What would even be the point of having a term "LGB"? Gays and lesbians are both homosexuals. Call them both gay or call them both homosexual. It's like calling straight females something different from straight males.
I would also say that it makes no sense to have a separate category of "bisexual." If a person has sex or wants to have sex with people of his or her same sex/gender, then that makes them gay. It just needs to be understood that not all gays exclusively have gay sex. Think of it this way: If a pedophile has sex with a 20 year old, does that make him or her not a pedophile?
>>5219581
Why B?
Do you even know what bisexual and paedophile mean? Notice the different suffixes.
>>5219882
These words were coined at different times, by different people, so you can't expect the suffixes to always make sense. "Homophobes" aren't afraid of people who are like them, but rather are hateful of people who are dislike them.
gay: a person who wants to have sex with people of their same gender
lesbian: a person who wants to have sex with people of their same gender
bisexual: a person who wants to have sex with people of their same gender (but who just isn't as devoted to it as others)
pedophile: a person who wants to have sex with people from the ages of 0-17, frequently of their same gender
All these words just describe different fetishes or types of perversion.
>>5219953
>from the ages of 0-17
You are retarded on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
>>5219953
>pedophile: a person who wants to have sex with people from the ages of 0-17, frequently of their same gender
By this definition, a 17 year old fucking a 17 year old is a pedo. All teenagers are pedos. WAKE UP, AMERICA
>>5219953
>pedophile
>perversion
Awfully big words for a 10 year old
>>5220134
>By this definition, a 17 year old fucking a 17 year old is a pedo.
That's actually true.
>>5219953
>bisexual: a person who wants to have sex with people of their same gender (but who just isn't as devoted to it as others)
That's not what it means, but ok
>>5220947
Then let's hear your superior definition.
>>5221058
I bisexual is someone sexually attracted to both genders. Hence the "bi."
>>5221090
That's what I said. They only want to have gay sex sometimes.
>>5219511
"Hurdur gay men are the only group that matters"
>>5221104
I didn't say that. I just said that all G, L and B are just variants of "gay."
>>5221101
No, what you described was a gay person that has sex less frequently.
>>5221116
Who has gay sex less frequently. The assumption is that the rest of the time, they are having normal sex.
>>5221122
Is English your first language? This kind of interpretation is completely nonsensical.
>>5221108
"bisexuality" is helpful for explaining to people that you prefer both sexes
most homosexuals prefer only the same sex
However, "lesbian" is mostly just useful for straight men optimizing search engine results for porn, so I'm with you there
>>5221129
That's exactly why I am saying that so-called bisexuals area really just gays.
>>5221146
You're butchering the definition of words for no reason.
>>5221133
First, you can't "prefer" both options. When eating Neapolitan ice cream, no one says "I prefer strawberry, vanilla and chocolate." Gay people are defined by how they deviate from the norm: They have or want to have gay sex. Even men who would call themselves "gay" have traditionally married into normal, straight marriages and had kids. If one person prefers gay sex so much that they are not willing to have straight sex anymore, then they are simply further along the spectrum of gayness. That doesn't mean that someone who does both isn't gay, though.
>>5221161
The words have already been butchered. The language war has been fought and won, in your favor. What I am doing is performing reconstructive surgery on battlefield-mutilated words to get them rehabilitated and fit for existence in an enlightened world, now that the dust has settled.
I'm watching you
>>5221167
>First, you can't "prefer" both options. When eating Neapolitan ice cream, no one says "I prefer strawberry, vanilla and chocolate."
What? Sure you can. Just because you don't experience it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, anon.
And that doesn't change the fact that, regardless of definition, bisexuality is useful as a term to help straight people understand your preferences without having to abstractly describe just how "gay" you are.
>>5221230
>without having to abstractly describe just how "gay" you are.
Why do you make it out that this would be difficult to do?
"I am a vegetarian but I eat eggs and cheese."
"I am a Jew, but I participate in office Christmas parties."
"I'm gay, but I like women too."
There. Was that so hard?
>>5221256
>I eat eggs and cheese
That is assumed when you describe yourself as a "vegetarian."
>I'm gay, but I like women too.
This is a confusing statement that clashes with the generally accepted definition of gay.
>>5221167
What does Neapolitan ice cream have to do with this?
Here's actually what you sound like
"Do you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream?"
"I like both equally"
"What the fuck, that's impossible, you can't like BOTH at the same time you fucking heathen but you can prefer chocolate over vanilla"
>>5221256
Gay already means "exclusive homosexual", but let's take your idea further. Let's try to eliminate as many labels as we can!
There is no need for the word "gay". There is no need for the "G" in LGBT. Why?
Because you can just say, "I'm a man, and I like men."
You don't have to say you're "gay". Gay is just a dumb, egotistical, narcissistic way to describe an identity formed around the idea of being a homosexual and it's completely unnecessary.
>>5221281
>That is assumed when you describe yourself as a "vegetarian."
No, it's not. There are all types of vegetarians now. Some of them don't eat eggs or cheese. Some of them don't even eat plant foods that look like animals.
>the generally accepted definition of gay
The problem is that the definition of gay is a political construct. People want to separate the so-called exclusive homos from the casual homos and claim that just because this class of people exist who are unable to participate in traditional society (a lie), that they deserve special rights and privileges (something we see borne out in the recent Supreme Court decision to invent law).
The psychological nuance between someone who wants to have gay sex only sometimes and someone who wants to have gay sex exclusively is so irrelevant as to debunk the political claim.
>>5221315
The word "prefer" implies that you like some specific thing more than others. It's possible to love/like two things equally, but impossible, by definition, to "prefer" two things equally. You might as well "soak" a towel dry or "tenderize" a piece of steak tough.
>>5221318
I agree. Labels do nothing but divide people needlessly.
>>5221360
Oh. Well, on the subject of labels, they can be useful to describe things to people in a simple way, but using labels as a part of your identity is definitely a no-no.
and yeah, they do divide people somehow. I'm not sure why people enjoy generalizing so much.
>>5221360
>No, it's not.
Yes. When you say you are a vegetarian, the default assumption is that you simply don't eat meat. It is also by far the most common kind of vegetarian. Yes, there are others, but they specify their labels for a reason to avoid confusion.
>The problem is that the definition of gay is a political construct. People want to separate the so-called exclusive homos from the casual homos
I'm sorry, but this is pretty much nonsense. The definition is not a "political construct." There is no such thing as an "exclusive homo" or "casual homo." You either are a homo or you aren't.
>>5221386
The reality is that, of all the homosexuals out there in the world, the vast majority (about 2:1) are also interested in having heterosexual sex. This is a very inconvenient truth to the gay right's movement, which depends on the lies people are born gay and that gay people are unable to have heterosexual sex, even though most of them actually want to have both kinds of sex.
>>5221401
>the vast majority (about 2:1) are also interested in having heterosexual sex.
[citation needed]
Sounds like you're just lumping in bisexuals with homosexuals just because.
>>5221404
The fact is that even lots of homosexual men have wives and kids. How do you explain the fact that they have been able to have heterosexual sex and participate in society, despite political claims otherwise?
>>5219953
>pedophile: a person who wants to have sex with people from the ages of 0-17
But that's wrong.
>>5221415
Explain how.
>>5221414
>The fact is that even lots of homosexual men have wives and kids.
Instead of baseless speculation why don't you give facts? Tell me what percentage of homosexuals marry the opposite sex and procreate (hint: don't include bisexuals).
>>5221422
You're telling me that you've never heard of a gay man who had a wife and kids?
>>5221421
Well first of all, age of consent differs between country, states, regions, etc. Can't just base it off one particular place's rules.
But more importantly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
>>5221432
I don't care about cute little stories. I want actual statistics here. Cite a source and convince me that a significant number of gay men marry the opposite sex and have kids because I really don't believe you at all.
>>5221433
Pedophile = someone who wants to have sex, very frequently gay sex, with little children.
Gay and lesbian are actually opposites.
Gay = androphilia
Lesbian = gynephilia
That's why femboys and femboy lovers can never be gay, only lesbian (if femxfem) or straight (if femxmasc)
>>5221440
You're just ignoring my questions at this point.
>>5221455
If we assume children = prepubescent, and only prepubescent, then yes.
>>5221458
We don't need separate words for them for the same reason that we don't need separate words for straight men and women.
>>5221469
Children = not adults.
>>5221468
Oh the irony, you assert that "lots of homosexual men have wives and kids." I don't believe "lots" of homosexual men marry. You have zero reason to believe that is true. Give me proof or who entire argument falls apart.
>>5221488
>marry
Marry the opposite sex.
>>5221487
Then no, puberty to adult is not pedophilia.
>>5221488
>The Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender. The 2011 Williams Institute report also states that 8.2 percent of Americans reported that they had engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, and 11 percent reported some same-sex attraction.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/
>8.2% of Americans have had gay sex (but don't necessarily consider themselves anything special)
>only 1.7% of those identify as "exclusive homos"
#BTFO
>>5221513
It sure is.
>>5221514
>there are more bisexuals than homosexuals
Way to go Sherlock. That report also has nothing to do with marriage.
>>5221188
what the fuck are you on about now?
>>5221526
>>there are more bisexuals than homosexuals
The report clearly illustrates this, despite not all bisexuals self-reporting as bisexual.
>muh marriage
That was an anecdotal example from the first time I brought it up, but it's a very good way to disprove the claim that exclusive homos are any different from casual homos. If exclusive homos really were "exclusive," then they would never marry people of the opposite gender/sex. That is not the case, though, as can be seen by many examples of it happening through history.
>>5221521
Oh, well, now you've convinced me.
How silly of me to ever listen to scientists.
