Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Satenza]

 

You're interests have no impact whatsoever on your biology. Every human being, with the exception of those unfortunate enough to be sterile/infertile, has the ability to reproduce. Being homosexual just means that you choose not to reproduce. Note: I say choose because I consider homosexuality a choice just like it is your choice to breathe. You can choose not to breathe, but eventually you're going to either give in to your instincts or die.

 

Also, you need to realize that sexuality isn't black and white. It's a range of greys. Just like how some people who say they're straight, but would be open to "experimentation", you can't just label someone as hetero/homosexual/bisexual to get a true grasp of what their sexuality really is.

 

Just to top it off, sexuality is psychological, not biological.

 

Being homosexual does not simply mean you choose not to reproduce. I am in awe that you, aquariusman, have concretely solved the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not a choice. How can you possibly consider something to be a choice when the very best scientists this world has to offer can not even do such a thing? I consider your consideration to be inconsiderate.

 

I like how you end with misrepresenting this unfounded belief as well, by stating apparently categorically that it is certainly not biological but is certainly psychological.

 

You don't have to fill the void of knowledge with unfounded beliefs.

[Dupin]

First of all, California and New Jersey are conservative compared to Massachusetts. Don't even try.

 

Secondly, homosexuality is a right. Not "right" but "a right". Who are you to tell people who to love? I don't personally get into that stuff, but I'm not going to be going around judging others based on it.

 

The Bible is completely irrelevant in a debate like this. First of all, our (USA) laws specifically state that religion and government should be seperate. In addition, the Bible has been wrong time and time again on subjects like this, and it always loses. First it was the rights of people with dark skin, then women's rights, then the right of interracial couples to marry. Now all the Christian extremists and the hive-minded conformist homophobes are trying to eliminate homosexuality, and failing miserably.

 

I was shocked to read the first few posts (from a few years ago) in this thread. If I saw that posted in this day and age I would think it was a troll. I do hope somebody comes along and intelligently defends those views to me, as I have yet to hear a real reason that homosexuality would be "wrong".

[Zierro]

First of all, California and New Jersey are conservative compared to Massachusetts. Don't even try.

 

It was just a joke to Saruman saying, "Somebody post something controversial."

 

If I saw that posted in this day and age I would think it was a troll.

 

Haha, I know what you mean. I always find it funny when people talk about the "golden age" of TIF. I look back at those posts and they're just horrible.

 

Also, you need to realize that sexuality isn't black and white. It's a range of greys. Just like how some people who say they're straight, but would be open to "experimentation", you can't just label someone as hetero/homosexual/bisexual to get a true grasp of what their sexuality really is.

 

Really don't know where you're going here. Bisexuality is the greyness. There could be different degrees of bisexuality though - like if someone liked both genders but favored females.

 

Just to top it off, sexuality is psychological, not biological.

 

Don't they go hand in hand? Your brain is part of your biology, after all.

[Dupin]

Also, you need to realize that sexuality isn't black and white. It's a range of greys. Just like how some people who say they're straight, but would be open to "experimentation", you can't just label someone as hetero/homosexual/bisexual to get a true grasp of what their sexuality really is.

 

Really don't know where you're going here. Bisexuality is the greyness. There could be different degrees of bisexuality though - like if someone liked both genders but favored females.

 

I believe what he's trying to say is most people are partially bisexual. Sexuality is like a spectrum, with 1 being extreme hetero and 10 being extreme homo, with 4-6 bisexual. The common man is really a 2 or 3, meaning he might occasionally feel something for another man.

[Zierro]

I don't see how getting turned on by both genders doesn't count as bisexuality. Or how one can be "partially" bi. I've read those pansexual and polysexual articles and what it really comes down to is they simply don't want to be labeled a bisexual, even if that's what the signs point to.

 

As for being bi-curious, I wouldn't even call that an orientation. It's just the process of finding out what orientation you're comfortable with for the people who are confused.

[Romy]

Scales for assessments

 

From at least the late nineteenth century in Europe, there was speculation that the range of human sexual response looked more like a continuum than two or three discrete categories. Berlin sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld published a scheme in 1896 that measured the strength of an individual's sexual desire on two independent 10-point scales, A (homosexual) and B (heterosexual).[40] A heterosexual individual may be A0, B5; a homosexual individual may be A5, B0; an asexual would be A0, B0; and someone with an intense attraction to both sexes would be A9, B9.

 

Fifty years later, American sexologist Alfred Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948):

 

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.

 

– [41]

 

The Kinsey scale measures sexual orientation from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual), with an additional category, X, for those with no sexual attraction to either women or men. Unlike Hirschfeld's scale, the Kinsey scale is one-dimensional. Simon LeVay wrote, "it suggests (although Kinsey did not actually believe this) that every person has the same fixed endowment of sexual energy, which he or she then divides up between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction in a ratio indicative of his or her own sexual orientation."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

 

So if we're to take the Kinsey scale, for example, you have the "perfect straight", the "perfect gay", and varying degrees. "4" would be a "perfect bisexual". The rest are degrees of sexuality. "1", for instance, would be a straight person that may be having some thoughts or tiny attractions to the same gender, but they're still straight.

[Zierro]

So if we're to take the Kinsey scale, for example, you have the "perfect straight", the "perfect gay", and varying degrees. "4" would be a "perfect bisexual". The rest are degrees of sexuality. "1", for instance, would be a straight person that may be having some thoughts or tiny attractions to the same gender, but theyr'e still straight.

 

So a man could be sexually attracted to another man, and still be straight? What's the point of the words heterosexual and bisexual then? We might as well just flush the whole English dictionary down the toilet if anyone can interpret whatever word they want however they want, regardless of what the pragmatics imply. By definition, a man who loves women but also has sexual fantasies about other men (rare or not) has jumped over the fence from heterosexual territory and crossed onto the bisexual side. He is sexually attracted to both (two) genders, ergo his sexuality is bi.

 

I've still yet to see any indication that there are more orientations relevant to human gender out there that don't fall under the categories of being turned on by the opposite sex (hetero), being turned on by the same sex (homo), being turned on by both (bi), or being turned on by none (non). Actually, the only thing this article seemed to be implying was that they've proven the existence of bisexuality - the "grey" orientation. This is is obvious to us now in 2010. I wasn't arguing over this though. I'm arguing about how people think there are sexualities beyond the four I mentioned above.

 

And about those polysexual and pansexual articles, all I saw a bunch of pretentious "I transcend typical sex" idealism. I loved how they embellished their baseless arguments with philosophy talk. Yeah, just conveniently pick and choose which words do or don't have meaning. If you're going to argue that "man" and "woman" are subjective entities then there's really no point in using language and communication at all. It might have been a human being who created the word "objective", but their idea was for us to collectively communicate thoughts and information via relatable references. To talk and there be meaning to it. There's just no grounds for communication if we're all wandering off in our own little worlds.... A man is a man, a woman is a woman. A man might want to be a woman (or it?), and so edit his body or attitude to give himself the feeling that he is, but sorry, you can't exceed the two genders the universe gave us or whatever the hell pansexuals are trying to achieve. "Who are you to say my notebook is filled with paper?"

[Romy]

^ But, asexuals for example, many times really and actually have a sexual orientation, that just is not strong enough to "act on". In other words, their desires do not exceed their willingness (or lack thereof) to act. That, in a way, fits what I mentioned above (of a straight, that could partially, and to a very low degree, be "attracted" (for the lack of a better word) to the same sex, but not enough to actually be anything other than straight.)

 

I could be right, and this could also just be my way of explaining things. In the end, it's all semantics.

[Zierro]

^ But, asexuals for example, many times really and actually have a sexual orientation, that just is not strong enough to "act on". In other words, their desires do not exceed their willingness (or lack thereof) to act. That, in a way, fits what I mentioned above (of a straight, that could partially, and to a very low degree, be "attracted" (for the lack of a better word) to the same sex, but not enough to actually be anything other than straight.)

 

Then it sounds to me like they are wrongly labeled an asexual. I think your orientation is dependent on your feelings rather than your actions. A straight man could have gay sex - he just wouldn't enjoy it. Also, by that line of reasoning it makes it sound like nobody has an orientation until they first act on it.

 

I could be right, and this could also just be my way of explaining things. In the end, it's all semantics.

 

My last paragraph, if that's what you were replying to, was directed towards the logic pansexuals and polysexuals use to try to dissociate themselves from bisexuality. It just comes down to them fighting the fact that we live in a gender binary realm. Only two legitimate genders exist in objective reality. An androgene is either a biological male or female who consciously decided to alter their anatomy to try to achieve a "genderless" result. If a man got into an accident and lost his manly parts, does this strip him of his gender? Should we all of a sudden call him an it? Of course not - how silly. The only difference between the man in the accident and the androgene is the fact that the androgene consciously chose to alter their appearance. The androgene without any parts would claim he's genderless. The man in the accident without any parts would probably claim that he's still a man. That's where the subjectivity comes in. If being a man or being a woman is a subjective matter, then triangles having three sides could be too.

 

Woo, excuse me for getting carried away. That wasn't really directed towards you either - I just haven't made posts like these in a while and I'm having too much fun with it. It's hard to stop my thoughts from coming out of my fingertips. :-)

[obfuscator]

^ But, asexuals for example, many times really and actually have a sexual orientation, that just is not strong enough to "act on". In other words, their desires do not exceed their willingness (or lack thereof) to act. That, in a way, fits what I mentioned above (of a straight, that could partially, and to a very low degree, be "attracted" (for the lack of a better word) to the same sex, but not enough to actually be anything other than straight.)

 

I could be right, and this could also just be my way of explaining things. In the end, it's all semantics.

But I thought all sexualities must be acted on, as it would be terribly unnatural for people to practice any restraint whatsoever?

[Romy]

Then it sounds to me like they are wrongly labeled an asexual. I think your orientation is dependent on your feelings rather than your actions. A straight man could have gay sex - he just wouldn't enjoy it. Also, by that line of reasoning it makes it sound like nobody has an orientation until they first act on it.

 

Asexuals CAN and sometimes DO act on their desires, they just don't normally do. Well, it depends, asexuality currently has more than 1 definition, I only used the one that fit my theory.

 

My last paragraph, if that's what you were replying to, was directed towards the logic pansexuals and polysexuals use to try to dissociate themselves from bisexuality. It just comes down to them fighting the fact that we live in a gender binary realm. Only two legitimate genders exist in objective reality. An androgene is either a biological male or female who consciously decided to alter their anatomy to try to achieve a "genderless" result. If a man got into an accident and lost his manly parts, does this strip him of his gender? Should we all of a sudden call him an it? Of course not - how silly. The only difference between the man in the accident and the androgene is the fact that the androgene consciously chose to alter their appearance. The androgene without any parts would claim he's genderless. The man in the accident without any parts would probably claim that he's still a man. That's where the subjectivity comes in. If being a man or being a woman is a subjective matter, then triangles having three sides could be too.

 

Woo, excuse me for getting carried away. That wasn't really directed towards you either - I just haven't made posts like these in a while and I'm having too much fun with it. It's hard to stop my thoughts from coming out of my fingertips. :-)

 

It was all directed to your first two paragraphs.

I'm not really sure where I stand when it comes to pansexuals and polysexuals, other than that I think if it makes anyone feel better about themselves, I don't have a problem with it.

 

^ But, asexuals for example, many times really and actually have a sexual orientation, that just is not strong enough to "act on". In other words, their desires do not exceed their willingness (or lack thereof) to act. That, in a way, fits what I mentioned above (of a straight, that could partially, and to a very low degree, be "attracted" (for the lack of a better word) to the same sex, but not enough to actually be anything other than straight.)

 

I could be right, and this could also just be my way of explaining things. In the end, it's all semantics.

But I thought all sexualities must be acted on, as it would be terribly unnatural for people to practice any restraint whatsoever?

 

Asexuality, by the definition I used, is not restraint, it's the lack of a desire to act on their (possibly existing, possibly not existing) sexuality. Other forms of asexuality can be to choose not to act on their sexuality, etc, in which case they obviously do have a sexual orientation, that is simply not brought to actions.

 

Wikipedia really puts it better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

[Zierro]

Asexuals CAN and sometimes DO act on their desires, they just don't normally do. Well, it depends, asexuality currently has more than 1 definition, I only used the one that fit my theory.

 

Other forms of asexuality can be to choose not to act on their sexuality, etc, in which case they obviously do have a sexual orientation, that is simply not brought to actions.

 

"The desire for sex, but to not act on it."

"The lack of desire for sex."

 

Yeah, seems to be contradictory definitions with this term. I don't get why they would base a sexual orientation on the actions the person chooses to execute (or lack of actions) rather than what's going on in their minds. When I think of sexual orientation, desire is definitely the main thing to look at. There are so many gay people who suppress their feelings. I wouldn't say that this makes them non-gay though. The word for choosing not to act on sexual desires should just remain abstinent.

 

It was all directed to your first two paragraphs.

 

Oops sorry then. Well, at least that's more reading material for TIF. I'll re-reply since I love semantics.

 

I could be right, and this could also just be my way of explaining things. In the end, it's all semantics.

 

I think if there is a hint of liking both genders whatsoever (Even the tiniest bit!), then you've crossed onto the threshold of bisexuality. The word "heterosexual" loses purpose if that can also be used to describe men who sometimes have thoughts about other men. You could argue that one bisexual man is more straight than another, but neither of them are straight. Just like you could say one wavy line is more straight than another, but neither of them are actually straight. Yeah, coincidentally that was the best analogy I could come up with, heh.

 

I'm not really sure where I stand when it comes to pansexuals and polysexuals, other than that I think if it makes anyone feel better about themselves, I don't have a problem with it.

 

Yes, quite like religion. I'm not going to call an androgene immoral or anything, I just don't agree with some of the points they're trying to make.

[Romy]

Asexuals CAN and sometimes DO act on their desires, they just don't normally do. Well, it depends, asexuality currently has more than 1 definition, I only used the one that fit my theory.

 

Other forms of asexuality can be to choose not to act on their sexuality, etc, in which case they obviously do have a sexual orientation, that is simply not brought to actions.

 

"The desire for sex, but to not act on it."

"The lack of desire for sex."

 

Yeah, seems to be contradictory definitions with this term.

 

The fact that the definitions contradict each other means nothing about it, really. "Asexuality" simply has more than one definition.

 

I don't get why they would base a sexual orientation on the actions the person chooses to execute (or lack of actions) rather than what's going on in their minds. When I think of sexual orientation, desire is definitely the main thing to look at. There are so many gay people who suppress their feelings. I wouldn't say that this makes them non-gay though. The word for choosing not to act on sexual desires should just remain abstinent.

 

The difference is, that asexuals that decide not to act on their desires (usually for religous reasons), aren't like gays that repress their desires out of fear, denial, etc. Asexuality by that definition is simply choosing not to have sex as a result of a... point of view.

 

It was all directed to your first two paragraphs.

 

Oops sorry then. Well, at least that's more reading material for TIF. I'll re-reply since I love semantics.

 

I could be right, and this could also just be my way of explaining things. In the end, it's all semantics.

 

I think if there is a hint of liking both genders whatsoever (Even the tiniest bit!), then you've crossed onto the threshold of bisexuality. The word "heterosexual" loses purpose if that can also be used to describe men who sometimes have thoughts about other men. You could argue that one bisexual man is more straight than another, but neither of them are straight. Just like you could say one wavy line is more straight than another, but neither of them are actually straight. Yeah, coincidentally that was the best analogy I could come up with, heh.

 

Again, it's all about semantics. You define any person with a hint of attraction to both sexes as bisexual. The accepted definition is still just "gay"/"straight".

[Zierro]

The fact that the definitions contradict each other means nothing about it, really. "Asexuality" simply has more than one definition.

 

One of which is severely flawed. Like I said, the word abstinent fits just fine and doesn't muddle with the other categories of sexual orientation.

 

The difference is, that asexuals that decide not to act on their desires (usually for religous reasons), aren't like gays that repress their desires out of fear, denial, etc. Asexuality by that definition is simply choosing not to have sex as a result of a... point of view.

 

Does it really matter what your incentive for not acting on it is? Depending on what a person does or doesn't do isn't a good way of dictating what a person's sexual orientation is in the first place. This type of asexual "orientation" is the only one inconsistent with all the others (including the other version of asexuality) - which rely on the emotions, feelings, and thoughts of the individual rather than behavior.

 

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."[10]

 

Sexual identity and sexual behavior are closely related to sexual orientation, but they are distinguished, with identity referring to an individual's conception of themselves, behavior referring to actual sexual acts performed by the individual, and orientation referring to "fantasies, attachments and longings."[11]

 

Again, it's all about semantics. You define any person with a hint of attraction to both sexes as bisexual. The accepted definition is still just "gay"/"straight".

 

Accepted definition? What are you talking about? I've literally never heard anyone believe that until this very page of this thread.

[Romy]

I'm not the one making these definitions, flawed or not.

 

Asexuality (also known as nonsexuality[1]), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction[2][3] or the lack of interest in and desire for sex.[4] Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual orientation.[5] One commonly cited study placed the incidence rate of asexuality at 1%.[6]

 

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral; the latter is usually, but not always, for a religious reason.[7] (For instance, sexual people in relationships with asexuals may become celibate as a result.) A sexual orientation, unlike a behavior, is definitionally "enduring".[8] Some asexuals do have sex, despite lacking a desire for it.

Asexuals, while typically lacking in sexual desire for either sex, may engage in purely emotional romantic relationships.[16][17][18] Terms concerning this:

 

* aromantic: lack of romantic attraction towards anyone of any gender

* biromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of either gender

* heteroromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the opposite gender

* homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender

* panromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of any gender or lack of gender

* transromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of variant or ambiguous gender

* polyromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of more than one gender or sex but without implying, as biromantic does, that there are only two genders or sexes

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

 

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring[1] and also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

[Zierro]

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring[1] and also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

 

Sexual orientation refers to behaviors expressing those attractions. Having the desire to have sex but not acting on it doesn't really express asexuality according to the quotes you posted:

 

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral; the latter is usually, but not always, for a religious reason.[7] (For instance, sexual people in relationships with asexuals may become celibate as a result.) A sexual orientation, unlike a behavior, is definitionally "enduring".[8] Some asexuals do have sex, despite lacking a desire for it.

 

So really asexuality doesn't mean the same thing as abstinent. It's an enduring orientation.

[Dupin]

I agree with Zierro on asexuality. Asexuality is a result of a mental or physical defect, not a choice. Sexuality is about attraction.

 

On Zierro's black and white bisexuality: Tell me, honestly, that you have never noticed another man's body. Assuming that you have, does that make you bisexual? If you still aren't convinced, go look at some pictures of [roosters]. It's a biologically proven fact that a man will be aroused by nudity of either gender, so if you say you weren't you're either lying or horrified. Again, assuming you felt a little fraction of a something, will you be at the next Gay Pride Parade?

[Zierro]

It's a biologically proven fact that a man will be aroused by nudity of either gender, so if you say you weren't you're either lying or horrified.

 

Honestly, I don't even see what women see in men. They (especially roosters) just look gross to me. :|

[Dupin]

It's a biologically proven fact that a man will be aroused by nudity of either gender, so if you say you weren't you're either lying or horrified.

 

Honestly, I don't even see what women see in men. They (especially roosters) just look gross to me. :|

Protection, security, companionship, and a false sense of happiness?

 

We're really getting into things that are more societal here. There's plenty of biological motivation for a woman who likes the joy stick, but I'm sure there's plenty of psychological "forbidden fruit" crap as well.

[Saru Inc]

It's a biologically proven fact that a man will be aroused by nudity of either gender, so if you say you weren't you're either lying or horrified.

 

Honestly, I don't even see what women see in men. They (especially roosters) just look gross to me. :|

 

 

Yes and women (especially the canals) look like spider faces. I swear to god they do. (so think about THAT next time...) Also, they're just like... BLAH. I can't even pick the word out...

[Zierro]

Protection, security, companionship, and a false sense of happiness?

 

I meant in a sexual way. I can see why they'd want a boyfriend/husband, but just don't see the sexual appeal.

 

Yes and women (especially the canals) look like spider faces. I swear to god they do. (so think about THAT next time...) Also, they're just like... BLAH. I can't even pick the word out...

 

I never got that close to a spider so I wouldn't know, but I do gotta agree with how weird they look. Still beats the other option though. I think sexuality is a weird concept in general. Sometimes I even wonder what it is about butts that turns me on. :-#

 

All in all, sex drive is pretty much a mystery. We can't pinpoint exactly why we react to body part or types of people in the manner we do. This alone is reason enough to not chastise someone based on their sexual interests.

[Dexek]

I personally have no problems with it. It's not like a person says to themselves one day "I'm going to be a homosexual". As far as I know it's a feeling you're born with, or find that you've always had, similar to heterosexuality or a sexual fetish. I believe a person can have whatever views or beliefs they like, as long as they don't force them on others.

 

You're a guy who likes other men? Fine with me, I'm a guy who finds it attractive when a women takes good care of her feet (among everything else). It just shows me that if they have time to pay attention to every little detail like that, I probably won't have to worry about them letting themselves go. It might not be the same, but it's the only way I can really relate to having a sexual attraction to something not 100% regular and average, and yet both are extremely common sexual attractions. I just don't force my feelings on others, as I feel no one should do.

[OldJoe]

I agree with Zierro on asexuality. Asexuality is a result of a mental or physical defect, not a choice. Sexuality is about attraction.

 

On Zierro's black and white bisexuality: Tell me, honestly, that you have never noticed another man's body. Assuming that you have, does that make you bisexual? If you still aren't convinced, go look at some pictures of [roosters]. It's a biologically proven fact that a man will be aroused by nudity of either gender, so if you say you weren't you're either lying or horrified. Again, assuming you felt a little fraction of a something, will you be at the next Gay Pride Parade?

Hah. So, if i don't get aroused by a nude guy, and if i'm neither lying or horrified (why would you be horrified?), what am i then? A biological freak? lol.

And i don't count noticing different sexes as bi, in my book, you have to be sexually attracted for it to count.

[Saru Inc]

Ok here's my view on the scale of sexuality.

 

 

 

WHITE (gay or straight doesn't matter)

 

GREYISH WHITE

LIGHT GREY

GREY

DARK GRAY

GREYISH DARK

 

BLACK.

 

Edit: I didn't explain the scale :P Though it's self explanatory. The end being completely 100% straight or gay. The middle being 100% bi, and the greys between the middle and their respective sides are bi, but way more attracted to another side. If white was gay (just cuz) I've be a very very light light grey. Have I noticed attractive women? Of course. However there is something about them that repulses me (no offence to any woman here, of course.) I can't put my finger on it...

 

There are men who are simply not attracted to other men at all. Same for women. However I just think those people are rarer than most people think. But of course they exist.

 

And on asexuality, I don't know who said it on this thread, but I agree. (Idea being they have a sexual attraction in a sense, just not enough to ever act upon. Ever.)

Edited August 18, 2010 by Saruman44

[Giordano]

Oh, so people can be full-gay, half-gay, semi-bi, super-bi, extra-straight, whatever but no one can be purely not attracted to anybody? I don't see why not.