My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Amazing how concrete your words are.



This vague statement does not answer my question about Mr. Fry's sexuality, I do not believe it to be that hard of a question.

He is what he defines himself as.
Sexuality is not just two polar opposites with one in the middle (c.f. Kinsey scale).

He has a say in what he says his sexuality is, not what it is. And if he gets new information, he can change what he says his sexuality is, but his sexuality hasn't changed.

Let me rephrase my question.

What was Mr. Fry's original sexuality?

What an absurd question. His sexual orientation never changed. Merely he discovered something about himself and then chose an identity that he most relates to. If he changes what he calls his identity it doesn't change his sexual orientation merely what category he chooses to associate with. In the example he knew that he had some form of sexual attraction to some female, but he still had a predominate disposition towards males. So he chose to still identify as homosexual.

Let me rephrase my question.

What was Mr. Fry's original sexuality?

It never changed. It is probably something around 5/5.5 on the Kinsey scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) - I can't really be sure as I'm not him. He probably identified as a 6 because he hadn't met a woman he was attracted to, but when he did he gained new information about something that always existed in him.

Another example, I'm assuming you're straight. Now imagine you had never met anyone of the opposite sex, you would probably assume you were asexual. However when you first met the opposite sex, you would realise that you were in fact heterosexual. Nothing about you has changed other than the information you have. You were always heterosexual, but with the information you had you could only define yourself as asexual. The new information you gain when you met the opposite sex changes your definition of your sexual orientation, it doesn't change your sexual orientation.

It never changed. It is probably something around 5/5.5 on the Kinsey scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) - I can't really be sure as I'm not him. He probably identified as a 6 because he hadn't met a woman he was attracted to, but when he did he gained new information about something that always existed in him.

Another example, I'm assuming you're straight. Now imagine you had never met anyone of the opposite sex, you would probably assume you were asexual. However when you first met the opposite sex, you would realise that you were in fact heterosexual. Nothing about you has changed other than the information you have. You were always heterosexual, but with the information you had you could only define yourself as asexual. The new information you gain when you met the opposite sex changes your definition of your sexual orientation, it doesn't change your sexual orientation.

Society doesn't accept paedophilia because of the consent issues involved with children. Even if they do consent, someone of that age may not be able to understand the implications of that kind of decision. Also, it's wrong in the sense that sexual attraction shouldn't happen before puberty; it's against nature.

Whereas with homosexuality in action -as opposed to it in theory- it's two consenting adults past the age of sexual maturity. Animals have been found to be homosexual, and I very much doubt they've chosen it; therefore it's natural.

Incest is thought of as wrong because of the implications for children, which is difficult for people to get past, and because we're programmed not to be attracted to people we've grown up with, for that reason. So we're socialised by means of our genes not to find it acceptable.

If you are a troll, I salute you.

Your example is rather interesting, a world without women?

I do not want to explore this Kinsey Scale or whatever you have mentioned, because this discussion is about sexuality. Its a very very simple concept. If Mr. Fry has said he is attracted to some women but mostly men, then by definition he is bisexual and not homosexual.

Your example is rather interesting, a world without women?

I do not want to explore this Kinsey Scale or whatever you have mentioned, because this discussion is about sexuality. Its a very very simple concept. If Mr. Fry has said he is attracted to some women but mostly men, then by definition he is bisexual and not homosexual.

This shows how uninformed you are about this topic, seeing as how the Kinsey Scale is directly relevant to this discussion.

There exists a non-binary non absolute sexual orientation?

So we can safely establish that a person can go from heterosexual to homosexual according to the Kinsey scale?

So according to this Kinsey Scale, we cannot assume every homosexual in the planet is in fact homosexual and is subject to change?

I'm pansexual. I'm attracted to anyone, including people who don't conform to gender norms. Think about that.

And no, we can establish that the range of definitions of sexual orientation exists.
Can't you read?