Pray Away. (the gay)

[DNB]

Wrong but if you are going just by iron age ideas rather than modern science your ignorance is understandable.

Chromosomes hold genes. They’re the tiny pieces of DNA that tell our cells what to do. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. One pair consists of sex chromosomes . They come in two forms: X’s and Y’s. Women have two X’s. So when they share half of each pair of chromosomes with their offspring, the sex chromosome they offer will always be an X. Men have an X and a Y. So if dad shares an X chromosome with his child, it will make a girl (XX). If he shares a Y chromosome, the child will be male (XY). Or at least, that’s usually the case.

When it comes to sex, researchers have learned that biology can be more complicated than just ‘boy’ or ‘girl.’ For instance, some people carry two X chromosomes mixed with a fragment of a Y chromosome. These people develop into what look to be males. That happens even though the presence of two X chromosomes means that they are female, at least biologically.

Gender: When the body and brain disagree

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.

 

[DNB]

Perhaps if this wasn't coming from a religious perspective - with all the customary cites - one might take you seriously, but then it can also come from culture, background, and/or misinformation or lack of knowledge. Looking back, I think I would be the last person to be defending such an area, other than that I try to be rational when looking at such issues. Which you are certainly not being.

You perhaps need to look at how common such behaviour is in other species before pronouncing on how unnatural it is - even as to bonobo sexual behaviour, our closest primate relatives. Your projections as to who homosexuals are is a bit wide too, since I've met many who would pass for a straight person 365 days of the year. They apparently were just born with this sexual orientation, although I never got the opportunity to discuss such with them - the origins as they saw such.

You feel repulsion - your problem. Many of us are repulsed by religious beliefs, and these are far less natural but many feel they are.

I think that one day Ru-Paul and Boy-George are just going to wake up and feel utterly ashamed and embarrassed when they look in the mirror.

Well that is unlikely to happen to you, since you don't seem capable of independent thought, but are merely guided/controlled by your belief system - as many are. And hence probably, a bigot.

And why not quote - judge not, lest ye be judged?

Like i said, I would've expected a more balanced and perceptive insight coming from a forum, that I assume, are mostly adults?
Have you not seen your genitalia lately, can you not tell the difference as to what gender that you are, or as to what defines gender? Are you trying to sound compassionate or hip, at the cost of appearing hypocritical and oblivious? Who's the bigot when my position was based on empirical evidence, and you accuse me of being indoctrinated - it would appear therefore that you have an issue with God-fearing people? BTW, i cited the Scripture only because someone on this thread claimed that Homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible, I merely gave the proof-text for their sake.

 

[DNB]

If harm or victimization don't, what does?

Yes, i think that that remark was not well articulated (i re-edited it). I meant to say that not only does imposition and pain define the crime, but other factors also (as we discussed earlier) ...destruction of character and dignity.

 

[DNB]

Our brains control for sexual orientation, not violence. It's sad that you think these are similar points. The Bible has been taken out of context on so many points. It's sad.We need to read about times in which these books were written to find the historical and cultural context.

I was talking about compulsive desires, and if we chose to succumb to them.
Many people are violent in sex also, so there is a correlation - just for the record.

 

[DNB]

.
Non-consent absolutely defines a crime.

I re-edited my statement, it wasn't clear. I meant to say that not only does the obvious define the crime, but there are insidious factors also - destruction of character and self-worth, by not acknowledging the person behind the body, despite the perceived 'pleasure' of the act itself.

 

[Jainarayan]

... the LGBTQ lifestyle?

What is the LGBTQ lifestyle? What lifestyle do I, as a gay man lead? What’s my lifestyle? Many people here already know me, so I’m not going to spell it out for you. I want you to tell me what that gay lifestyle is that I lead or should be leading. People have told me I need to turn in my gay card... I’m too straight to be gay. Are you up for the challenge? I’m going to keep asking until you provide a satisfactory response. Satisfactory, that is, to a gay man.

 

[Vinayaka]

What is the LGBTQ lifestyle? What lifestyle do I, as a gay man lead? What’s my lifestyle? Many people here already know me, so I’m not going to spell it out for you. I want you to tell me what that gay lifestyle is that I lead or should be leading. People have told me I need to turn in my gay card... I’m too straight to be gay. Are you up for the challenge? I’m going to keep asking until you provide a satisfactory response. Satisfactory, that is, to a gay man.

You wear pink, and speak in a high pitched voice.

 

[DNB]

What is the LGBTQ lifestyle? What lifestyle do I, as a gay man lead? What’s my lifestyle? Many people here already know me, so I’m not going to spell it out for you. I want you to tell me what that gay lifestyle is that I lead or should be leading. People have told me I need to turn in my gay card... I’m too straight to be gay. Are you up for the challenge? I’m going to keep asking until you provide a satisfactory response. Satisfactory, that is, to a gay man.

First of all, you may persist as much as you liked in demanding a response, for the ignore button is just a click away.
Secondly, which part of 'lifestyle' do you not understand?!?! You have chosen as a rather big and major part of your life, to have amorous and physical relationships with the same gender as yourself. Marriage or whom we chose to consort with, indicates a great deal about who we are, it affects our lives in a substantial and almost definitive way - this is why it is referred to as a lifestyle. Many other factors also may determine what type of lifestyle an individual is classified under, but sexual orientation is definitely, and prominently, one of them.

I think that it is in your best interest to not engage in homosexual activity, as I would say for everyone on this planet. If conversion is an option (from homosexual to heterosexual), then this should be the aspiration. If the temptation to indulge in homosexual activity, or in any kind of sexual deviancy, is too strong, I would say abstain from sex all together. For, all in all, sex should be an expression of affection towards another's spirit, not their body. Therefore, the less that we engage in such a precarious position (temptation to over indulge, or exploit the pleasure aspect), the better off we are - self-control is both the key and the goal.

 

[Left Coast]

Secondly, which part of 'lifestyle' do you not understand?!?! You have chosen as a rather big and major part of your life, to have amorous and physical relationships with the same gender as yourself. Marriage or whom we chose to consort with, indicates a great deal about who we are, it affects our lives in a substantial and almost definitive way - this is why it is referred to as a lifestyle. Many other factors also may determine what type of lifestyle an individual is classified under, but sexual orientation is definitely, and prominently, one of them.

You got one tiny part right, which I bolded and underlined, and it undermines the rest of your position. The term "lifestyle" implies that gayness is something that can be taken or left, like a hobby. Yet sexual orientation, as you almost grasped, goes far deeper than that. It is an expression of who we are as individuals. It affects numerous aspects of the trajectory and nature of our lives that many straight folks overlook. I cannot simply "choose another lifestyle," unless you'd like me to lie to everyone around me, including myself. My being gay is simply who I am.

I think that it is in your best interest to not engage in homosexual activity, as I would say for everyone on this planet. If conversion is an option (from homosexual to heterosexual), then this should be the aspiration. If the temptation to indulge in homosexual activity, or in any kind of sexual deviancy, is too strong, I would say abstain from sex all together. For, all in all, sex should be an expression of affection towards another's spirit, not their body.

This is bizarre advice. Sex shouldn't be an expression of physical affection?

Also, if spirits are all that are relevant, you shouldn't care what genitalia people have who sleep together, as long as their sex communicates affection for one another's spirits, right?

Are you married, or in any kind of sexual relationship?

Where did you get any this advice, other than your church or holy book?

Therefore, the less that we engage in such a precarious position (temptation to over indulge, or exploit the pleasure aspect), the better off we are - self-control is both the key and the goal.

Why should we not experience pleasure? I truly pity you if you feel guilt for experiencing sexual pleasure.

 

[Meow Mix]

For, all in all, sex should be an expression of affection towards another's spirit, not their body. Therefore, the less that we engage in such a precarious position (temptation to over indulge, or exploit the pleasure aspect), the better off we are - self-control is both the key and the goal.

Definitions of "spirit" notwithstanding, homosexuals are capable of the same affection and emotions between each other as heterosexuals: the body enters the picture as one of many ways to express that.

So while I think it is valid to hold the belief "people shouldn't have premarital sex" or something like that (as a personal mantra, not as prescriptive policy for others that don't share the view), I don't think it's valid to treat reasons for having sex between homosexuals as "less than" or different from heterosexual reasons. The way your post reads, it sounds like homosexuals might only ever have sex to pleasure their bodies.

(I mean, we do that too, but just the same as heterosexual couples do).

 

[Jainarayan]

First of all, you may persist as much as you liked in demanding a response, for the ignore button is just a click away.

You can certainly try to put me on ignore.

Secondly, which part of 'lifestyle' do you not understand?!?! You have chosen as a rather big and major part of your life, to have amorous and physical relationships with the same gender as yourself. Marriage or whom we chose to consort with, indicates a great deal about who we are, it affects our lives in a substantial and almost definitive way - this is why it is referred to as a lifestyle. Many other factors also may determine what type of lifestyle an individual is classified under, but sexual orientation is definitely, and prominently, one of them.

So going to work, paying bills, having a family and friends, food shopping and being married to a person you love and spend your life with is a lifestyle, a rather common lifestyle, wouldn't you say? In fact it's probably the most prominent lifestyle in the world, wouldn't you say?

So because I am married to another man and do all the things I listed above, that constitutes a different lifestyle? In your paradigm do you define me by whom I am sexually, physically, romantically, emotionally attracted to? You're saying I lead a particular lifestyle? What would that lifestyle be?

I think that it is in your best interest to not engage in homosexual activity, as I would say for everyone on this planet. If conversion is an option (from homosexual to heterosexual), then this should be the aspiration. If the temptation to indulge in homosexual activity, or in any kind of sexual deviancy, is too strong, I would say abstain from sex all together.

So I should get a divorce, never have sex again and everything's all rainbows and fluffy bunnies?

For, all in all, sex should be an expression of affection towards another's spirit, not their body. Therefore, the less that we engage in such a precarious position (temptation to over indulge, or exploit the pleasure aspect), the better off we are - self-control is both the key and the goal.

You think I'm only interested in my husband's body? There's nothing else I'm attracted to? We can't be soul mates because we're both men? You have a fixation on homosexual sexual activity as being a person's defining traits. Why is that?

 

[Jainarayan]

You wear pink, and speak in a high pitched voice.

You weren't supposed to tell!

 

[DNB]

You got one tiny part right, which I bolded and underlined, and it undermines the rest of your position. The term "lifestyle" implies that gayness is something that can be taken or left, like a hobby. Yet sexual orientation, as you almost grasped, goes far deeper than that. It is an expression of who we are as individuals. It affects numerous aspects of the trajectory and nature of our lives that many straight folks overlook. I cannot simply "choose another lifestyle," unless you'd like me to lie to everyone around me, including myself. My being gay is simply who I am.

Sexual desires can bed curbed, many have achieved the ability to do so whether it be leading a promiscuous lifestyle, or an excessive one, masturbation, or simply fantasizing about illicit sex. We each have the control. Many tastes and desires have been acquired over time, many people were not what they are now due to wanton or coerced experimentation, or just playing with fire i.e. hanging around the wrong people, or taking baby steps and not seeing the harm in small doses.
I'm not proud of my own heterosexual desires, I don't consider them top be natural or healthy either, but lewd and destructive. One wise woman with a heart of Gold, and not even thinking about sex, would be absolutely fine by me.

This is bizarre advice. Sex shouldn't be an expression of physical affection?

Yes, that's right, it should rather be a physical expression of the admiration of the person that you're with - and not the other way around, as you stated.

Also, if spirits are all that are relevant, you shouldn't care what genitalia people have who sleep together, as long as their sex communicates affection for one another's spirits, right?

There are relationships, and rightly so, that are taboo for various reasons - we do not have sex with family members, If I was to use your argumentation either about spirits or that 'love is love', then incest would not be deemed inappropriate (we're not talking about procreation). We are not meant to be physically attracted to our parents, siblings or children, neither are we to those of the same sex. Meaning, the desires are not meant to be circumvented, but that they shouldn't exist at all.

Are you married, or in any kind of sexual relationship? Where did you get any this advice, other than your church or holy book?

My current relationship status shouldn't have any bearing on the discussion - I am appealing to fundamental reasoning, and yes, experience, but not necessarily from my own but that of others. I'm not saying that I'm inexperienced, unfortunately, I just don't want that factor to determine the qualification of my sentiments.

Why should we not experience pleasure? I truly pity you if you feel guilt for experiencing sexual pleasure.

I'm asserting that there is a greater experience when relationships are, just for starters, kept biologically conventional - this is a fundamental maxim.

 

[DNB]

Definitions of "spirit" notwithstanding, homosexuals are capable of the same affection and emotions between each other as heterosexuals: the body enters the picture as one of many ways to express that.

So while I think it is valid to hold the belief "people shouldn't have premarital sex" or something like that (as a personal mantra, not as prescriptive policy for others that don't share the view), I don't think it's valid to treat reasons for having sex between homosexuals as "less than" or different from heterosexual reasons. The way your post reads, it sounds like homosexuals might only ever have sex to pleasure their bodies.

(I mean, we do that too, but just the same as heterosexual couples do).

Yeah, sorry MM, another inarticulate moment on my part. That last statement was solely in reference to the abstinence part, in that I was just trying to explain the glory in self-control because of the precarious nature of physical intimacy - too easy to get misguided about the flesh and overlook the spirit - the less we indulge, the safer we are.

 

[Left Coast]

Sexual desires can bed curbed, many have achieved the ability to do so whether it be leading a promiscuous lifestyle, or an excessive one, masturbation, or simply fantasizing about illicit sex. We each have the control.

Abstaining from sex or suppressing one's sexuality does not make sexual orientation change. Efforts to change gay people into straight people have been abysmal failures, and have psychologically damaged many in the process.

Many tastes and desires have been acquired over time, many people were not what they are now due to wanton or coerced experimentation, or just playing with fire i.e. hanging around the wrong people, or taking baby steps and not seeing the harm in small doses.

But there's no evidence that's the case for gayness.

I'm not proud of my own heterosexual desires, I don't consider them top be natural or healthy either, but lewd and destructive. One wise woman with a heart of Gold, and not even thinking about sex, would be absolutely fine by me.

Why do you regard any and all sexual desire as destructive?

Yes, that's right, it should rather be a physical expression of the admiration of the person that you're with - and not the other way around, as you stated.

Who told you this? Sex is more than "admiration" - I admire lots of people whom I never ****. Sex, generally, is a physical expression of physical attraction. Emotional attraction as well in many cases; humans routinely combine those features, and it seems to work out pretty well.

There are relationships, and rightly so, that are taboo for various reasons - we do not have sex with family members, If I was to use your argumentation either about spirits or that 'love is love', then incest would not be deemed inappropriate (we're not talking about procreation). We are not meant to be physically attracted to our parents, siblings or children, neither are we to those of the same sex. Meaning, the desires are not meant to be circumvented, but that they shouldn't exist at all.

The issues with incest do not generally apply to unrelated gay people's relationships, so the analogy does not hold. The reason we're against incest is because a) such relationships usually involve adults and children, a relationship wherein there is a power differential where the child cannot fully consent and thus essentially amounts to abuse/rape; and b) there is a strong probability of birth defects in children of heterosexual incestuous relationships.

As long as two unrelated adults of the same sex want to have sex with each other and fully consent, why shouldn't they?

My current relationship status shouldn't have any bearing on the discussion - I am appealing to fundamental reasoning, and yes, experience, but not necessarily from my own but that of others. I'm not saying that I'm inexperienced, unfortunately, I just don't want that factor to determine the qualification of my sentiments.

Actually you're not really appealing to reasoning, you're just dogmatically declaring that I should do this or that without actually explaining why.

I'm asserting that there is a greater experience when relationships are kept biologically conventional, just for starters - this is a fundamental maxim.

What is "biologically conventional?" You mean heterosexual? You said earlier you are ashamed of those inclinations as well.

There's a very Gnostic vibe to all of this - as though sex of any kind is somehow inherently degrading to us.

As someone who was celibate for many years, on the promise that "it's so much better!"...no, it isn't. Not for most of us. Some folks are just not very sexual and celibacy seems to work for them. For most folks, gay straight or otherwise, sex is an incredibly pleasurable, positive experience for us that deepens our intimacy with people whom we love. We have no need to be ashamed of it.

 

[DNB]

So going to work, paying bills, having a family and friends, food shopping and being married to a person you love and spend your life with is a lifestyle, a rather common lifestyle, wouldn't you say? In fact it's probably the most prominent lifestyle in the world, wouldn't you say?

No, that is too common to be able to differentiate, it will not be classified as anything other than a conventional lifestyle. Once you deviate from that, then we have an anomaly that sets you
apart and allows a more particular definition, possibly stigmatized. In general, a musician leads a rock & roll lifestyle, an athlete a healthy lifestyle, an erudite a rather studious lifestyle, and a homosexual an unorthodox or deviant lifestyle - all of these assessments are based on things outside of the normal aspects of their daily activities (shopping, movies, exercise, concerts, work, ...).

So because I am married to another man and do all the things I listed above, that constitutes a different lifestyle? In your paradigm do you define me by whom I am sexually, physically, romantically, emotionally attracted to? You're saying I lead a particular lifestyle? What would that lifestyle be?

It is the peculiar or irregular aspects of one's life that define their lifestyle - the uncommon activities. Otherwise, there's nothing noteworthy to either differentiate or categorize.

So I should get a divorce, never have sex again and everything's all rainbows and fluffy bunnies?

Excuse what might appear to be a callous remark, but many people have for either justified or unjustified reasons. Bui, I don't recommend on any level, that anybody desist from, or engage in, any activity that they are not convicted that there is greater merit in doling so, than by not doing so. Acting in vain, produces only frustration.
I, ideally, would like you to recognize the rather bizarre nature of your relationship, and how either remaining celibate, or learning to see the symbiotic beauty in a heterosexual relationship, would result in your betterment. I would not expect anyone to make any decision about their relationship, without gaining this realization first.

You think I'm only interested in my husband's body? There's nothing else I'm attracted to? We can't be soul mates because we're both men? You have a fixation on homosexual sexual activity as being a person's defining traits. Why is that?

That was a miscommunicated error on my part - i meant to express the usefulness in abstinence, that is just to supplement the argument for it - since sex often leads to a form of hedonism (objectification), the less that we indulge, the better.

 

[Viker]

Do you forgive the religious bigots who show so much contrition?

It's not up to me to forgive them.

But I do pray for the demise of their cause. I pray they see light and that their beliefs fade away.

 

[DNB]

Abstaining from sex or suppressing one's sexuality does not make sexual orientation change. Efforts to change gay people into straight people have been abysmal failures, and have psychologically damaged many in the process.

Many have: David Bowie, Mick Jagger, ...i'm sure a quick google on it will reveal countless people who have changed their ways.

But there's no evidence that's the case for gayness.

Of course there is, not in all cases, but many people have fallen into activities that they didn't anticipate nor expect. I've heard of a few that tried homosexuality just as an experiment. But, again, a quick search will reveal that a lot have succumbed to it unexpectantly.

Why do you regard any and all sexual desire as destructive?

Not even close at all. My entire thesis is based on the fact that physical intimacy is 10x better when we remain reserved and controlled about it, and deriving it from love for the person, not the physical.

Who told you this? Sex is more than "admiration" - I admire lots of people whom I never ****. Sex, generally, is a physical expression of physical attraction. Emotional attraction as well in many cases; humans routinely combine those features, and it seems to work out pretty well.

It hasn't worked out well at all (who told you this?) The fact that 'sex sells' is a curse on society, the fact the women are continuously exploited and objectified in the context of sex, is an abomination. Take a look at current pop culture, women dressed like tramps on videos - bending over with everything hanging out, everyone trying to look sexy, teen pregnancies, baby mamas, R Kelly, Mike Tyson and other prominent figure's rape charges, the divorce rate, players cheating on their girlfriends, etc... What the hell is working out pretty well? Show me one happy relationship, and I'll show you 50 miserable ones.

The issues with incest do not generally apply to unrelated gay people's relationships, so the analogy does not hold. The reason we're against incest is because a) such relationships usually involve adults and children, a relationship wherein there is a power differential where the child cannot fully consent and thus essentially amounts to abuse/rape; and b) there is a strong probability of birth defects in children of heterosexual incestuous relationships.

Again, i said outside of procreation - one is not meant to fall in love with their sister, just as one is not meant to fall in love with another of the same sex..

As long as two unrelated adults of the same sex want to have sex with each other and fully consent, why shouldn't they?

Just because someone wants to party all day long, why shouldn't they - it destroys good and productive character.

Actually you're not really appealing to reasoning, you're just dogmatically declaring that I should do this or that without actually explaining why.
What is "biologically conventional?" You mean heterosexual? You said earlier you are ashamed of those inclinations as well.

I'm ashamed of many of my inclinations, not all. Meaning, it's not a double standard that i am professing. I gave the biological reason why homosexuality should always, and initially, be deemed peculiar, and how odd their behaviour and dress is - no dogma here.

There's a very Gnostic vibe to all of this - as though sex of any kind is somehow inherently degrading to us.

Never said that. I said keep it decent, natural, affectionate, and personal - not lustful, experimental or deviant.

As someone who was celibate for many years, on the promise that "it's so much better!"...no, it isn't. Not for most of us. Some folks are just not very sexual and celibacy seems to work for them. For most folks, gay straight or otherwise, sex is an incredibly pleasurable, positive experience for us that deepens our intimacy with people whom we love. We have no need to be ashamed of it.

I doubt that the majority of people have good sexual relationships as you claim, i highly doubt this. I hear nothing but misery and frustration from the people that i know.

 

[Viker]

Many have: David Bowie, Mick Jagger, ...i'm sure a quick google on it will reveal countless people who have changed their ways

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

 

[Left Coast]

Many have: David Bowie, Mick Jagger, ...i'm sure a quick google on it will reveal countless people who have changed their ways.

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.

Of course there is, not in all cases, but many people have fallen into activities that they didn't anticipate nor expect. I've heard of a few that tried homosexuality just as an experiment. But, again, a quick search will reveal that a lot have succumbed to it unexpectantly.

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.

Not even close at all. My entire thesis is based on the fact that physical intimacy is 10x better when we remain reserved and controlled about it, and deriving it from love for the person, not the physical.

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.

It hasn't worked out well at all (who told you this?) The fact that 'sex sells' is a curse on society, the fact the women are continuously exploited and objectified in the context of sex, is an abomination.

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.

Again, i said outside of procreation - one is not meant to fall in love with their sister, just as one is not meant to fall in love with another of the same sex..

According to who? By what logic?

Just because someone wants to party all day long, why shouldn't they - it destroys good and productive character.

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

I'm ashamed of many of my inclinations, not all. Meaning, it's not a double standard that i am professing. I gave the biological reason why homosexuality should always, initially, be deemed peculiar - no dogma here.

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.

Never said that. I said keep it decent, natural, affectionate, and personal - not lustful, experimental or deviant.

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

I doubt that the majority of people have good sexual relationships as you claim, i highly doubt this. I hear nothing but misery and frustration from the people that i know.

I believe you misunderstood me.