Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
Serious question. I'm watching a movie called Moon and it brings up this question. Would it be gay to have sex with yourself or if you're in your friend body and he's in yours? These are questions I ponder when I see stuff like this.

---

I'd totally get a piece of my ass.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
Serious question. I'm watching a movie called Moon and it brings up this question. Would it be gay to have sex with yourself or if you're in your friend body and he's in yours? These are questions I ponder when I see stuff like this.

---

I'd totally get a piece of my ass.

---

I can perfectly see why.

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
No I'm not gay just because I'm willing to have sex with myself. Being gay implies having a sexual desire toward another of the same sex, whereas my clone isn't another.

---

This implication only exists in your pointless justifications for your own desires. The dictionary, for example, defines homosexuality as being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. You are a member of the same sex as yourself. It made no reference to "another of the same sex". I enjoy how you and countless others though try to define what gay is in whatever convoluted way so as to not apply the label to oneself.

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
More to the point, if you find that body (yours) sexually attractive, then it's a gay attraction and it's gay sex. You're getting turned on by another body of the same sex. That it happens to be your own isn't relevant. There's a penis there and a male ass and male muscles that are turning you on, hence gay sex.

---

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
Sure if we totally ignore the concept that it isn't a clone that would prove your point. What isn't relevant is that having a sexual desire for oneself is homosexuality, for this doesn't imply a sexual desire for the same sex however does imply narcissism, observe:

nar-cis-sism
1 : EGOISM, EGOCENTRISM
2 : love of or sexual desire for one's own body
Merriam-Webster

---

Observe what? The fact that having sexual desire for oneself is labeled narcissism means that it isn't homosexuality?

You're making nothing but incorrect assertions in this thread. Consider your positively ridiculous claim that a clone isn't actually another person than oneself. You incorrectly assert that a clone is identical as basis for this, but a clone is only identically from a genetic point of view, all of which is completely irrelevant to the desire and engagement in sexual activity with that clone. The idea that a clone is the same person because they look alike and share genetics is completely laughable and wrong.

Now you think the word narcissism somehow negates the word homosexuality, as if an object can't have more than one attribute that would mean that it carries more than one definition. It's difficult to discern if you're simply being intellectually dishonest because you do not want to admit you were wrong, so you continue to rely on the dictionary to twist the meaning of things so much that anyone who simply takes a step back can see how none of it makes any sense, or if you genuinely don't understand what you're talking about. Either way, you definitely need to make a change.

In conclusion, sexual desire for one's own body is a homosexual manifestation, because the definition of homosexuality is a desire for the same sex. Definitions for the word clone, another, or narcissism do not change this in any fashion, and it's something you'll just have to grow to accept. I personally have no problem with stating that I'm sexually attracted to myself, that if I saw myself as another person that I'd totally do some stuff to them , and that it's also a manifestation of homosexual urges. The world didn't just end.

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
for it to be gay I would say it depends on the motivation

Exactly my point. If your motivation is because that body (which happens to be yours) give you a chubby, then you're having a homoerotic reaction to a male body (which happens to be yours).

Note that a monozygotic identical twin is functionally a clone, it just happened to be created in a womb instead of a beaker.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
But narcissism is not a carnal emotion. It's an aesthetic construct, not an erotic one, and that's the key. If you are attracted to yourself aesthetically, it's non-gay. But if you're attracted to yourself erotically, than it is.

---

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
You can call yourself a queer all you want but I do know that clone fucking doesn't indicate homosexuality. Thanks you

---

You do know that clone fucking doesn't indicate homosexuality, huh?
MT already brought up a good point that deconstructs your fallacious reasoning. If you forced a clone of yours to have sex with you against their wishes, by your logic, it wouldn't be rape, because it's "actually" you.
By the same logic, you say that, if you desired to have sex with a clone of your own, it isn't actually homosexual because it's "actually" you.

Normally, one could realize that this isn't true simply on the basis that a clone is a separate person. Hopefully the rape analogy will help clarify for you the error in your (wishful) thinking.

Sexual desire for someone of the same sex, including yourself, is homosexual, by definition. It may or may not be narcissistic, but that's another matter. Once again, the fact that it could be narcissistic doesn't negate the fact that, by definition, it is homosexual.

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
You can call yourself a queer all you want but I do know that clone fucking doesn't indicate homosexuality. Thanks you

---

You do know that clone fucking doesn't indicate homosexuality, huh?
MT already brought up a good point that deconstructs your fallacious reasoning. If you forced a clone of yours to have sex with you against their wishes, by your logic, it wouldn't be rape, because it's "actually" you.
By the same logic, you say that, if you desired to have sex with a clone of your own, it isn't actually homosexual because it's "actually" you.

Normally, one could realize that this isn't true simply on the basis that a clone is a separate person. Hopefully the rape analogy will help clarify for you the error in your (wishful) thinking.

Sexual desire for someone of the same sex, including yourself, is homosexual, by definition. It may or may not be narcissistic, but that's another matter. Once again, the fact that it could be narcissistic doesn't negate the fact that, by definition, it is homosexual.

---

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
I've told you guys time after time that it isn't a desire for someone of the same sex.

---

Because you aren't the same sex as you?

Quote:

---

You guys for some reason refuse to accept this or even acknowledge it.

---

Quote:

---

There we have it clones are duplicates and what's synonyms for duplicate. I've only used valid reasoning and I didn't want to have to bring this up again.

---

No, your reasoning isn't valid. This is evidenced by the fact that you refuse to respond to the analogy of rape of a clone. You for some reason continue to insist on synonyms of the word duplicate, completely failing to address the plainly obvious fact that a clone is another person. A clone is not the same person. A child who has learned to count on their hand can realize this - one person, two people. Simple. The fact that they look nearly identical due to their having the same genes doesn't change that. No amount of synonyms will change that for you.

Quote:

---

I wish you guys would just understand that there isn't a correlation between fucking a clone and homosexuality they're entirely different things one doesn't equal the other.

---

Wishful thinking doesn't make it true, and you haven't demonstrated the slightest reason why we should agree with you.
Are identical twins the same person? They aren't homosexual if they have sex because they are identical from a genetic standpoint? They're actually one person even though they are two?

Quote:

---

the human abstract said:
What if u are an elephant

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
It doesn't matter that you're using an "actual" definition from a dictionary, because it isn't as if you are using these definitions correctly to support the point of view you have put forth.
I think the only person who is desperate here is the person who keeps trying to end the conversation without addressing the other person's replies.

---

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
Why would I want to have a conversation with someone who doesn't even think a dictionary is reliable?

---

Oh, I find the dictionary to be quite reliable indeed. I don't find using it's entries out of context very useful, however.

Quote:

---

I only quoted and referenced.

---

Quote:

---

A lot of it is you just saying the same questions I've already addressed previously.

---

Quote:

---

Okay a clone would imply two physical identities but it doesn't make them different if it was different you can't technically call it a clone, can you?

---

Of course you technically can.   This entire matter has been hinging on your inability to grok this.

Behold, the dictionary:

Quote:

---

clone
   [klohn] Show IPA noun, verb, cloned, clon·ing.
noun
1.
Biology .
a.
a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived.

2.
a person or thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style: All the fashion models seemed to be clones of one another.

---

Being genetically identical doesn't mean they aren't different!
Duplicating, imitating, or closely resembling something else doesn't mean that the things aren't actually different!

Even what one would consider a duplicate of a document, for example, is still different than the original - or else it would be the original!

You've finally acknowledged that clones have separate physical identities, despite earlier claiming that there was no separate identity at all. This is a reflection of the above-stated. So what's left? Are you claiming that clones share the same mental identity? What's left after that, in terms of your argument, really? That the fact that their genetics are the same somehow blocks the gay?

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
These are questions I ponder.

---

Quote:

---

tospace said:
I would totally do it.  I would think its dirty on any other guy, but my self... thats just more fun and comfortable.

---

"my self"  There it is again.  There seems to be confusion in this thread between the layman version of "clone" which means a literal copy of yourself, and scientific cloning where there is a shared DNA pattern but you are two different people. 

For the record, I think both are homosexual.

Quote:

---

Sleepwalker said:

Quote:

---

tospace said:
I would totally do it.  I would think its dirty on any other guy, but my self... thats just more fun and comfortable.

---

"my self"  There it is again.  There seems to be confusion in this thread between the layman version of "clone" which means a literal copy of yourself, and scientific cloning where there is a shared DNA pattern but you are two different people. 

For the record, I think both are homosexual.

---

Go fuck Yourself

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
Your argument is relying on 'what if', what if clones weren't the same, what if they were entirely different people....

---

No, it is not relying on what if. It's a statement of fact that clones aren't the same person. There is no question about it. Take one sheep. Collect a genetic sample from it. Create another sheep. They aren't the same sheep.
It's really as simple as that. There is no "what if they weren't the same?". It's clearly a matter of "they aren't the same, and here's why.".

Quote:

---

and to support this argument you say mine is irrational with out any stated reason to why just it's 'invalid'.

---

Quote:

---

I can state that your argument is meaningless and you already know you're wrong you're just dragging this on to distort facts or hope that ill give up trying to explain, does it make it true?

---

Of course not. You'd actually have to provide a convincing rationale to demonstrate that this is true. Like the one I've been providing concerning how a clone and an original are not of the same identity.

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter if they're raping each other people it doesn't actually change the fact that it's a narcissistic. I never said they were separate I just stated that there'd be two of the same identity, there no different from each other.

---

Quote:

---

deCypher said:
OK, so what if you're fucking your own body through a wrap-around mini Universe while closing your eyes and fantasizing about the opposite sex... would that still be gay or just a form of masturbation?  Now extend this to a clone.

---

Totally straight, as long as you are truly using your asshole as a biological fleshlight in an attempt to mimic the feeling of a female.

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
the solo act of clone fucking

---

I have to agree with FG.  Cloning produces a separate individual in most senses of the word, including that set of definitions you posted.

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
fireworks_god just asks the same shit over and over until people get tired of discussing things, that's all that's been done here.

---

Quote:

---

The fact is clones are duplicates according to Merriam-Webster.

---

So what? It's completely separate from the point of contention in this debate. Duplicates are not the same. Clones are not the same. Copies are not the same. They are separate, distinct, different objects or entities. This is so self-evident that it's basically axiomatic.

I take a document, scan it, and print off five copies. I lay all six of them out on the desk. I rip one of them. Did the other five magically rip as well? Of course not. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Let's take it in baby steps. Did you understand that? Yes or no?

Quote:

---

Just because he disagrees doesn't make him right

---

Obviously not. What makes me right is the validity of what I'm saying.

Quote:

---

Even if clones weren't you

---

They aren't. That's why they are a clone and not you.

Quote:

---

it's not like you can conclude its homosexual with the solo act of clone fucking anyway

---

Quote:

---

Mafeki said:
everything you say is full of shit.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, just like 'Duplicates are not the same' is somehow a valid statement.

---

Quote:

---

dkmonk said:
So you would feel it in your butt while giving it to your duplicate in his butt?

---

According to what he's saying, yes.
But his point of view on this matter is flagrantly wrong, so