I was born hetero, how about you?

Your post is full of contradictions sentence to sentence, and here again also you equate being gay with incest or child molestation, and now add beastiality...but I am sure you will deny that with more cryptic ramblings.

What do you expect?

The Christians to change the word of god just to appease the homosexual movement?

Reality man. It's not going to happen.

Da!

Because it's not normal!

It's unnatural!

I agree, I wanted to say something to msharmony about that, glad you meantioned it. Msharmony, you realy aught to go back and read all of your comments. I have been most frustrated by them because one minute you say one thing, then the next another. I'm not trying to start something with you. But it's pretty clear that your religion has much to do with your contradictions.

Msharmony, It 'is' a lot of pages to go through, and maybe I'm not using the right word, but one minute I would find you empathetic and the next condescending and demeaning and religiously self righteous.

You are both gay and straight, msharmony, there's not way around that. Forget the act. It's convenient that you still have someone to share physical expression after giving up acting on the side of you that is gay due to your religious beliefs. Maybe some how you think being so called BI, you are excused from the same kind of ugly attitude gays are subjected to by a majority in the population.

If a gay person doesn't act on it, they don't have the alternative that you do. You think people should not act on it, that's easy to say when you can still have that physical expression with men. I know I am butchering this explanation but it's hard to describe how I feel about your comments.

I realize it's difficult to relate to gays for some people, but it's not impossible as you see by those are are capable of it, with out being gay themselves.

In one post you talk about empathy, yet you say your 'standards' prevent you from acting on it.. I admit I have trouble with that as empathetic, it's more condescending to me.

I'm not putting you in the same category as Fanta, his attitude is much more angry and final just short of killing. If there was no aversion to killing off people we can't relate to I believe he might find favor with the laws in Uganda. Sounds harsh but I can't help but get that feeling from his words.

I tend to be more offended by your words than by his, because you have some idea of the strength of attraction, you know that attraction is literally a part of you whether you act on it or not. But because of religion you believe it's wrong, just lucky for you that you have an alternative and need not spend a life time expected to never share physical intimacy with another.

Again convenient for you, not for those who identify strictly as gay. Others would have to be forced to have an attraction they just don't have. You should look into the techniques some of these Cure people use on gays to make them straight. Nothing short of brainwashing. You and others, because of your faith, condemn gays to a life time with out benefit of physical expression. I don't think you and others have any clue just how imprisoned gays really are even when they are out of the closet.

The prohibition of homosexuality started with the church, it hardly matters if an individual who is not religious also believes being gay is wrong, it still originated from the church ... a group of PEOPLE.

It doesn't' even occur to people that others in history and in religion were antigay. It's not surprising it would find it's way into history books written by guess who? PEOPLE! People often have not changed in their prejudices with the passage of time. How very convenient to say the book is inspired by god that no one has the right to question it's authority.

So convenient in fact that it condemns a group of people for the life of this world. Blacks we lucky they escaped the condemnation and slavery in the bible. Women for the most part have escaped the subjugation of the bible, but not gays. How interesting. Guess we still need some one to measure ourselves by. The church over time has lost people because of the contradictions, but imagine if gays were accepted in all of society. The church would have a hard time explaining the very thing they are most set against. I'd say that they would fear losing control. I find that pretty obvious.

I know I probably didn't explain this well but hope you got something from it.

i think the majority of the people who dislike gays are in some religious cult,but there are non religious people who don't like gays either.....i was just wondering why its such a big deal about people who like the same gender.to me i don't care what they do its their life not mine.

people can complain and say it isn't right ok,but life goes on...they are still gay rather you like it or not,even if they are born gay or choose,why does it matter.tomorrow is another day and more than likely they are still gonna be gay.

Christianity is not the enemy. Bigotry existed long before the church and will long after. Cultures put their priorities and values in places that they feel serve a purpose at the time, something that would happen with or without religion.

As to what all of ones friends do,,,all the black females I know above forty are extremely successful, should I think that means that all black females EVERYWHERE are?

I dont doubt what anyone tells me about themself, I just doubt that there is any one thing that EVERYONE in a group has in common. Not all people have the same reasons or memories of when they first became attracted to married men and Im sure that is because not all of them did so at the same time or for the same reason.

Okay but you continue to compare gay love to negative things which is what boo was offended by.

Hetero married love is no different then gay married love would be if people would allow them to marry. But even without the marriage there is no difference unless you are bigoted and prejudice.

Thank you for replying. I have searched these twelve pages today looking for where I was inconsistent and waiting for some help because I just couldnt find it.

I apologize if my words offended, I enjoy our dialogues. I make a point throughout these threads to use the words WE and to include myself in many of my opinions so as NOT to be condescending. I find issue with the attitude of alot of people that people should EXPLORE their sexuality by acts that are potentially harmful but that a suggestion of THERAPY instead of sexual exploration is condescending. Imagine if someone that was a sexual addict, felt it would be just as useful to continue sleeping around as it would be to seek therapy to find out WHY they felt the need for so much sex.

Perhaps I could add another belief that would clear things up. I feel sex, aside from the means by which we survive as a species, is 90 percent of the time an effort to REACH out for some connection or fill up some hole. I feel there are many alternate ways to accomplish this besides sex. If I found myself in an environment with nothing but married men, I believe I could abstain from that contact and find other ways to be fulfilled, but that is just me. I dont feel sexual physical contact is a NECESSITY in life and I realize this makes me somewhat of an ogre, but that is ok, and it possibly shows where my opinions are not condescending of anyone but from a point of seeing everyone as capable of control without doing damage to their quality of life or love.

As I look around, I know many gay people who have kids,, this suggests to me there isnt such a STRICT predisposition to any sexual interest but that , like any part of the personality it can change. Whether or not it SHOULD be changed is up to the individual. But I know there are many people who use sex, straight and gay, as a mask for something else. These are the people I speak of when I suggest therapy as a good option. For those who fill fulfilled in their sexual choice,,I wouldnt suggest such therapy.

I also love the dialog and appreciate that you can keep it civil, however I still don't think we are on the same page. I have been strictly celebate for over 30 years. I know absolutely that it's possible to be with out sex and have a great life. It's also possible to be a couple in a celebate relationship, I know because I am in one that has lasted 26 years and we still love eachother as deeply as we always have. I will come back to this later and explain where I think we still might be missing eachothers' point. And again thanks for being civil.

On thing thought, by saying you have a problem with exploring ones sexuality with actions that can be harmfull I hope you are including straight sexual acts. I think that harmful word is condesending, it's like saying we aren't smart enough to know how to explore safely. I admit that I take that a bit personally even if I shouldn't.

I might agree that young people do dangerous things with out thinking, this is why sexuality should be an open discussion with young people, more are having sex younger as the decades go by and we still have so many hangups about it we fear teaching them.

It's all our faults for allowing our hang ups to prevent teaching children what is safe and what is not. And both forms of sexuality are dangerous if your ignorant.

Personally I would like to see all straights and gays be celebate until they are at least 30 years old, theres are valuable lessons in celebacy having nothing to do with religion. Taking the focus off our genitals and learning about eachother first is healthy, but I live in the real world were many parents don't talk to their kids and the last thing they would take about is gay sexuality, so if their kid is gay where the hell does that kid go, he can't go to his parents, and teachers are hamstrung by the parents in what they teach. So to me society is to blame for it's ignorance of reality and facts.

Back later

But no comparisons to hetero married sex, I wonder why that is?

Only mentions of some unhealthy form of sex as a comparison to homosexual sex.

Could it be that imposing the belief that it is wrong is so ingrained that a person cannot possibly have an objective view and will therefore always be biased or bigoted?

Dragoness, I have compared MANY hetero sexual choices. I have also stated that marriage should be between non related adults of the opposite gender. That would exclude any union not man and woman joined in matrimony,, INCLUDING the various hetero unions that fall outside of marriage.

It is my hope that people read my ENTIRE posts and not just focus on my view about homsexuality,,,it is just one of MANY inappropriate sexual choices that I have mentioned as my beliefs.

Hetero sex is just as healthy as gay sex. So lets be positive about it and stop mentioning only negative things about the gay aspect of sex. Gay sex has nothing to do with all the connotations you have mention any more than hetero sex does. Noone needs counseling because they are gay. Noone needs to question why there is something (gay) wrong with them because it is not wrong to be gay. Noone should need to be worried about being punished for being gay in this life or the next, if there is one.



Positively speaking there is no difference from gay sex to hetero sex and if between two people who love each other and are of age and consent, it is a beautiful natural thing that should be acknowledged as such. We can include marriage as part of the deal when it becomes legal for all.