Sexuality

[eliasfrost]

I agree with number 1, but i would argue that a "fetish" is a sub-genre
of the sexual genres, therefore making "zoophilia" a root genre and not a
fetish. I would argue that the sexual genres (i.e. homosexuality,
heterosexuality, etc) are generalised terms specific only when
referencing the genders (and possibly species, as in bestiality). All
the acts committed following from the root genre could and would then be
labelled a "fetish," and any genre capable of "supporting" the fetish
would have said fetish under that root genre (not restricting it to any
one root genre).

And you base this on what scientific study?

I define homosexuality as people of any sexuality committing homosexual
acts. This may include heterosexuals committing homosexual acts;
homosexuals committing homosexual acts; etc. At the time the newly
introduced sexual act is committed, then the individual takes on the
role of the currently committed sexuality. This implies that a
homosexual can therefore stop being a homosexual by committing
heterosexual, or other sexual, acts.

And what would you define a "homosexual act" because they are exactly (notice, EXACTLY, 100%, no nothin' bull, on point) exactly, the, same, as, heterosexual, acts. There. is. no. difference. between. a. homosexual. and. a. heterosexual. person. It's the same thing. Same feelings, same arousal, same everything.

Do I need to spell that out again?

I find this statement ironic in its own right, as it calls me ignorant
yet proceeds to leave me in "ignorance" by use of ad hominem rather than
attempting to support their own assertion. Do you not recall that
homosexuality used to be a declared mental disorder? Yet, it is no
longer declared that because people asserted "gay rights" and "love."
The same line of reasoning can be used for other forms of sexuality, but
i'm "the ignorant one" for realising this?

I have been thinking some more about this and you know what? This argument is flawed to the bone because that would imply that being a serial killer could be okay (or should I say is okay) but isn't because we have told ourselves that it isn't. That's such a fluid and loose way of thinking that i'm not even sure that I would call that a valid "opinion". Also, based on what you said that heterosexuality _could_ be a mental disorder, you are implying that every little animal, every organism and microorganism on this earth could be mentaly disrupted? c'mon man, you must be trolling the lot of us because that's just silly.