Pray Away. (the gay)

DNB · Aug 18, 2021

Viker said:
I did a quick peek. No testimonials about Bowie or Jagger "changing" their ways, in context of this thread.

If not exactly Bowie or Jagger, as it's hard to pose the question correctly on Google or get a direct answer about it, there are enough precedences out there to appreciate the ability to change desires. Arguably speaking, there are many cases of straight people becoming gay also (no, i cannot give the empirical evidence, we've all heard the stories). Revealing the fact that the possibility is there for conversion - for better, or for worse, or in one direction or the other. Tastes can be acquired, we've all seen this. If, as the gay person will say, love is just love, then why can't they redirect their homosexual desires to a 'lovely' person of the opposite gender at least to keep the physical compatibility - if love truly transcends the physical?

Bowie is thirty-six now. The past, of course, plagues him.
All those masks he no longer needs, the old poses –– they keep popping up anew.
“The biggest mistake I ever made,” he said one night after a couple of cans of Foster’s Lager,
“was telling that Melody Maker writer that I was bisexual. Christ, I was so young then. I was experimenting….”
So: he is not gay, whatever he may have blurted out in 1972.

Bowie, on the other hand, openly declared that his stage persona was not merely an act -- that not only was he bisexual, but so was his wife, and they often enjoyed sharing partners.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

Viker · Aug 18, 2021

DNB said:
But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed,

Not at all surprised or impressed.

Meow Mix · Aug 18, 2021

DNB said:
If not exactly Bowie or Jagger, as it's hard to pose the question correctly on Google or get a direct answer about it, there are enough precedences out there to appreciate the ability to change desires. Arguably speaking, there are many cases of straight people becoming gay also (no, i cannot give the empirical evidence, we've all heard the stories). Revealing the fact that the possibility is there for conversion - for better, or for worse, or in one direction or the other. Tastes can be acquired, we've all seen this. If, as the gay person will say, love is just love, then why can't they redirect their homosexual desires to a 'lovely' person of the opposite gender at least to keep the physical compatibility - if love truly transcends the physical?

Bowie is thirty-six now. The past, of course, plagues him.
All those masks he no longer needs, the old poses –– they keep popping up anew.
“The biggest mistake I ever made,” he said one night after a couple of cans of Foster’s Lager,
“was telling that Melody Maker writer that I was bisexual. Christ, I was so young then. I was experimenting….”
So: he is not gay, whatever he may have blurted out in 1972.

Bowie, on the other hand, openly declared that his stage persona was not merely an act -- that not only was he bisexual, but so was his wife, and they often enjoyed sharing partners.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

Are you familiar with the Kinsey scale? It is very rare for people to be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual. I suspect that "conversions" are really people with varying levels of bisexuality hopping the fence.

DNB · Aug 18, 2021

Left Coast said:
LOL. Here's a quick Google of David Bowie:

"In a 1983 interview with Rolling Stone, Bowie said his public declaration of bisexuality was "the biggest mistake I ever made" and "I was always a closet heterosexual."[372] On other occasions, he said his interest in homosexual and bisexual culture had been more a product of the times and the situation in which he found himself than of his own feelings.[373][b]"

David Bowie - Wikipedia

A quick Google of Mick Jagger shows that he's had a long string of heterosexual relationships and has never identified as gay, though there were rumors about him and David Bowie:

Mick Jagger and David Bowie 'were lovers'

So no, none of that demonstrates someone having consciously changed their sexual orientation. Again, entire ministries have risen and fallen on that premise. They have been notorious failures in the Christian world.

A quick search would reveal to you that mental health experts the world over do not agree with you. Homosexuality is simply a normal variant of human sexual orientation. It isn't taught or coerced.

I do agree that sex with someone we love is incredibly rewarding and wonderful. Gay and bi people simply have those experiences with people they love of the same sex.

I said it works out when we are attracted to people more than just physically. Which of course, gay people are just as much as straight people.

According to who? By what logic?

How does having sex with someone of the same sex destroy good and productive character?

Actually no, you didn't give the biological reason. The fact that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality is not sufficient moral reason to regard it as immoral, any more than left handedness or other less common traits.

Loving sexual relationships between gay people are decent, natural, affectionate, and personal...so what's wrong with them?

I believe you misunderstood me.

I have pictures of Bowie and Lou Reed kissing intimately on the lips, with Jagger sitting beside them. And Angie's testimony of finding Mick & Bowie in Bed.
Either way, not the main crux of my argument, just a quick example of two people that I understood had changed. I assume that we've all heard of unsung cases?

Bowie, on the other hand, openly declared that his stage persona was not merely an act -- that not only was he bisexual, but so was his wife, and they often enjoyed sharing partners.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

Homosexuality defies the natural symbiosis that exists between opposite genders, that complement one another. That is, the body parts do not fit, this is the first indication that something is awry. The behaviour that appears to be so prevalent in that community, i.e. cross dressing, flamboyancy, effeminacy - guys acting like girls, adds further suspicion to the normal or healthy aspect of their lifestyle. These are not theological arguments - outside of the fact that such behavioiur defies God's design for men and women.

Martin · Aug 18, 2021

Meow Mix said:
Are you familiar with the Kinsey scale? It is very rare for people to be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual. I suspect that "conversions" are really people with varying levels of bisexuality hopping the fence.

I'd always suspected this to be the case, having recognised it to be true of myself. Though I don't imagine it's something an Evangelical Christian would easily accept?

DNB · Aug 18, 2021

Meow Mix said:
Are you familiar with the Kinsey scale? It is very rare for people to be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual. I suspect that "conversions" are really people with varying levels of bisexuality hopping the fence.

Yes, i would agree also. I think that there are varying motives and degrees behind whatever a person indulges in, or is attracted to. I was going to remark on the same post about who can possibly explain the how and why, as to how each one of us is wired? I'm intending that my argument transcends the cause, of which i keep insisting that I am also guilty of many innate bad habits, and just deals with the proper direction to take on any given issue. Are we all to capitulate and claim that nothing is corrigible? I am convinced that I am just as guilty of deviant behaviour as I regard homosexuality to be. I try hard to find a repulsion to what I currently deem as attractive - yes, I'm one of those who find two women engaging in sex as extremely erotic, not as much as before, but there's still moments - I think that i am sick in the head!!!. And, I can go on, but I'd like to save myself the embarrassment.

I'm not being hypocritical or employing a double standard, I constantly have to keep myself in check. And the most important thing to me is first, recognizing the crime as opposed to desisting from it. Once I've at least established what is truly right from wrong, antagonistic to the desensitization that I've experienced living in a modern society, I hopefully will be able to change in an extremely content and formidable manner.

Meow Mix · Aug 18, 2021

DNB said:
I have pictures of Bowie and Lou Reed kissing intimately on the lips, with Jagger sitting beside them. And Angie's testimony of finding Mick & Bowie in Bed.
Either way, not the main crux of my argument, just a quick example of two people that I understood had changed. I assume that we've all heard of unsung cases?

Bowie, on the other hand, openly declared that his stage persona was not merely an act -- that not only was he bisexual, but so was his wife, and they often enjoyed sharing partners.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

Homosexuality defies the natural symbiosis that exists between opposite genders, that complement one another. That is, the body parts do not fit, this is the first indication that something is awry. The behaviour that appears to be so prevalent in that community, i.e. cross dressing, flamboyancy, effeminacy - guys acting like girls, adds further suspicion to the normal or healthy aspect of their lifestyle. These are not theological arguments - outside of the fact that such behavioiur defies God's design for men and women.

Abnormal =/= bad. Abnormal can be bad, but sometimes it's just neutral, with no moral connotation: consider left-handed people, when so many people are right-handed across nearly every culture. That's abnormal, but not bad.

So abnormality might be a necessary condition for moral wrongness, but it is not a sufficient condition.

I'm a lesbian, do you think that I assume humans are all supposed to be this way? Obviously, the species wouldn't continue if we were without parthenogenesis. I don't know why I'm a lesbian any more than I know why my mom was left-handed, I just know that I am. I don't think there's anything wrong with it anymore than anything was wrong with my mom's handedness.

We see homosexuality in nature. Of course, appearing in nature doesn't mean something is good, either (after all dogs eat their own feces sometimes). But it's evidence that homosexuality is natural. It might even have an evolutionary purpose (or so it has been argued: for instance, homosexual penguins tend to go the extra mile to raise abandoned penguin chicks, which helps the colony as a whole). Who knows. It doesn't have to have a purpose to avoid being morally bad, just adding to the discussion. The point being, though, that being outside of the norm isn't sufficient to say that it's morally bad. We are humans just making do with our lives and existences and feelings. We don't hurt anybody, and we blossom beautifully together. You could try being happy for us

(Je te taquine! Mais tu pourrier.)

Viker · Aug 18, 2021

Martin said:
I'd always suspected this to be the case, having recognised it to be true of myself. Though I don't imagine it's something an Evangelical Christian would easily accept?

Correct. People with a binary, all or nothing, black/white world view can't accept color, ambience or alternatives.

Left Coast · Aug 18, 2021

DNB said:
I have pictures of Bowie and Lou Reed kissing intimately on the lips, with Jagger sitting beside them. And Angie's testimony of finding Mick & Bowie in Bed.
Either way, not the main crux of my argument, just a quick example of two people that I understood had changed. I assume that we've all heard of unsung cases?

But the example was a bad one, as neither of the men are examples of people who's internal sexual orientation have changed.

Bowie, on the other hand, openly declared that his stage persona was not merely an act -- that not only was he bisexual, but so was his wife, and they often enjoyed sharing partners.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.

Click to expand...

Please cite things when you quote them so people can look at your references. It's well known that many folks who have come out of "reparative" therapy and ex-gay ministries routinely claim to have been "healed"...only for the truth to come out years later than they were putting on appearances and never stopped being gay. A quick Google search, since that seems to be your preferred method of research, should reveal this to you.

Homosexuality defies the natural symbiosis that exists between opposite genders, that complement one another. That is, the body parts do not fit, this is the first indication that something is awry.

...um, I don't know how to delicately say this to you but um...

I can personally attest to you that the body parts do in fact fit.

If the body parts did not fit, we'd find something else to do.

The behaviour that appears to be so prevalent in that community, i.e. cross dressing, flamboyancy, effeminacy - guys acting like girls, adds further suspicion to the normal or healthy aspect of their lifestyle.

What is unhealthy about being feminine, or wearing clothes that are not gender conforming? You understand that clothing is a cultural construct that varies depending on where and when you live, yes?

These are not theological arguments - outside of the fact that such behavioiur defies God's design for men and women.

So far you haven't made an argument, you've just made claims. I keep waiting for you to back any of them up.

Meow Mix · Aug 19, 2021

DNB said:
Yes, i would agree also. I think that there are varying motives and degrees behind whatever a person indulges in, or is attracted to. I was going to remark on the same post about who can possibly explain the how and why, as to how each one of us is wired? I'm intending that my argument transcends the cause, of which i keep insisting that I am also guilty of many innate bad habits, and just deals with the proper direction to take on any given issue. Are we all to capitulate and claim that nothing is corrigible? I am convinced that I am just as guilty of deviant behaviour as I regard homosexuality to be. I try hard to find a repulsion to what I currently deem as attractive - yes, I'm one of those who find two women engaging in sex as extremely erotic, not as much as before, but there's still moments - I think that i am sick in the head!!!. And, I can go on, but I'd like to save myself the embarrassment.

I'm not being hypocritical or employing a double standard, I constantly have to keep myself in check. And the most important thing to me is first, recognizing the crime as opposed to desisting from it. Once I've at least established what is truly right from wrong, antagonistic to the desensitization that I've experienced living in a modern society, I hopefully will be able to change in an extremely content and formidable manner.

I don't think it's crazy for a heterosexual man to find lesbian sex attractive. Heterosexual women like watching men do things with each other in my experience with my friends, though I guess I don't have any data on this other than the anecdote. For every college party dude that says "we'll make out if you make out" there's a certain level of tit for tat there.

DNB · Aug 19, 2021

Meow Mix said:
Abnormal =/= bad. Abnormal can be bad, but sometimes it's just neutral, with no moral connotation: consider left-handed people, when so many people are right-handed across nearly every culture. That's abnormal, but not bad.

So abnormality might be a necessary condition for moral wrongness, but it is not a sufficient condition.

I'm a lesbian, do you think that I assume humans are all supposed to be this way? Obviously, the species wouldn't continue if we were without parthenogenesis. I don't know why I'm a lesbian any more than I know why my mom was left-handed, I just know that I am. I don't think there's anything wrong with it anymore than anything was wrong with my mom's handedness.

We see homosexuality in nature. Of course, appearing in nature doesn't mean something is good, either (after all dogs eat their own feces sometimes). But it's evidence that homosexuality is natural. It might even have an evolutionary purpose (or so it has been argued: for instance, homosexual penguins tend to go the extra mile to raise abandoned penguin chicks, which helps the colony as a whole). Who knows. It doesn't have to have a purpose to avoid being morally bad, just adding to the discussion. The point being, though, that being outside of the norm isn't sufficient to say that it's morally bad. We are humans just making do with our lives and existences and feelings. We don't hurt anybody, and we blossom beautifully together. You could try being happy for us (Je te taquine! Mais tu pourrier.)

I guess because there are countless sexual deviances (this you may not agree, at least the specific list anyhow), eg: S & M, toys, threesomes, swapping, swingers, orgies, etc..), we have to be extremely vigilante about something that is so easily enticing - how many good man have made a life-long error by one night of indiscretion. Thus, austerity is required for carnal pleasures - it becomes too easy to either excuse, or engage in them, whether it be food, recreation or sex. This is why I'm extremely wary of of being too permissive on such matters, for again, i will unequivocally assert that sexual freedom and licentiousness has caused more damage than good in our society - 'sex sells' is the modus operandi.

Therefore, I am much more prone to condemn an unconventional sexual act, believing that there is an extremely fine line between what is morally correct in the bedroom, and what is not.

DNB · Aug 19, 2021

Meow Mix said:
I don't think it's crazy for a heterosexual man to find lesbian sex attractive. Heterosexual women like watching men do things with each other in my experience with my friends, though I guess I don't have any data on this other than the anecdote. For every college party dude that says "we'll make out if you make out" there's a certain level of tit for tat there.

wow, i honestly have never, ever heard of that before: anyone finding two men getting it on as appealing??? The lesbian thing seems to be even a cliché with guys, but never heard of it the other way around. I had a theory as to why it was more 'acceptable' with women (they naturally are more affectionate towards one another - holding arms, swapping clothes, combing each others hair, ...)

Meow Mix · Aug 19, 2021

DNB said:
I guess because there are countless sexual deviances (this you may not agree, at least the specific list anyhow), eg: S & M, toys, threesomes, swapping, swingers, orgies, etc..), we have to be extremely vigilante about something that is so easily enticing - how many good man have made a life-long error by one night of indiscretion. Thus, austerity is required for carnal pleasures - it becomes too easy to either excuse, or engage in them, whether it be food, recreation or sex. This is why I'm extremely wary of of being too permissive on such matters, for again, i will unequivocally assert that sexual freedom and licentiousness has caused more damage than good in our society - 'sex sells' is the modus operandi.

Therefore, I am much more prone to condemn an unconventional sexual act, believing that there is an extremely fine line between what is morally correct in the bedroom, and what is not.

I would argue that these kinds of sex aren't immoral in themselves; but in the way people go about them. Again I'd use the motorcycle analogy: riding a motorcycle by itself is morally neutral. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet and weaving in and out of traffic dangerously is not.

Meow Mix · Aug 19, 2021

DNB said:
wow, i honestly have never, ever heard of that before: anyone finding two men getting it on as appealing??? The lesbian thing seems to be even a cliché with guys, but never heard of it the other way around. I had a theory as to why it was more 'acceptable' with women (they naturally are more affectionate towards one another - holding arms, swapping clothes, combing each others hair, ...)

According to PornHub, gay male porn is the 2nd most watched category by self-identified female users in 2015, apparently.

I'm a lesbian and I sometimes watch straight porn out of the sheer dearth of decent lesbian porn (I just ignore the man).

Justanatheist · Aug 19, 2021

DNB said:
I guarantee that you are an exemplary sinner, ...probably more than others - your oblivion alone indicts you.

Sin exists in your head only, it is a product of your imagination, Atheists do not sin since we have no imaginary god to sin against, if you want to prove I have sinned then you have to prove your god exists and no one can.

DNB said:
Get real, there would be no life in its abundance and longevity as we know it through the millennia, if it weren't for the fundamental principle of two exclusive genders.

Get real, someone who believes in the supernatural is telling me to get real, that has to be one of the funniest posts this month!

Anyway some excellent and far more articulate members of the LGBT community have come along to debunk your sad little phobias and they can represent themselves far better than I can represent them. So I think we are done.

Justanatheist · Aug 19, 2021

Meow Mix said:
Riding a motorcycle without a helmet

Oi, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not immoral just illegal in certain places!

Justanatheist · Aug 19, 2021

Left Coast said:
...um, I don't know how to delicately say this to you but um...

I can personally attest to you that the body parts do in fact fit. If the body parts did not fit, we'd find something else to do.

Does @DNB think that anal and oral sex for example are restricted to the LGBT community?

Meow Mix · Aug 19, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Does @DNB think that anal and oral sex for example are restricted to the LGBT community?

Can't speak for him, but I think the argument is that the anatomy is prescriptive such that anal and oral wouldn't be "proper uses," at least from the context. The "doesn't fit" was probably just saying it colloquially. Now of course I think the premise that anatomy is prescriptive is in serious need of some kind of justification.

Justanatheist · Aug 19, 2021

Meow Mix said:
Can't speak for him, but I think the argument is that the anatomy is prescriptive such that anal and oral wouldn't be "proper uses," at least from the context. The "doesn't fit" was probably just saying it colloquially. Now of course I think the premise that anatomy is prescriptive is in serious need of some kind of justification.

Not so sure I have debated homophobes before who think that gay sex is disgusting and revolting whilst completely ignoring the fact that many heterosexuals do the same things.

Meow Mix · Aug 19, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Not so sure I have debated homophobes before who think that gay sex is disgusting and revolting whilst completely ignoring the fact that many heterosexuals do the same things.

Not to speak for him but his position seems consistent to me: elsewhere (I think in this thread) he has rejected heterosexuals doing oral and anal as well. Not saying I agree with his view, just that it's at least consistent in that regard. But by all means this is just my analysis and observation, the only person whose word matters on his position is his own, whenever he's back and able to post.

Edit: Not this thread, it's in my "If hell is eternal suffering" thread.

Pray Away. (the gay)

Christian

Häxan

Chatte Féministe

Christian

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)

Christian

Chatte Féministe

Häxan

This Is Water

Chatte Féministe

Christian

Christian

Chatte Féministe

Chatte Féministe

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chatte Féministe

Well-Known Member

Chatte Féministe