Poll

What is your sexual orientation?

Heteroloveual
Homoloveual
Biloveual
Aloveual

Author Topic: Gay or Nay?  (Read 12823 times)


aloveuality is not a natural thing, don't be an idiot
Humans are natural. Some humans are aloveual. Aloveuality is natural.

You're acting as though the norm is that people don't want to bang people they've never met before sometimes? It's how we evolved. Men are supposed to impregnate as many women as they can..
Yeah, and? Men can be whores too, you know.
I swear, it's like you only accept anything that's not straight because of the increasing internet bandwagon behind it. There's more to loveuality than bi/hetero/homoloveuals.
Personally I'd like to push that bandwagon off a cliff.
Seriously, stop making stuff so complicated. I'm not going to make fun of or beat up a person because they're 'demiloveual' but at the same time, calling yourself that makes you seem pretentious.
I don't think the doctor can prove your loveuality. I suppose it's who you want to bang.
That was my point. There's no point in all these terms as none of them can actually be proven, so it's all a bunch of self diagnosis.
The thing about loveuality is that it's hard to prove that stuff like aloveuality/demiloveuality is legit. We can only trust the people who say they are these things that they are in fact those things. If they aren't legit then the term will fade out eventually, won't it? Either that or we find a way to prove loveuality.
The terms will never fade out...
...because they were never in common use in the first place.

Yeah, and? Men can be whores too, you know. Exactly. Most people want to have love with strangers. This is natural. I don't think whore's a justified term.
Personally I'd like to push that bandwagon off a cliff.
Seriously, stop making stuff so complicated. I'm not going to make fun of or beat up a person because they're 'demiloveual' but at the same time, calling yourself that makes you seem pretentious. Well all we can do is hope they're not lying about demiloveuality because if they aren't and we assume they are anyway they're going to be prosecuted, ya know?

That was my point. There's no point in all these terms as none of them can actually be proven, so it's all a bunch of self diagnosis.
I suppose you're right. Apparently loveuality is a lot more fluid than one might think. Trying to label people based on who they bang is pretty hard..
The terms will never fade out...
...because they were never in common use in the first place.

What if a person finds nobody attractive and they don't know why? Are they aloveual?

"x doesn't exist or happen."
"but what if x does exist and happen!?!?!?!?"

aloveuality is not a natural thing, don't be an idiot
And homoloveuality is? Where do you draw the line? How do we know which ones are natural?
no i am not implying homoloveuality isn't natural. i'm saying that with all loveuality it's hard to prove it's legitimacy.
EDIT:
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4189/is-aloveuality-real
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 08:32:03 PM by ultimamax »

And homoloveuality is? Where do you draw the line? How do we know which ones are natural?\
no i am not implying homoloveuality isn't natural. i'm saying that with all loveuality it's hard to prove it's legitimacy.
Scientific evidence has pointed that homoloveuality occurs because of certain genetics.

Honestly, I love vagina. But I see a richard and I'm like: "Meh."

I like women but I would gladly be with a man as long as he's a girl

Humans are natural. Some humans are aloveual. Aloveuality is natural.

No. The kind loneliness that leads to "aloveuality" is a product of their social environment.

I like women but I would gladly be with a man as long as he's a girl

i lol'd

I'm straight, but I don't give a stuff if you're gay so long as you're not one of those 'gay supremacy' idiots or one of those cigarettes who forces their gayness upon you and makes you uncomfortable and stuff

No. The kind loneliness that leads to "aloveuality" is a product of their social environment.
Can you give some citation?

Can you give some citation?
No, you prove it with a scientific theory first. Unless it is tested and proven in those tests, it is not a credible theory.


No, you prove it with a scientific theory first. Unless it is tested and proven in those tests, it is not a credible theory.
I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm asking for evidence to support her idea.

Witches burn, wood burns, wood floats, therefore witches float.
It was terrible, logically speaking, but still true.