Being gay is a fetish.

[watchamadoodle]

Here is the definition of fetish. I think homosexuality is too broad to satisfy the definition. Of course gays and lesbians might also be fetishists if they get excited about feet or something.

Also, his statistics about HIV cases are probably wrong. I thought HIV had become a heterosexual problem mostly in Africa now.

Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.[1] The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist.[2] A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life

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

[One Above All]

The U is part of the QU in "queer," and the I stands for Intersex.

Intersex people are the ones who are born without a well-defined sex, right?

[Esquilax]

The U is part of the QU in "queer," and the I stands for Intersex.

Intersex people are the ones who are born without a well-defined sex, right?

I think that's it, although it's not a part of the spectrum I'm terribly familiar with.

[Heywood]

Just because we are having a discussion about it now doesn't mean you are fixating about it 24/7.  This thread is certainly not evidence that you are a closet homosexual.  You have no need to worry nor should you really care anyways.

Project much.

The difference is I don't take this as an insult.

I wouldn't be ashamed if I had homosexual ideation as I find nothing wrong in it.

It wasn't meant to be an insult.  It was meant to show that if your argument applies to me....it also applies to you.  But really, that argument you presented, is just silly.

[robvalue]

I'm not bi or gay, but I don't experience these feelings of revulsion and brain freezing panic that certain people obviously do when visualizing gay sex. I just think of it as what gays do, and what I would probably do if I was gay. I don't understand where all this fear and venom comes from. Obviously religion has to shoulder a lot of the blame, but I don't think it's all because of that. My parents for example aren't at all religious but are just really homophobic, so is one of my brothers. I don't get it.

I wouldn't think badly of someone if they found the idea of gay sex to be uncomfortable to think about, you can't help what mental reactions you have to things. But I don't understand this need to turn that feeling into aggression and fear. A lot of the language we've seen today clearly betrays the fear that the gays are going to "take over" or "infect everyone". Obviously there's a hell of a lot of ignorance going round, probably willful. It has to be in this day and age where information is so easily accessible.

I hope that as religion declines we'll see a similar decline in homophobia. I think in general it's still there, people just keep it hidden more. Whether it has actually gone down over time, I don't know. Probably. Thoughts?

[Faith No More]

No, Heywood, your posts are just too dumb to respond to. If you think you can claim some sort of debate victory because of it, that's fine by me.

[robvalue]

I've stopped reading his gibberish. I made a real effort to reach out to him, to try and develop an understanding and explain just what is going on. He doubled down, so that's that.

I actually spent a whole dog walk thinking of how best to word it all, to try and really help him. Oh well.

[Esquilax]

I consider it a real sign that I'm doing well in my argumentation that Heywood refuses to interact with me. And that he goes out of his way to really, really make sure that I know he refuses to interact with me.

[robvalue]

Yeah, it's the nearest thing we get to a compliment really My whole post to him went almost entirely unaddressed.

[Heywood]

Yeah, it's the nearest thing we get to a compliment really My whole post to him went almost entirely unaddressed.

You wanted me to think about it.  You even said that perhaps I shouldn't reply to it.  So I only replied to one small portion of it.

---

No, Heywood, your posts are just too dumb to respond to.  If you think you can claim some sort of debate victory because of it, that's fine by me.

If you think they are dumb and don't want to respond to them thats fine.  I can understand that.  But if your going to take that route....take it.  Don't then go on to respond by saying, "Your post is to dumb to respond too"....cause that's not really a response.....its an excuse.  If you have to make excuses on why you can't respond....maybe you're not intelligent enough to be having this conversation.   That's the way it comes off to me anyways.

---

I've stopped reading his gibberish. I made a real effort to reach out to him, to try and develop an understanding and explain just what is going on. He doubled down, so that's that.

I actually spent a whole dog walk thinking of how best to word it all, to try and really help him. Oh well.

I found your argument to be unpersuasive.  I showed why.....yet you doubled down and did not waiver.....so that's that. Maybe I should stop reading your gibberish.  I won't though, I generally have a good impression of you.