I understand what you’re getting at now so no need to respond, other than to say I think of “sex” as more than just action.
Maybe to you, but to a lot of people it usually isn’t much more than action.
Maybe people only think about the action, but there’s a lot of context behind the action.
Yeah, but not always context that gives it any meaning.
I understand what you’re getting at now so no need to respond, other than to say I think of “sex” as more than just action.
Maybe to you, but to a lot of people it usually isn’t much more than action.
My point about activists is you bring them up in just about every discussion, generally unprovoked.
Yeah, probably. In this conversation it is a legitimate complaint because the typical prominent “activists” (if you can call them that) would not consider the voices I’m talking about to be valid. They’re also generally opposed to things that would actually help gay people.
Only certain “activists”, but why wouldn’t I bitch about them? I complain about the ones who don’t care about the wellbeing of those they claim to protect. Either way, that’s irrelevant. You asked me to elaborate and I did. You didn’t respond to it.
It is the case for a lot of people who may end up “gay” (however you want to define that) and for whatever reason engage in their activities out of rebellion, for fun, to be crazy, or maybe their whole world is just upside down. Some people get over that and thus “choose” to be straight. It happens and I’ve seen it happen, more than once.
I think that’s called being bisexual.
Well, whatever, I don’t really like the idea of a “sexual identity” anyway so I think of sex in terms of action. Either way, these people I’m talking about very much believed that they were into the same sex, and they clearly were. Did they lie? They’ve lived the “gay experience” just as much as, sometimes more so than the LGBT-whatever activists.
It could have been waterproof.
If that were so would he be pitching about it?
Depends on how high in demand waterproof phones are for potential clients.
Other than not wanting to be discriminated against or looked down upon (or told they’re a sinner), I don’t see why.
I have a few people in mind that I once knew personally. If they were scared of being called a sinner, then gay acts are the least of their actions that need to changed.
Not sure I follow. I’m not asking you to elaborate on the details, but perhaps you can explain it to me better.
The specific situations I’m thinking of involve people who’s sexual endeavors were very much apart of their fast and dangerous lifestyle. The sex was the least dangerous, and relatively less frowned-upon action they engaged in. Their choices regarding it weren’t motivated out of fear of being called a sinner.
And what on earth do you mean by “maybe they want to settle down.” How does that have anything to do with your orientation?
I think you’re relatively ignorant of the role subversiveness plays in homosexuality for a lot of people.
It’s certainly possible, I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. Perhaps you can elaborate.
It is the case for a lot of people who may end up “gay” (however you want to define that) and for whatever reason engage in their activities out of rebellion, for fun, to be crazy, or maybe their whole world is just upside down. Some people get over that and thus “choose” to be straight. It happens and I’ve seen it happen, more than once.
Maybe he’s saying that atheists hate the idea of God?
There are some, none in here, that are very clearly angry and bitter about something and very clearly hate whatever god they’re moaning about.
So like those atheist channels on YouTube?
Some of them definitely are. I don’t which ones you’re referring to.
So what happened to the phone?
What do you think?
Maybe he’s saying that atheists hate the idea of God?
There are some, none in here, that are very clearly angry and bitter about something and very clearly hate whatever god they’re moaning about.
I never said it was a choice.
So you’re saying someone could be born gay but want to be straight?
I’d say it’s almost always a combination of nature and nurture. Sometimes it’s overtly one or the other. But sure.
Other than not wanting to be discriminated against or looked down upon (or told they’re a sinner), I don’t see why.
I have a few people in mind that I once knew personally. If they were scared of being called a sinner, then gay acts are the least of their actions that need to changed.
You don’t have to be straight to be a parent.
It certainly helps.
And what on earth do you mean by “maybe they want to settle down.” How does that have anything to do with your orientation?
I think you’re relatively ignorant of the role subversiveness plays in homosexuality for a lot of people.
I never said it was a choice.
I’m just saying that I believe the Bible is the word of God as conveyed by mortals, and thus may be subject to human error.
I’m not sure that you got my T. Rex reference, but it’s all good, get it on (bang a gong). In all seriousness though, how can the Bible be the word of God if it’s corrupted by mortals? You have no idea what is and isn’t properly preserved.
So yeah, I know plenty of gay people, some of whom have chosen to live straight.
Alright, so why do they choose to live straight?
Maybe they want to have kids; maybe they want to settle down. I don’t know. It isn’t self-loathing though, I can say that for sure, not in these cases.
That’s like saying a giraffe wants to be a cow.
Or a man wants to be a woman? That seems like the obvious analogy.
You can change your gender. I don’t see how you can change your sexual identity.
Why?
Not all gay people want to be gay.
I’m curious if you know anyone who is gay but doesn’t want to be. What does this even mean?
You’re talking to the guy who used to model (and still occasionally does!) his appearance off of these two:
So yeah, I know plenty of gay people, some of whom have chosen to live straight.
That’s like saying a giraffe wants to be a cow.
Or a man wants to be a woman? That seems like the obvious analogy.
Telling someone to “come to terms” with being gay is telling someone what to think about their sexuality.
The difference is that this is obviously the right thing to do.
See? There’s your leftist “it’s ok when we do it!” BS again. Not all gay people want to be gay.
Christianity (or at least Christianity based solely on the Bible) is inherently “anti-gay” in the sense that it claims homosexual relations are ungodly. I don’t see how any churches can honestly get around the fact that it’s made clear in both New and Old Testaments.
If you interpret it as the literal word of God as it fell flawlessly from his lips to parchment, then it is. But many faiths actually hold more liberal interpretations. I’m sure you don’t believe women shouldn’t speak at all in church.
All I believe for sure is that you won’t fool the children of the revolution. I don’t see how verses relating to homosexuality in the Bible could be interpreted any other way than as condemning. I’m under the impression that the line in 1 Tim. is referring to woman pastors/church leaders. There are instances in Acts relating to female missionaries and church servicewomen.
Telling someone to “come to terms” with being gay is telling someone what to think about their sexuality.
Huh, I had no idea it was happening. Let’s hope, but I doubt they’d screen it as a surprise.
It seems they’ll be screening A New Hope today. Still hoping its the theatrical
Where and why?
There were what we would today call war crimes committed during the Crusades, but they weren’t an unprovoked attack. It wasn’t an attempt to gain money.
yhwx is Navi from Ocarina of Time.
Brilliant comparison!
I hope they also release it on VHS pan & scan.
There was nothing justified about the Crusades. It was just that the Roman church wanted the money that came from the pilgrim business.
That’s an overly simplistic view of history.
Westboro Baptist aren’t terrorists.
Ugh, yet another HansiG sock account.
