Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:32 pm
pErvinalia wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:27 pm
Cunt wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 9:45 pm
Is someone who never acts on their urge still considered 'gay'? Is someone who does the acts, but never likes it, still considered 'gay'?
What's the relevance of what other people think? Surely all that matters is what the individual thinks of their sexual orientation.
Someone wants to talk about a subject including the word 'gay', so I want to be clear about what it means to this discussion.
You don't have to understand, but can keep heckling. I'd wonder where you went if you didn't.
Nah. After you introduced the subject someone asked you to reflect on whether you accepted the premise of certain attitudes, which presume that children can be unduly influenced to be gay at school, and to such an extent that their needs to be a special requirement in law defining the bounds of how teachers interact with their pupils on personal issues like sexuality and sexual expression so that children are not influenced to misled into being something they are not, or should not be. Your 'but nobody can define gay' schtik is a distraction, one that presumes, for convenience, that 'gay' is somehow an ambiguous term or novel concept.
If you want to discuss what it means to be gay then you can start an honest discussion by saying what
you think it means to be (presumable) heterosexual. Is your sexuality and your sexual expression something you were taught, or a free choice that somebody could or did unduly influence you over?
You don't seem to want this kind of serious, honest discussion though, do you? What interests you is how people are 'owning the libs' for criticising or opposing a law which is supposed to stop children from being turned into something the right-wing blog- and vlogosphere believe is wrong - gay.