I think you need to go back and read the title of your thread, as well as your first post, for example:
That somehow strikes you as less obnoxious? And saying that a guy is gay simply because he jacked off or took a blowjob from another guy or even gave one is laughable, and about as simple-minded as it gets. He might well be gay, but he isn't necessarily. I mean, a man or a woman who performs a sexual act with a member of the same sex every once in a while simply for the kicks, and with complete emotional detachment and no desire for any emotional connection is full-on gay? Lol. Really?
When is a vegetarian no longer a vegetarian? If he eats a piece of turkey once a year at Thanksgiving, is he no longer a vegetarian? What about twice a year - Thanksgiving and Christmas, now is he no longer a vegetarian? Oh, what if he also has BBQ at Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day, but eats no animal products the other 360 days a year - is he NOW no longer a vegetarian? What if he only eats the meat to be polite, but doesn't really like it, or if he was at a meal where every dish was made with some sort of animal product? You tell me - when is he no longer a vegetarian? And somehow, people think the question is less ludicrous just because it involves sex...
Honestly I realized the title of the thread was pretty bad after the fact but I thought it sounded pretty cool (like the part in Tropic Thunder when Ben Stiller says "I'm a Rooster Illusion.") so apologies for that.
I said it before and I'll say it again I think I've made it clear I'm arguing for the spectrum rather than labels. As for arguing they are "Full on gay" that's not something I did, I've been arguing they
aren't full on straight. Granted they might not be full-on gay but I think it's ridiculous to act as if the behavior is not homosexual on a physical level, regardless of emotional investment.
As for your vegetarian analogy, there's something inherently wrong with it that i'll point out shortly. Firstly however, they are still vegetarians of course, but they are also hypocrites if they eat meat out of convienence and/or a desire to be polite and food unlike sex, is not riddled with "by-products" you can't sleep with a man or woman and then end up touching a guy's junk a bit (unless it's a 3-way but in this analogy sex is like a singular meal). As to why it's a flawed analogy, when would you ever have sex with someone of the sex your not attracted to in order to "be polite"? Sex unlike food isn't something offered up to you that you have to accept to keep in someone's good graces (at least not in the same way as food would be).
As to my first post, the "wtf?" is in reference to the hypocrisy of the behavior, not the behavior itself, also once again, you've started the personal insults, call me close-minded or stubborn, but calling me simple-minded is uncalled for, having a differing view point on an issue doesn't make me an idiot, and also I never said your posting was obnoxious, but I see you said mine was. I'm trying to keep things civil, I could start throwing passive-aggressive insults out too, but I won't. :biggrin1:
I think Matthew's post above mine basically reiterates (and probably better eloquates) the points i've been trying to make).