shit but come on. stop it now kiddies, before you delve into lower levels of depravity . Some of the stuff you talk about, eg stuff like 'IF YOU WILLINGLY PUT YOUR DICK IN SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER, YOU ARE GAY,' is beginning is be quite vulger in some cases, thus nullifying the 'safe and sexless environment' that i used to expect of at VFDC.

keep it clean kiddies. I dont wanna see posts on about a man serving a man, a woman serving multiple men or whatever vile acts that go against the law of man either. keep that shit locked up.

 

The thread started out talking about gay stuff. The title is "Homosexuality and Gay Marriage" While it is a topic for adults, I don't think it is unnecessarily vulgar considering the subject matter. I personally take care not to offend anyone but when someone says, "I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm straight" what else can say? Someone has to respond to that.

Besides, it is an open forum, and no one on either side is being disrespectful to the other side. If it takes away from what you want to see, you can always not read it. No offense intended.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the stuff you talk about, eg stuff like 'IF YOU WILLINGLY PUT YOUR DICK IN SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER, YOU ARE GAY,' is beginning is be quite vulger in some cases, thus nullifying the 'safe and sexless environment' that i used to expect of at VFDC

[/ QUOTE ]

your one and only option here is to fuck off. If this discussion bothers you move on, avert your eyes. what you "expect to see" doesn't even enter into the equation; thankfully the world (including this forum) is larger than you.

GE

 

I have to agree with Mcoleman2 here.

Some of you guys are telling me that those catholic priests molesting boys aren't gay.

How can an adult male have sexual attraction for a boy child, and not be gay? The guy is then a gay pedo who should be shot. Not saying that a straight pedo (an adult male who has sexual attraction for a girl child) is any better, but damn, some stuff that's been said in the recent posts defy all common sense.

 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the stuff you talk about, eg stuff like 'IF YOU WILLINGLY PUT YOUR DICK IN SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER, YOU ARE GAY,' is beginning is be quite vulger in some cases, thus nullifying the 'safe and sexless environment' that i used to expect of at VFDC

[/ QUOTE ]

your one and only option here is to fuck off. If this discussion bothers you move on, avert your eyes. what you "expect to see" doesn't even enter into the equation; thankfully the world (including this forum) is larger than you.

GE

[/ QUOTE ]

ha. okay. looks like i hit a nerve. fucking off rite now. hope you enjoy your detailed discussion on what constitutes a gay act and a paedophilia act. Hope you ppl sleep well you jerks. Also, naturally i cant compete with the world in terms of size. It would be highly awkward if i was larger than the world. Good observation. You just might make it one day lad.

 

It's alright that we don't see things the same way. I don't want to get in to wrong and right. I avoid labels of value (wrong, right, better, worse) because they're subjective and related to perception.

I maintain that committing an act associated with gays does not make me gay. Here's an example: I have fifty three women and one man lined up in a row - the man is about 12 people from the end. I put my dick in the first 11 female asses (one stroke per ass), the one male ass (cause I'm still hard and lubed from the other asses), and the remaining 42 female asses. I don't know how that would make me gay. Sure, I committed an act that's associated with homosexuality - but all I did was put my dick in a hole. The hole happened to be attached to a guy. So what? The next hot chick that walks by might give me a hard-on. The next hot guy that walks by won't.

Here's another: I'm blindfolded and sitting in a chair. I get blown for 15 seconds at a time by 27 different people, one of them is a guy. Doesn't make me gay or mean I'm gay. My dick was sucked by a guy for 15 seconds - that's what happened. That's it.

Here's a third example of why I think acts do not define. You talked about the difference between fantasizing and doing (related to pedophilia) in an earlier thread. I agree with you about that - they're totally different things. If I spent all day every day fantasizing about fucking guys but never did it even though I REALLY wanted to - but I only fucked women - I'd say I was gay even though I've commited no act related to it.


To Agios: No, the priests aren't all gay (maybe some of them were). They were looking for a place to put their dick. They abused poor boys who were pretty much powerless to stop them. I think it's horrible.

 

About your examples:
53 women and one man lined up in a row. The man says, "look at all those asses, I get to fuck them all." I say to the man, " one of those asses is a man but if you fuck one you have to fuck them all." If the man fucks them all anyway, he is gay. If he says, "I have to go and fuck some asses that I know are all female," then he is not gay, or at least not by this evidence.

P.S. Men don't normally look to fuck them in the ass first. Normally we look for the other hole first.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another: I'm blindfolded and sitting in a chair. I get blown for 15 seconds at a time by 27 different people, one of them is a guy. Doesn't make me gay or mean I'm gay. My dick was sucked by a guy for 15 seconds - that's what happened. That's it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example two: If you knowingly and willingly got head from a man for 15 seconds, you are gay. If you didn't know or weren't willing you got raped.

Example three: I would say you think like a gay man. If gay is a state of mind then you would be gay. You would have experienced the cause of being gay but not the effect of being gay. You still have time to stop yourself. You are not a practicing homosexual until you actually have sexual contact with someone of the same sex.

 

I want clarification on your views. I'm not trying to trap you or make fun of you so forgive me if I imply you're saying something you're not.

I read that you think this: You say I am straight if I never put my dick in a man's ass. If I am straight I could NEVER put my dick in a man's ass. NEVER, not even if I was paid 53 million dollars to do it. The instant I do, I am gay.

Here are the problems I have with that:

1) It means I am straight and I made a choice to become gay by sticking my dick in a guy's ass. I don't think homosexuality is a choice.

2) It means I've always been gay and just don't know it. The mere fact that I could score 53 million in cash just for putting my dick into a guy can not be a factor in my choice. Since I could even bring myself to just insert my dick, one time, into male ass, and make 53 million, I must also be gay. It makes no sense to me.


Here's a not-so-great analogy: Even though I've been straight all my life, I, for one second decide to touch one molecule of my dick head to one molecule of male ass - BAM! Instantly gay. I think about this and say damn, I need a drink. Oh, shit, I've let one drop of alcohol enter my body - I'm now an alcoholic.

My dick is part of my body like my finger. I put a finger in a guy's ass. I would have to be gay. Proctologists must all gay.

My dick is not a magic switch for my sexual preference. If it was, I could fuck a woman, switch to a man - BAM! Instantly gay - go back to a woman BAM! BAM! Instantly not gay anymore.

It gets better. By your logic, an actual gay man one day touches one molecule of his dick head to a molecule of pussy, BAM! BAM! BAM! instantly straight!

Again, not trying to make fun of you. The logic like one drink = alcoholic has to apply if one ass plunge = straight becomes gay. If it doesn't, it means you 're applying special conditions to homosexuality and stating there exists the ability to become gay by choice.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go into this I need to explain or rather list a few more simple truths which are self explanatory.

1. While there are countless wrong answers there is only one right answer.
2. Genitals were designed to engage in intercourse with the opposite sex in order to produce children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Genitals were designed? By who? Who designed my hand? Was it designed to play VF or can I just do whatever the fuck I want with it?

[ QUOTE ]
If you willingly put your dick in a guy's ass you are GAY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe your bi-sexual, or maybe you just think hmmm.... maybe I should sodomize someone today, just to see what it it feels like. Or maybe you are in jail and feel that buttfucking someone would be a good way to feel in command for a brief moment. Things aren't as black and white as you make them out to be.


[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuality is the practice of willingly having sex with people of the same sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Homosexuality" is not a verb. To be homosexual is to be attracted more to members of the same sex than you are to the opposite sex. You can be married and have never slept with a man and still be gay. Lots of people live a lie.

[ QUOTE ]
When hospitals admit patients in order to find out their sexual orientation they don't ask whether the person is gay or not. They ask whether the person has sex with men, women, or both. They do this because they always get men who will say something like, "Sometimes I have sex with a man named John, but I'm not gay." Well such a man is clearly gay. The bottom line is who he choses to have sex with, what was going on in his head is on the top line.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, when do hospitals admit people just to find out their sexual orientation? I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
If there was such a gene that determined homosexuality, it would either a) breed itself out of existence over time; or b) be a mutation of some other gene and therefore be an unhealthy gene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a scientist? You are disagreeing with the prevailing theories regarding the origins of homosexuality. Why?

There have been homosexuals throughout history. There will continue to be homosexuals in the future. They will not be "bred out of existence."

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that nurture is a factor in determining sexual orientation works in favor of people who oppose gay marriage. If the environment has anything to do with determining the orientation of a person, then a case can be made that by legitimizing homosexual behavior society would in effect be creating an environment that would grow more homosexuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't even heard any of the wacko Gay-Marriage opponents say "If we allow gay marriage, we will grow more homos!" You have entered the realm of self-parody.

Seriously though, when dealing with crazy females, haven't you ever wished you could convert to gayness and forever wash your hands of dealing with male/female perspective/hormonal differences? Sadly, I prefer boobies and girly features to stubble and weiners and whatnot.

 

Since you asked for my clarification on my views I will give it to you. Please bear in mind that I am not trying to offend or make fun of you, anyone else, or any gay person who may read this. If people live a gay lifestyle that is their business, and they have a right to that choice. This thread however, goes to things that are beyond what is simply their business and effects others.

Now for the clarification you asked for. I will begin here.

I place different standards on men than I do on women and vice versa. I don't mean more harsh standards I mean different. I some regards they may be more harsh in some regards they may be less harsh. Men and women are different and as such nature and people expect and require different things from them. Nature and people also give different things to them.

Okay here goes,

There is no bisexual. There is only heterosexual and homosexual, straight and gay. If a person has sex with both men and women, that person is gay.

I restate, If you knowingly and willingly put your dick in a man's ass, or his mouth, you are gay. For a man to have sex with another man and not be gay he must have been forced, raped....As in someone is standing there with a gun to his head telling him to do it or they will shoot. (BTW, a good deal of straight men would tell him to shoot.)

Whether or not a person can control their tendencies or not, homosexuality (which is a noun) it the practice of performing certain actions. To be a Homosexual you have to perform homosexual acts.

If you put you dick into a male ass one time for 53 million dollars, you are a gay prostitute. Who is to say the next man won't offer 153 million. What if the first man only offered 5 million, 4 million, 3 million, 2 million, 1 million, 1/2 million.

If a man has sex with only women, he is straight. One day he chooses to have sex with man - BAM he is gay. The next day he decides to have sex with woman, he is still gay.

Your penis is not your finger. Proctologist don't put their penises into their patients. The put their finger into patients for examination, not for sexual gratification.

[ QUOTE ]
Genitals were designed? By who? Who designed my hand? Was it designed to play VF or can I just do whatever the fuck I want with it?

[/ QUOTE ]
By God or course. If you don't believe in God, then nature, evolution or whatever you believe in. The point is it is clearly designed to penetrate a vagina, ejaculate and deposite sprem cells near a uterus. Since we are talking about homosexuality, Have you ever asked yourself why is it that when gay men are having sex they still feel the need to penetrate something? Why is it that lesbians still feel the need to be penetrated when have sex with another lesbian, someone who has no body parts designed to penetrate? even though they sexual desire is toward something with no orifaces designed to be penetrated? It is because of the simple truth that sexual organs operate the same way inspite of a person's sexual taste.

[ QUOTE ]
When hospitals admit patients in order to find out their sexual orientation they don't ask whether the person is gay or not. They ask whether the person has sex with men, women, or both.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll rephrase.

In order to find out the sexual orientation of their patients, hospitals don't ask whether the person is gay or not. They ask whether the person has sex with men, women, or both.

Is that better? What I want to communicate is the reality that they can not find out if a person is gay by asking them, "are you gay?"

 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a scientist? You are disagreeing with the prevailing theories regarding the origins of homosexuality. Why?

There have been homosexuals throughout history. There will continue to be homosexuals in the future. They will not be "bred out of existence."

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not a scientist but I have had enough science to understand basic genetics. Also, note that I am not arguing the existence of a gene that determines homosexuality. I was simply responding to something said by plague.

It is not a difficult concept. Such a gene would be designed to prevent its carrier from procreating. That is what homosexuality does, you know. It changes your sexual behavior from one that results in childbirth to one that does not result in childbirth. A gene designed to prevent its host from procreating will not be passed down whenever that gene is succesfully expressed. Thus it is only passed along when it is paired with another gene that covers it up (in other words you get a gay gene from your mother but get a straight gene from your father to cover it up so that you could procreate). If both your parents had one gay gene and one straight gene approximately 25% or their children with get 2 gay genes. 25% would get two straight genes, and 50% would get one gay and one straight. Thus such a trait would constitute a steadily decreasing percentage of the reproducing population. i.e. breeding itself out. The straight gene would become a steadily increasing percentage of the reproducing population i.e. breeding itself in.

At the beginning this theoretical "gay gene" would have been 50% of the gene pool regarding this characteristic, and present in 100% of the reproducing population, that is the two progenitors are half and half. At the generation of the progenitors' offspring ( 2nd generation), the "gay gene" would be 50% of the genes in existence, but it would only be present in 67% of the reproducing population. By the 4th generation, this "gay gene would be present in only 45% of the total population and 40% of the reproducing population and would only make up about 27% of the gene pool for this particular characterist and 20% of the gene pool for the reproducing population. What do you think it would be by the 40th generation?

If it was a mutation it would have to be passed down. It would eliminate itself in one generation. In other words it would me that there is not "gay gene" but it creates itself spontaneously in one generation and would not pass itself down because it would cut off its own reproduction. If such were reality that would mean homosexuality would be sort of a genetic defect.

That roughly how it works, although not that simple. I personally don't believe either of these is true. I think it is mostly a nurture issue. Given that I know of people who were heterosexual until imprisoned (mentioned above), and that I know women who were heterosexual until they got raped and now they are gay. I know there is at least some mental stimulus/trauma that can drive a person to be gay in some circumstances.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't even heard any of the wacko Gay-Marriage opponents say "If we allow gay marriage, we will grow more homos!" You have entered the realm of self-parody.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you haven't been listening, I've heard it several times. Although never that harshly put.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, when dealing with crazy females, haven't you ever wished you could convert to gayness and forever wash your hands of dealing with male/female perspective/hormonal differences? Sadly, I prefer boobies and girly features to stubble and weiners and whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, never have, not one time. How about you?

 

[ QUOTE ]
If a man has sex with only women, he is straight. One day he chooses to have sex with man - BAM he is gay. The next day he decides to have sex with woman, he is still gay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where you get this idea. Maybe it's from like-minded people. Maybe it's something you read or heard. Maybe you figured it out on your own and it's just The Rule of Mcoleman2.

I've talked to gay men. All of them said they've never desired to be with a woman. When they became sexually aware, they wanted to be with other men. They were not sexually attracted to women.

I've only been attracted to women. I've never fucked a man. If I did decide to do it, I can assure you I would not come out sexually attracted to men and not aroused by women. I do not see how I can be gay unless I apply The Rule of Mcoleman2 as quoted above.

My dick is an appendage, that's it. I can commit a homosexual act with it - so what? I can also fuck some apple pie, like in the movie. I made the proctologist reference - you say: well he uses his fingers and not his penis. A gay man missing his penis can please his gay partner with his finger. How I use my dick does not define me. How you use your dick does not define you.

Really, it doesn't.

I've read you feel really strongly about certain things - if a man sucked your dick for 15 seconds and you were unaware of it, even though you were also enjoying fellatio from 23 other women in the room - you say you've been raped. Perception is key and it is what's important. If that happened to me, I'd think "whoa, there was a guy in that group, wonder which one it was. Heh, whatever - the chick that finshed me off was awesome."

You're not wrong for thinking you'd been raped, cause, hey, those are your thoughts and it's your perception. Other people would percieve it different than both of us. That's OK, too. You can label them gay if you want, but if they knew you were doing it, they might look at you a little funny.

You lay out gay and straight like black and white. It's not like that. Men range from masculine to feminine and women from feminine to masculine. Some people have both sex organs or none at all. You say there are no bi-sexuals - I know bi-sexuals who would disagree. Sexuality is measured by what you desire. There have been studies in the age range of, say, 12 to 20 years old. Many people are figuring out their sexuality at this time - some already know. The number and types of encounters are recorded and the determination is pretty much made from there. More heterosexual experiences = not gay, equal number = bi, more homosexual encounters = gay. Some are more straight then others, some more gay, some are bi but lean toward straight. That's pretty much it. No hard, fast, rock-solid classifications. There is no black and white. I don't find that disturbing.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked for my clarification on my views I will give it to you. Please bear in mind that I am not trying to offend or make fun of you, anyone else, or any gay person who may read this. If people live a gay lifestyle that is their business, and they have a right to that choice. This thread however, goes to things that are beyond what is simply their business and effects others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because it's such a pressing matter in my life that Rosie and what's-her-name can possibly get married, and that my parents, or my friends parents, are suddenly gonna get divorced. You know, sanctity of marriage and all that feel-good goes out the window when gay people get married, am i rite?

And I'jm sure my tax monies are going to suddenly get massively wasted on benefits for gay couples. Oh wait, that's right, a TREMENDOUS amount of the taxes I pay currently go towards funding heterosexual married couples, right? I mean, the government takes a dime a week from me to pay for married couple benefits, but if they add gay couples into the group that can get benefits, that dime might double to a whole twenty cents! Whoa, they're really hurting me now.

Why can't we just burn all the faggots and get it over with, so us heterosexuals who don't give a damn can just live peacefully with the homosexuals?

 

You make several statements that I could respond to, but they all seem to stem from one misconception which you apparently hold dear. Here is the reality that you are missing.

You are either gay or you are straight.

You can't be straight and gay at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. You are one or the other. Several times you have stated that you don't believe it is true. You asked me where I get the idea from. I get that from simply watching people and nature. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't true. You are the one with the obscure minority opinion. Gay union is a new phenomena. You are the one who thinks that the prior thousands of years of human history are all wrong and that gay unions are the same as marriage. Most of the country, the world, disagrees with you.

What I am about to say is not an insult. It will however, appear to be one at the beginning. So, I apologize in advance and ask you to read to the end of the paragraph at which time my point will become clear.

If I were to go into a thread and say, "Plague doesn't know his thumb from his dick," you'd get insulted. People would say I'm flaming etc. But here you are saying stuff like...
[ QUOTE ]
My dick is part of my body like my finger. I put a finger in a guy's ass. I would have to be gay. Proctologists must all gay.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I say, "Your dick is not your finger," and then you tell I'm wrong and how you can do the same thing with your finger that you can do with your dick. The simple truth is, "your finger is not your dick." I am not making these things up, I am simply discovering the way they are. Your position on this matter is so off-base that it is truly funny. You have been sold a bad bill of goods about basic realities. Certain things just are what they are. You want them to be something different and are complicating simple and basic issues so that you can create space to accept your ideas as reality.

I say if you knowingly, and willingly put your penis in a man's butt for any reason, you are gay. I get that idea that from this reality: There is really only one reason a man willingly puts his penis in anything; a man puts his penis in something because he wants sexual gratification from it. A man wanting gratification from a man makes the former man gay. Men and women are different. A woman can just lay there and have sex while she is truly repulsed by you; a man can't do that. You seem to think that this is not true. What part of it is not true?

A man who has sex with one man today and then has sex with 7 women tomorrow is still gay. Whatever it was that made him desire a man today will still be there tomorrow, after he sleeps with the seven women.

[ QUOTE ]
I've only been attracted to women. I've never fucked a man. If I did decide to do it, I can assure you I would not come out sexually attracted to men and not aroused by women. I do not see how I can be gay unless I apply The Rule of Mcoleman2 as quoted above.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Mcoleman2 can assure you that if you decide to have sodomy with a man that you will come out aroused by men. I can be certain, because I know you will go in aroused by men. I know it, even if you don't. Your desires toward women will be largely unchanged as well.

[ QUOTE ]
I've read you feel really strongly about certain things - if a man sucked your dick for 15 seconds and you were unaware of it, even though you were also enjoying fellatio from 23 other women in the room - you say you've been raped. Perception is key and it is what's important. If that happened to me, I'd think "whoa, there was a guy in that group, wonder which one it was. Heh, whatever - the chick that finshed me off was awesome."

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure you are in the minority on that, too. Although I admit I can not speak for anyone else.

There are hard, fast, rock-solid classifications, but there aren't many of them, just two, straight and gay. Look at it like this: How many ways can you draw a crooked line? Thousands, Millions, actually it's infinite. Now, how many ways can you draw a straight line? Answer: One, from Point A to Point B. If the line makes any deviations, corners, or curves at all, no matter how slight, it's crooked. Every line that is not straight, is crooked. Isn't that simple?

The straight line is a man who desires only women and a woman who desires only men. It doesn't matter how a person is not straight. He is either straight or he isn't straight. Maybe he only likes fellatio from a man once a year. Maybe he is married with 4 children but keeps a boyfriend on the side. Maybe he will only have sex with a man if that man pays him enough. Maybe she gets turned be giving cunnilingus. Maybe he likes only men. Within the universe of crooked lines (gay people) there is enormous deviation, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that the person is not straight.

 

You are being a fucking moron. People who study human sexualty (this is a scientific field, the existence of which you seem to be unaware of) recognize that sexual orientation is a complex entity with near infinite gradations and variations. The fact that bisexuality exists is not even in dispute. And yet you continue to bloviate. You may as well join the Flat Earth Society while you're at it.

Perhaps the good sir doth protest too much...

 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Mcoleman2 can assure you that if you decide to have sodomy with a man that you will come out aroused by men. I can be certain, because I know you will go in aroused by men. I know it, even if you don't. Your desires toward women will be largely unchanged as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't know this about me. You are not me. You are you. You can know it about yourself. That's all.

I am confident that if someone were to pay me $53 million for doing it, I could think of a hot chick, get hard, stick my dick in a man, get no gratificaton, and get paid a ton of cash, and not be gay. Hell, even without the money. Confidence, self-awareness, no fear, no shame, that's all. You can call me gay all you want. It would make about as much sense as you calling me a three-armed, lion-headed, orange-colored man with fiery blue hair. A massively resounding "WTF?!" from all corners of the universe would grind you into periwinkle scented dust. You are allowed your perception.

As far as percentages of gay and straight go - you might be 100% straight and me 99% straight and one percent gay - just like a guy who is 99% white and 1% black. The guy looks white and is called white (to be consistent, and not apply double-standards, you'd have to call him black). I feel straight and would be called straight (except by you).

In your posts, I hear you screaming: "I'M NOT GAY!"

It's ok.

I believe you.