And what kind of infantile logic is that supposed to be? If I label myself homosexual and my behavior includes eating toast in the morning, does that mean eating toast in the morning is part of me being homosexual? Do you even think about what you say before you say it?
Infantile logic, says he who has used general behaviour to argue against a point about SEXUAL behaviour. Do YOU even bother to think about what another person says before you comment on it?
Your problem is that you can't fathom deriving sexual pleasure from another person without sexual attraction. However, for a lot of people, they can derive sexual pleasure from someone they are not physically aroused by. The act by itself doesn't magically change your orientation. Orientation only has to do with physical attraction, not sexual behavior.
I can't fathom why people enjoy watching war films but that does'nt mean i think they are fucked in the head. The basis for most people's opinions are based for the largest part on personal experience, so you are basically saying that my opinion/logic is wrong simply because its mine. I have'nt suggested that people cannot derive sexual pleasure from someone they are not attracted to, my view is that specifically they cannot be straight whilst indulging in gay behaviour without extenuating circumstances that are anything other than pure sexual gratification.
What exactly am I 'assuming'??? You're the only one doing the assuming in this debate.
Assuming that i think my way of thinking is the right way or better than anyone elses, for 1. (whilst ironically it is YOU consistently attacking MY logic)
Assuming that by saying behaviour and orientation are not seperate, that i therefore must mean they are the same, for 2.
Assuming that i must have a priveledged life (suggested when we were debating boredom as motivation), for 3.
Just 3 examples there of the assuming which you have been doing.
Note that my assumptions have been about the relationship between sexual behaviour and orientation (on topic) and yours have been about how
I think (off topic)
Again, sexual gratification is not entirely dependent on physical attraction. Masturbation is proof of this.
Masturbation is a sexual act where there is zero need for sexual attraction as the act is effectively an asexual one. It is therefore a very poor example of a sexual act which is absent of attraction to justify the argument which you are making.
What you've described is 'learning', not 'debating'. People don't debate to learn something new, they debate to prove who's point is more valid. You can't properly debate with me because you still have to 'learn' about experiences other than simply your own.
You are headed for a life of blissful ignorance then. I DO take the opportunity to learn through debate, in so doing i am able to change opinion where i see a valid point which forms the crux in anothers argument. If i fail to take notice of a valid point then i may as well be a brick wall for whoever is debating with me.
There's no point in bringing 'identity' into this because that is just something that a person uses to call themselves. However, unlike orientation, identity can be anything and is completely subjective. They can 'identity' themselves as straight even though their orientation is gay for no other reason other than because they feel like it. Therefore, 'identity' has no real place in an argument involving orientation and behavior and why you thought it would somehow help your argument is anyone's guess.
Utter pish, identity is the 'everything' that relates to sex and sexuality.
(lets just clarify now that i am talking about SEXUAL identity and not you as in your name!)
The bolded part is exactly what a straight person being gay is doing. "YEAH, i enjoyed getting a blow job from Billy Bob because i really enjoyed it, but, but, but i was thinking of my sister in law, i just could'nt be asked to have a wank because i was bored, and there are no women in my neighbourhood, and besides, i knew the priest would'nt approve, so it provided the opportunity to voice my opposition to organised religion"
And the jury says....(fishy smell around here?)
I'm still waiting for your proof of this.
You will forever be waiting. You are taking (again ironically) a black and white view that sexual orientation is based solely on sexual attraction.
I'm taking the view that it involves other factors such as emotional attachment (such allows married couples in their 80's to enjoy sex lives despite having a lack of physical attraction) and also BEHAVIOUR!
Another point to make which you already know, sexual attraction does'nt have to be physical, which means whether you are a straight guy who is not physically sexually attracted to another guy but still performs gay acts, it does'nt proove his orientation is not bi or gay. This is because sexual behaviour is as indicative of a persons true sexual identity as the sexual attraction for specific individuals. (which is why my being gay is more than about who i do and don't fancy, it's about how i feel on the inside and how i act on those emotions).
That might be the case if behavior was always a direct result of physical attraction, which it isn't, therefore a study on behavior would not be very objective in concluding percentages of orientation. In fact, the previous poll asking people their orientation, would actually be more accurate since people tend to know who they're attracted to.
There you go with physical attraction again. Look beyond the physical.
Your argument gives hardline homophobes 'the evidence' to justify homosexuality as being illegal. They say, its all about physical attraction but they (gays) can 'learn' to take sexual pleasure from women, They can LEARN to defy their emotions. It's not like that whatsoever as you well know.
Its not purely about physical attraction. I for example have been sexually attracted to someone who when i first met them was 'unattractive' as far as i was concerned. Sexuality is far deeper than the shallow physical attraction aspect of sexual behaviour.
Except the difference between our arguments is that my point uses logic (that a person A: can derive sexual pleasure from something or someone they're not physically attracted to and B: There are other ways to be sexually aroused aside from physical attraction) and countless testimonials from individuals (found everywhere on the net). Your point, however, has a noticeable lack of logic and has no supporting evidence whatsoever aside from what you yourself would do in certain situations.
I don't dispute your point A and point B. That is YOUR problem, you are taking base facts and using them to superiorise your own logic without looking at how those points (base points) can be used by the opposing view just as easily. This in fact the case.
You are failing to look any further than base facts before arguing your case and ruling that the points i make are simply 'out of sync' with your own so must be invalid.
I argue that you are thinking too narrowly about what sexual orientation is, whereas you argue that my logic is wrong. PROVE IT!!! So far you are not offering valid points that sexual orientation is ONLY about physical attraction. I bet you can't, this on the basis that you have said yourself that you can engage in sexual acts without physical attraction.
Therefore, you have a flaw in trying to prove that a straight guy engaged in gay acts can still be straight simply because he is not physically attracted. The participation in the act itself is telling enough regardless of the physical attraction aspect.
No, because a bisexual is an individual who is physically aroused by both genders. I'm referring to people who engage in sexual behavior with genders they are not physically aroused by.
This is another example of the narrowness in which you regard bisexuality to be. I believe sexual orientation to be about more than physical attraction.
Multiple times actually since most of your argument is just repeating the same non-logic and just wording it a bit differently.
