I find it amusing that you inadvertently confessed that the masses are concerned with the private sex lives of others. What’s more pathetic: a person trying to justify their sexual preferences to others, or the fact that the person feels inclined to justify himself because the others feel that it’s their business? The irony of all this is astounding. It’s considered disordered to have sex with someone of the same gender, but it’s perfectly okay for a married person to imagine others having sex, become offended by it as though it was a personal insult, and act to prevent it? What you guys are pushing isn’t loving…it isn’t even fair. What you guys want is simply conformity. If anti-gay people would just admit that, we could all be on our way and stop pretending that this is a real debate with any real significance.
There are so many false assumptions to address in this critque. I think a carefull review of my words would help you see the bias that produced your assumptions. I didn’t inadvertantly confess anything about the masses because in my view unless the issue is spotlighted the ‘masses’ aren’t reflective and could care less how they feel about homosexuals.
Then you’re just contributing to the confusion. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. If you disagree, then I must ask: what’s heterosexuality? If one has to have sex before they can be labelled as a hetero-, homo-, or bisexual, would virgins be mistaken when calling themselves “straight?” If so, then I guess all virgins are asexual. LOL
See, you assume you already know something when you don’t. My reasoning is founded on the idea that manipulating the genitals to orgasm isn’t a behavior that can be categorized as a sexuality. It may end the search for stimulus in an environment that lacks it and therefore be a behaviour that satisfies a sexual urge but a sexuality it isn’t. Sex produces like kind. There are other forms of sexuality that accomplish this like the one you mentioned. There is no such thing as ‘homosexuality’,
