Sexual attraction vs romantic attraction

[James972]

You have a fetish for splitting up posts don't you?

you mean for making ignorance stand alone in the sunlight

 

[James972]

Because I am not bisexual nor homosexual. I could never be homosexual because I love women too much. Not giving that up. There is the possibility I am bi, but I have yet to meet the man to sexually tempt me. I do view myself as such gay as well, because I am usually a happy guy.

odd how narcissistic you are. You seem to love describing over and over again how queer you are? why is that?

 

[maquiscat]

correct so the issue is always to determine if in fact it is right or wrong and that certainly applies to queer behavior. Trying to pretend it is all relative is merely a trick to evade a determination that will not be in your favor.

While certain actions and values and such may Ben objectively right or wrong under your belief system, the simple fact that it is a belief system makes them subjective. You seem to subscribe to a Christian belief system, which I find to be quite incompatible to the teachings of Christ as I have experienced. Unlike you, I do realized that either you, I, or both may be wrong in our beliefs. Your pride won't let you accept this possibility, it seems.

you mean for making ignorance stand alone in the sunlight

No I mean for making a bunch of unnecessary individual posts to respond to a single post. You don't need to split up the post to shine the sunlight upon your ignorance.

odd how narcissistic you are. You seem to love describing over and over again how queer you are? why is that?

What I find odd is that you seem to keep trying to assert "queer" in the homosexual context, even though the word doesn't hold that meaning in the common lexicon anymore, similar to how it no longer means strange in the common lexicon.

I also find odd how arrogant and prideful you are towards those who do not agree with your particular brand of your religion. You seem to love judging and belittling those who you don't agree with. You, sir, are quite the stumbling block. I dare say that your words and attitude shown here would push more people away that it will attract to your religion.

But once again, you have managed to pull the conversation off onto a red herring tangent, based upon the thread topic. We are not here to discuss what actions resultant from the attractions are or are not moral. Simply whether or not they they are linked, or that one requires the other while the reverse is not true (two possible variants there), or if both are independent of each other, regardless of how often they are found together.

 

[James972]

While certain actions and values and such may Ben objectively right or wrong under your belief system, the simple fact that it is a belief system makes them subjective.

thats the liberal way!!! so that Jesus HItler Stalin and Mao all had mere belief systems with no right and wrong!!

 

[James972]

What I find odd is that you seem to keep trying to assert "queer" in the homosexual context, even though the word doesn't hold that meaning in the common lexicon anymore, similar to how it no longer means strange in the common lexicon.
.

so then why so afraid to tell us what the Q in LGBTQIA stands for?????

 

[James972]

I also find odd how arrogant and prideful you are towards those who do not agree with your particular brand of your religion.

I wonder if the 30 million who died in Africa of AIDS would have picked my religion if they had it to do over? or if the 800 who will die in Chi-Raq this year would choose differently if they had it to do over?? But its important that we make room for your greed right?

 

[maquiscat]

so then why so afraid to tell us what the Q in LGBTQIA stands for?????

Afraid of what? You never asked before. Queer now deals more with gender identity than sexual orientation. It's rather close to gender flexible, but more along the line of encompassing both at the same time than slinging up and down the scale.

I wonder if the 30 million who died in Africa of AIDS would have picked my religion if they had it to do over? or if the 800 who will die in Chi-Raq this year would choose differently if they had it to do over?? But its important that we make room for your greed right?

They probably would have picked mine since I offer the same eternal after life without constantly claiming they are doing everything wrong, but hey why attract when you can repel?

But you are trying to move away from the topic again. Do you have a problem with staying on topic? And response splitting. Does it overwhelm you to respond to a single post in a single response?

 

[James972]

Afraid of what? You never asked before. Queer now deals more with gender identity than sexual orientation. It's rather close to gender flexible, but more along the line of encompassing both at the same time than slinging up and down the scale.

encompassing both is BI while Q is not LGBTIA

 

[James972]

They probably would have picked mine ?

yours is so freakish they never would have heard of it. God knows how many would have been killed if they had picked yours. If they had picked Christianity 30 million or so would be alive and 2000 a day would not be starving to death.

 

[maquiscat]

encompassing both is BI while Q is not LGBTIA

Bi is a sexual orientation denoting what genders you are sexually attracted to, not what gender(s) you identify as. So not only can you not stay on topic, you don't even know your own arguments.

yours is so freakish they never would have heard of it. God knows how many would have been killed if they had picked yours. If they had picked Christianity 30 million or so would be alive and 2000 a day would not be starving to death.

Really how so, given the vast numbers of people that Christians have killed during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Burning Times just to start with? How many people would be alive today if abortion bombers embraced my version of Christianity instead of yours? But once again you are going off topic. And splitting posts.

 

[James972]

Queer now deals more with gender identity than sexual orientation. It's rather close to gender flexible, but more along the line of encompassing both at the same time than slinging up and down the scale.

BS of course which is why you have no evidence!!

 

[James972]

Really how so, given the vast numbers of people that Christians have killed during the Crusades,

liberals dont read history obviously, and don't think. Christian's killing Muslims in defense is not more evil than Americans killing Nazis yet someone told you it was so you merely repeat it.

 

[maquiscat]

BS of course which is why you have no evidence!!

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word to establish community and assert an identity distinct from the gay identity. People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label LGBT may describe themselves as queer.

liberals dont read history obviously, and don't think. Christian's killing Muslims in defense is not more evil than Americans killing Nazis yet someone told you it was so you merely repeat it.

Amazing how you glossed over the Inquisition and the Burning Times. Oh and are still off topic. And splitting posts.

 

[James972]

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word to establish community and assert an identity distinct from the gay identity. People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label LGBT may describe themselves as queer.

you said "Queer now deals more with gender identity than sexual orientation" when not mentioned in your wiki cut and paste!!!! but you present it support anyway!!! Do you even know if you are queer? or do you prefer just to be greedy???

 

[James972]

Amazing how you glossed over the Inquisition and the Burning Times. Oh and are still off topic. And splitting posts.

amazing how I took the first in line and you had to change the subject to second and third in line. Keep trying!!

 

[maquiscat]

you said "Queer now deals more with gender identity than sexual orientation" when not mentioned in your wiki cut and paste!!!! but you present it support anyway!!! Do you even know if you are queer? or do you prefer just to be greedy???

I am guessing reading isn't a strong point of yours?

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word to establish community and assert an identity distinct from the gay identity. People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label LGBT may describe themselves as queer.

amazing how I took the first in line and you had to change the subject to second and third in line. Keep trying!!

Actuallly it is amazing how you had to ignore two other major misdealings by Christians, while trying to white wash how Muslims were not the only one slain during the Crusades.

But tell me, how do either of these points have anything to do with the thread topic? Or how you seem to be OCD about splitting a single post into multiple replies.

 

[James972]

I am guessing reading isn't a strong point of yours?

you said it deals with gender identity and wiki said it rejects gender identity!! 1+1=2 Does that really rock your greedy world?

 

[James972]

Actuallly it is amazing how you had to ignore two other major misdealings by Christians,.

didn't ignore I asked for your best example and 100% refuted your best example. I assume the others are worse examples. Have you learned your lesson?

 

[James972]

But tell me, how do either of these points have anything to do with the thread topic?.

what don't you understand about thread topic????

 

[maquiscat]

you said it deals with gender identity and wiki said it rejects gender identity!! 1+1=2 Does that really rock your greedy world?

Rejecting gender identity would still be dealing with gender identity and it says they reject traditional gender identity. For some reason you keep getting 5 when you add 1+1.

didn't ignore I asked for your best example and 100% refuted your best example. I assume the others are worse examples. Have you learned your lesson?

Your assumption is only making an ass of you not me, especially since you refuted nothing. As noted the Crusade, while Nobel in origin, devolved to slaughter and pillaging, regardless of the actual religion of their victims. Order did not indicate any preference of how good they were as examples since they were all prominent examples of the worst of Christianity.

what don't you understand about thread topic????

Since I am the OP, I understand it perfectly, at least perfectly enough to tell that you can muster up any arguments that are on topic.so you have to make up strawman, red herrings and non-sequiters to divert the topic. So I destroy you diversions and remind you that you are off topic. You are not even in related territory. Oh and you have a problem with not being able to respond to a single post with a single post.

 

[James972]

As noted the Crusade, while Nobel in origin, devolved to slaughter and pillaging, regardless of the actual religion of their victims.

and your point is??????

 

[James972]

Since I am the OP, I understand it perfectly,

actually there is no law that OP understands his post perfectly. In most cases the opposite is true.
As I recall you were arguing that some people are queer when no one ever disagreed.

 

[maquiscat]

actually there is no law that OP understands his post perfectly. In most cases the opposite is true.
As I recall you were arguing that some people are queer when no one ever disagreed.

I have done all I can to bring you back on topic, but since you can't seem to actually discuss the thread topic, I will allow you the final word (as you will no doubt respond to this post, probably along the lines of "ha, I win") and bid you a good day, unless you decide to actually address the thread topic of sexual attraction, romantic attraction and whether they are linked or not and how, if so.

 

[James972]

the thread topic of sexual attraction, romantic attraction and whether they are linked or not and how, if so.

In mainstream culture/genetics heterosexual sex and love are linked. In fact, it is called sexlove by Frederick Engles of Marx and Engles communist fame. In queer culture they are probably not linked owing to a defect in genetics or cultural appreciation, or combination of both.

 

[maquiscat]

In mainstream culture/genetics heterosexual sex and love are linked. In fact, it is called sexlove by Frederick Engles of Marx and Engles communist fame. In queer culture they are probably not linked owing to a defect in genetics or cultural appreciation, or combination of both.

Welcome back to the topic. Culture changes as to what is and isn't. We can look at clothing trends to see this. Much of what is feminine clothing today has been masculine clothing in history, and vice versa. High heels were started as a men's fashion. So culture is not an end all, and at best is an appeal to populism fallacy. Outside of correlation/causation fallacy arguments, do you have anything that shows they are linked as opposed to commonly occurring together. And allow me to preference your response with an example of what can commonly occur together but not be linked. While most often found together, marriage can occur without procreation, and procreation can occur without marriage. The two are not linked, but do often occur together. So what evidence do you have that sexual attraction and romantic attraction are link as opposed to not linked but commonly occur together?