Sexuality is not a choice

[K-Gun]

If Cindy Crawford walked into Joe Republican's house buck naked and told him she was about to give him the night of his life, Joe wouldn't say the subsequent hard on was a choice. You can't control what makes your dick hard, now can you? Unfortunately, when women make other women wet, that ain't a choice either. And if no woman can make some guy hard how can he ever choose to be straight? He can't. Further, if a man is only sexually attracted to men throughout his whole life, then he is gay by nature. What I mean is, it is in his nature to be attracted to men, and it is not in his nature to be attracted to women. These people exist, we call them gay, and their sexuality is perfectly natural for them. So stop talking about choice, and nature, cause you people who do are ignorant.

[Green Lantern]

Thank the God's of Erotica that bisexuality amongst women is a choice...

[uppy]

If Cindy Crawford walked into Joe Republican's house buck naked and told him she was about to give him the night of his life, Joe wouldn't say the subsequent hard on was a choice. You can't control what makes your dick hard, now can you? Unfortunately, when women make other women wet, that ain't a choice either. And if no woman can make some guy hard how can he ever choose to be straight? He can't. Further, if a man is only sexually attracted to men throughout his whole life, then he is gay by nature. What I mean is, it is in his nature to be attracted to men, and it is not in his nature to be attracted to women. These people exist, we call them gay, and their sexuality is perfectly natural for them. So stop talking about choice, and nature, cause you people who do are ignorant.


JK,you have me wrong ,I dont disagree with this but leave the kids alone.

Stop pimping the agenda

[K-Gun]

JK,you have me wrong ,I dont disagree with this but leave the kids alone.

Stop pimping the agenda

:rofl:

So you agree that it is perfectly normal for some 7 year old boys to be attracted to boys, and from that premise you deduce that it is wrong to tell them that they are normal?

If I have an agenda it is to fight ignorance. Children should not be taught that they are abominations, and an abomination is anything unnatural.

Stop pimping hate, what are you afraid of, the fact that some people really are different than you?

[uppy]

:rofl:

So you agree that it is perfectly normal for some 7 year old boys to be attracted to boys, and from that premise you deduce that it is wrong to tell them that they are normal?

If I have an agenda it is to fight ignorance. Children should not be taught that they are abominations, and an abomination is anything unnatural.

Stop pimping hate, what are you afraid of, the fact that some people really are different than you?

Stop pushing your agenda on the kids...you have a right to believe what
you wish.The game is starting I'm out for now

GO PATS !!!

[K-Gun]

Stop pushing your agenda on the kids...you have a right to believe what
you wish.The game is starting I'm out for now

GO PATS !!!

Ok, I'll stop trying to keep kids from being ignorant if you stiop instilling them with ignorant beliefs. Deal?

[C Darwin]

K-Gun,

Why is it "ignorant" to think that sexual preference might not be innate?

[Green Lantern]

What is the point of this thread? What does it matter if this behavior is a choice or not?

[FamousAmos]

I heard Lindsay Lohan is bisexual. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/153/1226070~Lindsay-Lohan-Posters.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Lindsay-Lohan-Posters_i1226070_.htm&h=450&w=294&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&sig2=vCkmAEYeLZ4pR7yak0jK6A&um=1&tbnid=KeCuGk41mTpT9M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=83&ei=F5kBR_2RO5aGeO6W8bQC&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlindsay%2Blohan%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3 D18%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfir efox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DH5V%26sa%3DN

I'd hit that.

[K-Gun]

K-Gun,

Why is it "ignorant" to think that sexual preference might not be innate?

It’s pretty simple, too simple in fact. Some people are only attracted to the same sex. They were born that way, it doesn't matter if it is encoded in genes or is only a chemical or psychological thing. That's the way they are, period.

Let me put it another way, some people like the taste of brussel sprouts, some people are repulsed by it. But please don’t call the people who naturally like brussel sprouts unatural simply because you don’t like the way it tastes.

[C Darwin]

What is the point of this thread? What does it matter if this behavior is a choice or not?

If sexual preference can be influenced, then "tolerance" becomes propaganda.

[Green Lantern]

If sexual preference can be influenced, then "tolerance" becomes propaganda.

Tolerance or acceptance?

And why does tolerance get enclosed by parentheses for you?

[K-Gun]

If sexual preference can be influenced, then "tolerance" becomes propaganda.

I'm actually trying to make you gay with this thread. And what ever you do, don't stand near a queer when he coughs, you might catch something funny.

[K-Gun]

Tolerance or acceptance?

And why does tolerance get enclosed by parentheses for you?

You’re right, uppy doesn’t have to accept homosexuality, but Deuteronomy doesn’t belong in the classroom and acceptance does.

And I quote from the book of Jefferson, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

[C Darwin]

It’s pretty simple, too simple in fact. Some people are only attracted to the same sex. They were born that way, it doesn't matter if it is encoded in genes or is only a chemical or psychological thing. That's the way they are, period.

Let me put it another way, some people like the taste of brussel sprouts, some people are repulsed by it. But please don’t call the people who naturally like brussel sprouts unatural simply because you don’t like the way it tastes.

Well, when I was younger, I didn't like tomatoes. As time went on, my tastes changed and now I think they're just great. Things can change. People can and have changed (Yestergays). Nobody understands the absolute cause of sexual preference.

Don't you think you are being a bit closed minded?

[chickie]

It’s pretty simple, too simple in fact. Some people are only attracted to the same sex. They were born that way, it doesn't matter if it is encoded in genes or is only a chemical or psychological thing. That's the way they are, period.

Let me put it another way, some people like the taste of brussel sprouts, some people are repulsed by it. But please don’t call the people who naturally like brussel sprouts unatural simply because you don’t like the way it tastes.

I like brussel sprouts.......

[C Darwin]

Tolerance or acceptance?

And why does tolerance get enclosed by parentheses for you?

Because I don't feel people must tolerate curriculum that may influence a child's sexual preference.

[Green Lantern]

Because I don't feel people must tolerate curriculum that may influence a child's sexual preference.

You think sexuality is preference and so you can thereby be coerced into being gay?

[Green Lantern]

It’s pretty simple, too simple in fact. Some people are only attracted to the same sex. They were born that way, it doesn't matter if it is encoded in genes or is only a chemical or psychological thing. That's the way they are, period.

Let me put it another way, some people like the taste of brussel sprouts, some people are repulsed by it. But please don’t call the people who naturally like brussel sprouts unatural simply because you don’t like the way it tastes.

Is being gay abnormal, if not unatural, to you?

[35Pete]

K-Gun,

Why is it "ignorant" to think that sexual preference might not be innate?

I think K-gun is instilling his belief that your belief is ignorant.
He certainly has that right. As do you to reciprocate if what you believe is heartfelt.

[35Pete]

Is being gay abnormal, if not unatural, to you?

I can't for the life of me understand why or how two guys could be sexually attracted to each other.

But who cares? They are not me, they do no harm to me, and if that's who they are then that's who they are.

I do expect gays to follow the same rules of behavior and proper ettiquete that straight people (for the most part follow). Like no gropping or hypersexuality in public.

But I think for the most part they are no different than straight people with those aspects.

[matthew94]

I don't understand the argument (or lack thereof) in the opening post. It sounds like K-gun is saying that since genuine homosexuality exists, it must be genetic. But that simply doesn't follow. People have already been impacted by their surrounding environment by the time they become sexually mature, so the possibility of environmental causes remains.

That being said, it seems to be taken for granted, for some reason, that if we can prove something is 'natural' we have proven that it is morally acceptable. But that doesn't follow either. Morals don't concern what we naturally do, they concern what we ought to do. So the question of whether or not we ought to practice homosexuality is not answered even 'if' it is genetically caused.

[35Pete]

I don't understand the argument (or lack thereof) in the opening post. It sounds like K-gun is saying that since genuine homosexuality exists, it must be genetic. But that simply doesn't follow. People have already been impacted by their surrounding environment by the time they become sexually mature, so the possibility of environmental causes remains.

That being said, it seems to be taken for granted, for some reason, that if we can prove something is 'natural' we have proven that it is morally acceptable. But that doesn't follow either. Morals don't concern what we naturally do, they concern what we ought to do. So the question of whether or not we ought to practice homosexuality is not answered even 'if' it is genetically caused.

Hmm. This is an interesting point.

[nehemiah]

let me agree w/ matthew (in part) while being a tad more vulgar.

while i agree that sexuality is NOT a choice. i must say that even if it were a choice - who gives a **** who someone is ****ing?

if you don't like someone b/c of who they are ****ing - you are an *******. it's really that simple.

if you're afraid of your son ****ing a dude or your daughter ****ing a girl, then you're an idiot. your kids ****s who he/she wants to ****. get over it, loser dad.

not to mention the fact that it's really creepy to think about your child's sexuality. if you think that your child is getting the urge to **** people at the age of 7 when he/she is reading a book - you are a creepy, creepy man. good lord, that's ****ing disgusting! what's wrong with you? why are you thinking about your child having sex?

:barf:

[г]

http://www.aref.de/kalenderblatt/2003/pics/sesamstrasse_ernie_bert.jpg


Oh, a fireman is brave it's said
His engine is a shiny red
If there's a fire anywhere about
Well, I'll be sure to put it out

'Cause a fireman is a person in your neighborhood
In your neighborhood
He's in your neighborhood

[35Pete]

let me agree w/ matthew (in part) while being a tad more vulgar.

while i agree that sexuality is NOT a choice. i must say that even if it were a choice - who gives a **** who someone is ****ing?

if you don't like someone b/c of who they are ****ing - you are an *******. it's really that simple.

if you're afraid of your son ****ing a dude or your daughter ****ing a girl, then you're an idiot. your kids ****s who he/she wants to ****. get over it, loser dad.

not to mention the fact that it's really creepy to think about your child's sexuality. if you think that your child is getting the urge to **** people at the age of 7 when he/she is reading a book - you are a creepy, creepy man. good lord, that's ****ing disgusting! what's wrong with you? why are you thinking about your child having sex?

:barf:
Thanks for cutting through the BS.

If someone CAN control it but for some crazy reason still likes screwing members of the same sex then what the hell business is it of ours? And why should we care?

Does it make you uncomfortable? If so then I've just got to ask why.

[K-Gun]

I don't understand the argument (or lack thereof) in the opening post. It sounds like K-gun is saying that since genuine homosexuality exists, it must be genetic. But that simply doesn't follow. People have already been impacted by their surrounding environment by the time they become sexually mature, so the possibility of environmental causes remains.

That being said, it seems to be taken for granted, for some reason, that if we can prove something is 'natural' we have proven that it is morally acceptable. But that doesn't follow either. Morals don't concern what we naturally do, they concern what we ought to do. So the question of whether or not we ought to practice homosexuality is not answered even 'if' it is genetically caused.

I never said homosexuality was genetic, I said it is natural for some people. And if morals concern what one ought to do, then why ought a man not love another man? How can love be immoral?

[matthew94]

I never said homosexuality was genetic, I said it is natural for some people. And if morals concern what one ought to do, then why ought a man not love another man? How can love be immoral?

Can you describe for me the difference b/w something that is genetically caused and something that is natural? I'm not disputing that there is a difference, I just think it's important to understand what the other person is saying.

As to your question, the obvious answer is that it would depend on what the moral standard says. I, being a Christian, believe God has revealed moral law through the Christian Scriptures. It wouldn't be that LOVE is ever immoral, it's that sexual intercourse can be used in the wrong context.

[35Pete]

I never said homosexuality was genetic, I said it is natural for some people. And if morals concern what one ought to do, then why ought a man not love another man? How can love be immoral?

Woah. If I were moderating a debate here I'd have to give 10 points for this question. Oustanding.

Awaiting Mathews answer.....

[35Pete]

Can you describe for me the difference b/w something that is genetically caused and something that is natural? I'm not disputing that there is a difference, I just think it's important to understand what the other person is saying.

As to your question, the obvious answer is that it would depend on what the moral standard says. I, being a Christian, believe God has revealed moral law through the Christian Scriptures. It wouldn't be that LOVE is ever immoral, it's that sexual intercourse can be used in the wrong context.

So it's the intercourse that is immoral? Or the homosexual physical act as sin? And I think I can safely conclude that you feel this way because that's the interpretation of the bible, correct?

What about non-acts? Thoughts. Two gays guys that feel romantic love towards each other. Is that immoral?

[K-Gun]

Can you describe for me the difference b/w something that is genetically caused and something that is natural? I'm not disputing that there is a difference, I just think it's important to understand what the other person is saying.

As to your question, the obvious answer is that it would depend on what the moral standard says. I, being a Christian, believe God has revealed moral law through the Christian Scriptures. It wouldn't be that LOVE is ever immoral, it's that sexual intercourse can be used in the wrong context.

Some people are made gay. They are also sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Others are never in their life attracted to the opposite sex, and have always been attracted to the same sex. Unless of course the people I have spoken with are lying. But if you look at the animal world, where things like personal identity and choice do not come into play, you will also find that homosexuality exists by nature i.e. some animals only have sexual attraction to the same sex. That is what I mean by callng it natural.

You of course have every right to believe that moral standards are dictated by God. However, public instituions in the United States of America have no right to base any moral standards ordained by a diety.

That being said, can you give me one reason why any public institution in the United States should refuse to accept homosexual equality on any grounds.

[matthew94]

So it's the intercourse that is immoral? Or the homosexual physical act as sin? And I think I can safely conclude that you feel this way because that's the interpretation of the bible, correct?

What about non-acts? Thoughts. Two gays guys that feel romantic love towards each other. Is that immoral?

Yes, I make the conclusions that I make based on my belief that the Christian Scriptures are a revelation of the Creator's purposes for humanity. Given that belief, it is not really an 'interpretation' of the Bible, but a simple admission of clear statements.

The New Testament, especially, does reveal that even inappropriate thoughts need to be repented of and cleansed. But common sense dictates that before sinful thoughts can be cleansed, sinful acts must cease.

Besides, I think of 'morals' as having more to do with action than thoughts. Non-Christians can be, and are often very 'moral' people. Many non-Christians live more in line with Christian Scriptures than some Christians (professing AND genuine) do.

But, ultimately, God is after heart change and any Christian who has been active in homosexuality will be led to repent of it. First he will cease the action. Secondly God will begin to renew his mind (Romans 12:1-2). There are numerous cases of homosexuals being converted to Christ and going on to enjoy a long-lasting heterosexual marriage.

[matthew94]

Some people are made gay. They are also sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Others are never in their life attracted to the opposite sex, and have always been attracted to the same sex. Unless of course the people I have spoken with are lying. But if you look at the animal world, where things like personal identity and choice do not come into play, you will also find that homosexuality exists by nature i.e. some animals only have sexual attraction to the same sex. That is what I mean by callng it natural.

You of course have every right to believe that moral standards are dictated by God. However, public instituions in the United States of America have no right to base any moral standards ordained by a diety.

That being said, can you give me one reason why any public institution in the United States should refuse to accept homosexual equality on any grounds.

First, I think some of your statements assume your argument before (and without) arguing your argument. To simply state, in the first line, that some people are 'made gay' is hard for me to separate from the idea that homosexuality is genetically caused. But such has not been determined.

Second, I think some of your statements are overly simplistic. You created a 2 option scenario. A) Homosexuality is natural to some people or B) The people you've talked to are lying. But I suggest that those aren't the only 2 options. If, for instance, homosexuality is a product of certain environmental conditions, it could 'seem' like that sexual preference was 'always' there and completely natural without actually being so. Or the people could be deceived themselves, the victims of deceit instead of the distributors.

Of course it is of no surprise, to me, that there are various forms of sexuality in the animal kingdom. I'd imagine this is a compelling argument against Christians who believe in darwinian evolution, but it isn't really relevant to me. Only humans were given moral standards by the Creator in the first place, so far as I know. Besides, all of creation, according to Scripture, fell due to the fall of man. In other words, the Fall seems to have affected even the animal kingdom in Christian theology.

Whether or not public institutions have a right to base moral standards on a deity is a huge topic. I'm not sure that we'd disagree much if we talked about it. But I'd rather avoid it in the context of this thread except to say that I don't think the 'equality' of homosexuals is even questionable. They are, of course, equally human and they deserve to be treated like humans. That should go without saying, but I regretfully confess that not all 'Christians' feel that way.

[K-Gun]

So far in this thread I've gotten uppy to admit that homosexuals are normal, and Matt to admit that they should have equal rights.

If I get Darwin to come out of the closet I'll have hit the trifecta.

[Shama-Lama Ding Dong]

So stop talking about choice, and nature, cause you people who do are ignorant.

I agree with your generalized boner theory.

However, I do think there is one choice available. And that is for a gay person to pretend to be straight. And Republican as well.

[matthew94]

So far in this thread I've gotten uppy to admit that homosexuals are normal, and Matt to admit that they should have equal rights.

If I get Darwin to come out of the closet I'll have hit the trifecta.

Haha, well, I've never denied that homosexuals are equally human, which is all I said in the above post :) But since it usually comes down to the issue of 'marriage,' my views are very different from the standard evangelical interpretation. I believe the church would be better off to simply ignore 'state' licenses for marriage. Christians should get married in the eyes of God and let the state deal with marriage however they (in a democracy, the majority) want.

[JimKelly12203]

I have always argued that sexuality is not a choice. At all...

It's not even close.

In fact, i doubt the sexuality of anyone who says otherwise.

Clearly anyone that thinks it is a choice is a closet case who can't come to grips with their own gayness...

In 1st grade, you can't keep your eyes off the hottest girl in the class. You don't know why you can't (yet) but you can't. You're drawn to her like a fly to shit.

Later on in life, you come to grips with the gross truth of it all (baby's are made when i stick my thing in their thing???). Then you actually do it and it's game, set, match...

YOu're hooked on the pussy!!!

I'm sorry, but i've thought about it and it is NOT appealing. If you crave johnson and want to put your thing in another guys butt, that's something you were born with.

The male attraction to women is deeply ingrained in your genetic code. Or it isn't. But it isn't a choice.

Perhaps a LOT of coke, LSD, heroin, meth and opium can trick a straight mind into doing "different" things...

But i've done all those drugs (sans meth and heroine). And trust me... it takes a littel something extra to make a man willingly put his thing into another mans pooper.

All of this aside, who the **** cares???

I don't give a damn what any of you are doing in yoru bedrooms...

It's a distractionary issue designed by the social conservatives in order to win the votes of all the closet cases in the country.

Evidently more than 10% of the populace wants to suck dick... There's no other explanation for the success they've had in using this issue to garner votes.

[JimKelly12203]

I never said homosexuality was genetic, I said it is natural for some people. And if morals concern what one ought to do, then why ought a man not love another man? How can love be immoral?

It's genetic... Trust me. It has to be. There is no other conceivable explanation for a guy wanting to have sex with another guy.

I have no problem with it, but it is completely unfathomable for a man to want another man w/o some sort of genetic disorder firmly in place.

If you're straight, you know what i'm talking about.

[matthew94]

Haha, usually the people arguing that it's 'genetic' are arguing that it's an equally valid form of sexual intercourse. But you are arguing that it's a 'genetic disorder' (just like the medical industry held it to be for many years). I doubt the gay-rights people will make you their champion :)

[C Darwin]

You think sexuality is preference and so you can thereby be coerced into being gay?

I think sexual preference could be a behavior that can be learned. And for all of the people who think parents should have no concern if their progeny is gay, your insane. What is more natural than wanting to see the continuation of your family tree? A gay child substantially decreases the probability of your DNA's "survival". So if anyone out there thinks that environmental factors may influence sexual preference, don't be quiet about it. Don't let the PC thought police intimidate you into thinking you have prejudices towards gays, when you're only trying to ensure the survival of your family tree.

Morality, for me, has never been anything more than a popularity contest. I don't think anyone argues that point anymore anyway.

[Shakespeare]

Some people are made gay. They are also sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Others are never in their life attracted to the opposite sex, and have always been attracted to the same sex. Unless of course the people I have spoken with are lying. But if you look at the animal world, where things like personal identity and choice do not come into play, you will also find that homosexuality exists by nature i.e. some animals only have sexual attraction to the same sex. That is what I mean by callng it natural.

You of course have every right to believe that moral standards are dictated by God. However, public instituions in the United States of America have no right to base any moral standards ordained by a diety.

That being said, can you give me one reason why any public institution in the United States should refuse to accept homosexual equality on any grounds.

What constitutes 'homosexual equality'? 'Equal' to choose who their life partner is, 'equal' to choose who they are having sex with, 'equal' to acquire tax, insurance, etc benefits?

[anEinherjer]

If Cindy Crawford walked into Joe Republican's house buck naked and told him she was about to give him the night of his life

I stopped reading right here.

[JLB]

I stopped reading right here.

I would have done the same right after throwing up. :beers:

[ICRockets]

I think sexual preference could be a behavior that can be learned. And for all of the people who think parents should have no concern if their progeny is gay, your insane. What is more natural than wanting to see the continuation of your family tree? A gay child substantially decreases the probability of your DNA's "survival". So if anyone out there thinks that environmental factors may influence sexual preference, don't be quiet about it. Don't let the PC thought police intimidate you into thinking you have prejudices towards gays, when you're only trying to ensure the survival of your family tree.

Morality, for me, has never been anything more than a popularity contest. I don't think anyone argues that point anymore anyway.

"No, son, of course I want you to be happy. I'd just rather make sure I'm happier, and that means you need to make me babies."

[ICRockets]

First, I think some of your statements assume your argument before (and without) arguing your argument. To simply state, in the first line, that some people are 'made gay' is hard for me to separate from the idea that homosexuality is genetically caused. But such has not been determined.

Second, I think some of your statements are overly simplistic. You created a 2 option scenario. A) Homosexuality is natural to some people or B) The people you've talked to are lying. But I suggest that those aren't the only 2 options. If, for instance, homosexuality is a product of certain environmental conditions, it could 'seem' like that sexual preference was 'always' there and completely natural without actually being so. Or the people could be deceived themselves, the victims of deceit instead of the distributors.

Of course it is of no surprise, to me, that there are various forms of sexuality in the animal kingdom. I'd imagine this is a compelling argument against Christians who believe in darwinian evolution, but it isn't really relevant to me. Only humans were given moral standards by the Creator in the first place, so far as I know. Besides, all of creation, according to Scripture, fell due to the fall of man. In other words, the Fall seems to have affected even the animal kingdom in Christian theology.

Whether or not public institutions have a right to base moral standards on a deity is a huge topic. I'm not sure that we'd disagree much if we talked about it. But I'd rather avoid it in the context of this thread except to say that I don't think the 'equality' of homosexuals is even questionable. They are, of course, equally human and they deserve to be treated like humans. That should go without saying, but I regretfully confess that not all 'Christians' feel that way.

Am I reading this correctly if I come to the conclusion that you believe there are gay animals because Eve likes apples?

[C Darwin]

"No, son, of course I want you to be happy. I'd just rather make sure I'm happier, and that means you need to make me babies."

This is the perfect point to make if you believe that sexual preference is uncontrollable, and I know you do. But what if it isn't?

[uppy]

So far in this thread I've gotten uppy to admit that homosexuals are normal, and Matt to admit that they should have equal rights.

If I get Darwin to come out of the closet I'll have hit the trifecta.

No,homosexuals can be normal,but homosexual acts are NOT normal

[FamousAmos]

I'm going to agree with Matthew94 (I'm a Christian, too) I base several of my beliefs on my understanding of my faith.

We talked about this topic in senior year of high school in religion class (yep we had to take religion courses in high school in private school). The Friar teaching the course taught us that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. However, acting on those feelings is what makes someone who is homosexual immoral.

So naturally, you'd say that a gay has to live a celibate life, right? Yep. That's the truth.

To my understanding, the unnatural argument comes from the fact, as Christians, the main reason to have sex is to procreate. Furthermore, in order to do so, we have to be married. No **** and puss before getting hitched.

Of course, in today's day and age, that doesn't happen too often, that two people wait before they get married.

Now, obviously you got a guy who wants to put his weiner in another guy's bum, he isn't going to get a baby out of that. Same goes for two gals. There goes the right to get married under the Church. So, if two gays can't get married, they can't have sex. And vice versa.


Even, taking the marriage aspect out of it, still, it is unnatural for two dudes to pull each other's wieners, because they can't procreate.

I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking about rub and tugging another guy's wiener if you're a guy, but the second you act upon it, it becomes immoral.

At least that is my understanding of it, from the Christian POV.

Is this whole argument bullshit? Maybe, I don't have the scripture to back it up with, its just what I learned from a Franciscan Friar 6 years ago.

But as far as two dudes having sex, they only result coming from that is pleasure, which is not exactly God's intention for giving us the gift of sex. Primarily, it is to procreate. That's where I stand.

[uppy]

I agree with most of what Matt,CD and Famous have posted.

Thankyou Boys nice posts

[sukie]

No,homosexuals can be normal,but homosexual acts are NOT normal

They are normal to homosexuals!

[uppy]

They are normal to homosexuals!

Thats fine but dont push it on me.

[35Pete]

But as far as two dudes having sex, they only result coming from that is pleasure, which is not exactly God's intention for giving us the gift of sex. Primarily, it is to procreate. That's where I stand.

Wow. You really believe this? I'm not being an ass to you. I really want to know why you think having sex for the sake of having it is sinful. I can see no reason whatsoever why it would be.

I think I was given a trouser mouse so that I could swing it around inside a babes thighs and her and I could get off on it. And if we decided to pro-create then we would. Otherwise we'd just screw, and enjoy it with no guilt.

Sorry bro. But this sounds like all that cultish catholic baloney that they tried to feed my impressionable brain when I was younger. Sex was made to be enjoyed. Not only for having kids.

Hell. I'm getting snipped. Should I fold the dick up and put it away forever? OR in the King's case should he roll it up if he ever decides to get snipped? LOL!!!

Most of the women I date have had their tubes tied. Are they sinning?

[uppy]

Wow. You really believe this?

I think I was given a trouser mouse so that I could swing it around inside a babes thighs and her and I could get off on it. And if we decided to pro-create then we would. Otherwise we'd just screw, and enjoy it with no guilt.

Sorry bro. But this sounds like all that cultish catholic baloney that they tried to feed my impressionable brain when I was younger. Sex was made to be enjoyed. Not only for having kids.

Hell. I'm getting snipped. Should I fold the dick up and put it away forever? OR in the King's case should he roll it up if he ever decides to get snipped? LOL!!!

Most of the women I date have had their tubes tied. Are they sinning?

Don't get snipped Pete,find a woman and have a Kid it will change your life.

[FamousAmos]

Wow. You really believe this? I'm not being an ass to you. I really want to know why you think having sex for the sake of having it is sinful. I can see no reason whatsoever why it would be.

I think I was given a trouser mouse so that I could swing it around inside a babes thighs and her and I could get off on it. And if we decided to pro-create then we would. Otherwise we'd just screw, and enjoy it with no guilt.

Sorry bro. But this sounds like all that cultish catholic baloney that they tried to feed my impressionable brain when I was younger. Sex was made to be enjoyed. Not only for having kids.

Hell. I'm getting snipped. Should I fold the dick up and put it away forever? OR in the King's case should he roll it up if he ever decides to get snipped? LOL!!!

Most of the women I date have had their tubes tied. Are they sinning?

Yeah I believe it bro. I actually believe that sex should be meaningful. I don't know anything about being in a cult. I havent even gone to church in a year, which is a whole different thread topic entirely. I aint making myself out to be a bible thumper. Dont get me wrong, I love fooling around with girls, I just dont like to take it too far unless I know her and i got something going. I guess I was born in the wrong era, eh?


Pete, I aint telling you to do anything with your meat, thats between you and yourself, if that makes any sense. I just hope you think it through, you know? Evaluate all your options, make a pros and cons list, whatever.

No judgment being passed, Pete. I was addressing some of the questions from this thread through the critical lens of a Catholic/Christian. Seeing that Christians seem to be cast as anti-homosexuals. I think a lot are, yet again another thread topic.

That being said, although I follow that law or rule or whatever, its not because I think it is sinful. Every time I shack up with a girl, I dont think about burning in Hell. You may have misunderstood me, Pete. It's mostly based on being in love with the girl and then having sex as a sign of commitment. Thats where my belief lies.

I dont necessarily believe that ****ing your girl just for fun is immoral (did I use sinful in my last post, I don't remember) but I beieve that ****ing your girl should be a sign of committment.

This prolly doesnt make any sense to you guys, does it?

The beauty of this message board is the opportunity to learn about people and their different viewpoints.

[35Pete]

Yeah I believe it bro. I actually believe that sex should be meaningful. I don't know anything about being in a cult. I havent even gone to church in a year, which is a whole different thread topic entirely. I aint making myself out to be a bible thumper. Dont get me wrong, I love fooling around with girls, I just dont like to take it too far unless I know her and i got something going. I guess I was born in the wrong era, eh?


Pete, I aint telling you to do anything with your meat, thats between you and yourself, if that makes any sense. I just hope you think it through, you know? Evaluate all your options, make a pros and cons list, whatever.

No judgment being passed, Pete. I was addressing some of the questions from this thread through the critical lens of a Catholic/Christian. Seeing that Christians seem to be cast as anti-homosexuals. I think a lot are, yet again another thread topic.

That being said, although I follow that law or rule or whatever, its not because I think it is sinful. Every time I shack up with a girl, I dont think about burning in Hell. You may have misunderstood me, Pete. It's mostly based on being in love with the girl and then having sex as a sign of commitment. Thats where my belief lies.

I dont necessarily believe that ****ing your girl just for fun is immoral (did I use sinful in my last post, I don't remember) but I beieve that ****ing your girl should be a sign of committment.

This prolly doesnt make any sense to you guys, does it?

The beauty of this message board is the opportunity to learn about people and their different viewpoints.

Makes perfect sense to me Famous. Perfect sense. Listen. There was a time when scoring a lay was justification in and of itself. Then as I got older I realized that it was completely meaningless. I mean we all "guy talk" here but when the pedal meets the metal there are more than a few guys like you.

I've pretty much found sex without feelings to be pretty damn dull. Boring in fact. So. Rather then seeking quantity, I seek quality. The quantity of that quality being one lady. I'm also leaning towards putting off the sex until a strong friendship and then bond develops. I mean have you ever slept with someone that you were head over heels in love with? Jesus. No drug in the world can give you (or her) that feeling.

I'm with you 100% bro. My "playdays" are over. The past few months especially got me thinking about that.

I misunderstood you. I thought that you said that having sex for anything other than procreation was a sin. That I'd have to disagree with you on.

[FamousAmos]

Makes perfect sense to me Famous. Perfect sense. Listen. There was a time when scoring a lay was justification in and of itself. Then as I got older I realized that it was completely meaningless. I mean we all "guy talk" here but when the pedal meets the metal there are more than a few guys like you.

I've pretty much found sex without feelings to be pretty damn dull. Boring in fact. So. Rather then seeking quantity, I seek quality. The quantity of that quality being one lady. I'm also leaning towards putting off the sex until a strong friendship and then bond develops. I mean have you ever slept with someone that you were head over heels in love with? Jesus. No drug in the world can give you (or her) that feeling.

I'm with you 100% bro. My "playdays" are over. The past few months especially got me thinking about that.

I misunderstood you. I thought that you said that having sex for anything other than procreation was a sin. That I'd have to disagree with you on.
Nah, I don't think I believe this. I know it was bashed into my skull by my teachers and parents, but it's just not practical.


Much appreciated Pete!

[JimKelly12203]

Wow. You really believe this? I'm not being an ass to you. I really want to know why you think having sex for the sake of having it is sinful. I can see no reason whatsoever why it would be.

I think I was given a trouser mouse so that I could swing it around inside a babes thighs and her and I could get off on it. And if we decided to pro-create then we would. Otherwise we'd just screw, and enjoy it with no guilt.

Sorry bro. But this sounds like all that cultish catholic baloney that they tried to feed my impressionable brain when I was younger. Sex was made to be enjoyed. Not only for having kids.

Hell. I'm getting snipped. Should I fold the dick up and put it away forever? OR in the King's case should he roll it up if he ever decides to get snipped? LOL!!!

Most of the women I date have had their tubes tied. Are they sinning?

Awesome! Just awesome.

[matthew94]

While there are certainly many professing Christians who think sex is only for procreation, that position doesn't seem to come from the Scriptures. FamousAmos, in his statement, said sex is 'primarily' for procreation, which is quite different from saying that it is 'exclusively' for procreation. From the Christian perspective, it's hard to imagine God being upset with any 'pleasure' that we experience during sexual intercourse since He's the one that set it up to be pleasurable. The message of the Bible in regards to sexual intercourse seems, simply, to be that it is only in its good and proper context when practiced as part of a lifetime marriage agreement. And, as pleasurable as sex outside of marriage may be, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that it also can create a lot of problems. In other words, boundaries make sense, even from a non-Christian perspective.

[anEinherjer]

The Friar teaching the course taught us that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. However, acting on those feelings is what makes someone who is homosexual immoral.

So naturally, you'd say that a gay has to live a celibate life, right? Yep. That's the truth.

Wow. So it's okay to BE a serial killer as long as I don't act on it. Or a pedophile.

Interesting theory there....

[TigerJ]

Haha, well, I've never denied that homosexuals are equally human, which is all I said in the above post :) But since it usually comes down to the issue of 'marriage,' my views are very different from the standard evangelical interpretation. I believe the church would be better off to simply ignore 'state' licenses for marriage. Christians should get married in the eyes of God and let the state deal with marriage however they (in a democracy, the majority) want.

I'm glad I'm not alone in that sentiment. I think it would be a little less confusing if the state used a different term than Christians, but then I wouldn't expect to have control over what term the state does use.

[twosheds]

I think sexual preference could be a behavior that can be learned.

I've had sexual fantasies with men since I was four or five, basically as far back as I can remember anything. Before I even knew what sex was. Where shuld I have learned it?

Among geese, roughly 2% of the population form exclusively homosexual relationships. Where do they learn it? Geese school?

[35Pete]

I've had sexual fantasies with men since I was four or five, basically as far back as I can remember anything. Before I even knew what sex was. Where shuld I have learned it?

Among geese, roughly 2% of the population form exclusively homosexual relationships. Where do they learn it? Geese school?

Interesting. That would strongly suggest a genetic coding for such behavior, which has been my position on homosexuality for quite a while.

And if that is the case, then any adverse opinions towards who you are as a gay man would be about as rational as having a negative opinion towards a diabetic.

And here's the bigger kicker Sheds. Suppose what you are was truly choice? SO WHAT???????

It's still YOUR choice. You harm no one. It affects no one but you and your consenting partner.

So again. So what????????????

[twosheds]

Interesting. That would strongly suggest a genetic coding for such behavior, which has been my position on homosexuality for quite a while.

I think limiting it to straight/gay doesn't help these discussions. Because it's a rather interesting subject that gets dragged into the political/moral corner, unfortunately.

One could talk about attraction in general in terms of how much of it is genetic. For example, there seems to be a preference for blondes in western societies. Of course, the choice between man or woman is a much more fundamental choice compared to hair colour.

It's still YOUR choice. You harm no one. It affects no one but you and your consenting partner.

If I had one, that is.

[nehemiah]

Among geese, roughly 2% of the population form exclusively homosexual relationships. Where do they learn it? Geese school?:rofl:

[35Pete]

I think limiting it to straight/gay doesn't help these discussions. Because it's a rather interesting subject that gets dragged into the political/moral corner, unfortunately.

One could talk about attraction in general in terms of how much of it is genetic. For example, there seems to be a preference for blondes in western societies. Of course, the choice between man or woman is a much more fundamental choice compared to hair colour.



If I had one, that is.

That's a really good point sheds. I happen to like white, black, and latin ladies but asian babes do nothing for me. I prefer brunnettes to blondes. Why? I dunno. I can't explain it. It just is....

Regarding the second part. The statement was rhetorical. I don't think you do have a choice. But the whole point I was trying to make is that even if it was 100% choice, and not nature then why would that change the basis of why your personal preferences should matter to anyone? I think that your sexual preferences, whether innate or by choice, have no bearing on who you are in terms of a quality person. Does that make sense now? Good people can be either gay or straight. Bad people can be gay or straight. In other words it has no bearing or relevance to anyone. Except you and you only. Anyone that thinks differently has serious psychological issues in my opinion. And I am not being "cute". I really do think they have serious issues.

[twosheds]

Well, uppy's a Pats fan so that's a dead giveaway. :D ;)

[C Darwin]

I've had sexual fantasies with men since I was four or five, basically as far back as I can remember anything. Before I even knew what sex was. Where shuld I have learned it?

Among geese, roughly 2% of the population form exclusively homosexual relationships. Where do they learn it? Geese school?

So you may have been born that way, does this mean all gays have? and of all the people that are "born gay", have any of them switched?

I'm not claiming to know the answers, I'm saying nobody absolutely KNOWS the mechanics of sexual preference.

[C Darwin]

Among geese, roughly 2% of the population form exclusively homosexual relationships. Where do they learn it? Geese school?

It's quite possible that this behavior in ducks is a learned behavior form observing homosexual behavior in other members of the population.

The simple fact is that there is nothing to discredit environmental factors as a possible influence in sexual preference.

[uppy]

Well, uppy's a Pats fan so that's a dead giveaway. :D ;)

lol

We need to have a cold one together some day,I'm buying..I hope
you like Bud.

[Green Lantern]

I've had sexual fantasies with men since I was four or five, basically as far back as I can remember anything. Before I even knew what sex was. Where shuld I have learned it?

Among geese, roughly 2% of the population form exclusively homosexual relationships. Where do they learn it? Geese school?

Are you sure you weren't just being abused?

[FamousAmos]

Wow. So it's okay to BE a serial killer as long as I don't act on it. Or a pedophile.

Interesting theory there....

Technically, you wouldnt BE a serial killer, if you actually didnt kill anyone, right?

Are you getting to the point that it is the act that defines you?

I'd call it a perspective, not a theory.

As Matthew has already called me out, you can see my perspective isn't as sound as it was five or six years ago.

But yeah, I think you got the idea.

[35Pete]

It's quite possible that this behavior in ducks is a learned behavior form observing homosexual behavior in other members of the population.

The simple fact is that there is nothing to discredit environmental factors as a possible influence in sexual preference.

IDK about sheds but if I were gay and some non-gay guy was trying to explain the nature of my gayness to me I'd think I'd just about put my foot up his ass at that point. Know what I mean?

[C Darwin]

IDK about sheds but if I were gay and some non-gay guy was trying to explain the nature of my gayness to me I'd think I'd just about put my foot up his ass at that point. Know what I mean?

Maybe I should beat the crap out of the next gay that tries to tell me the nature of my straightness. I'd put my foot up his ass, but he might think that's kinky. Might you be acting like the thought police Pete? Assess yourself.

I wonder if K Gun is an advocate for this kind of straight bashing?