Gay uproar over Obama Religious Tour

[chillmonster]

Gay Rights Group Urges Democrat Barack Obama to Cut Gospel Singer From Campaign Concert Tour (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_GOSPEL_SINGER?SITE=NVREN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)


By ANN SANNER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A gay rights group has urged Barack Obama to cut ties with a gospel singer who it says spreads false information about homosexuality being a choice.

Donnie McClurkin is among several gospel singers scheduled to raise money for the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate at a concert in South Carolina this weekend.

McClurkin has drawn attention from gay rights activists for his views on homosexuality.

"I don't believe that it is the intention of God," McClurkin said Monday in a telephone interview. "Sexuality, everything is a matter of choice."

McClurkin said he does not believe in discriminating against homosexuals. "What people do in their bedrooms and who they are as human beings are two different things," he said.

In a statement, Obama said he believes gays and lesbians are "our brothers and sisters" and should be afforded the same respect, dignity and rights granted all other citizens.

"I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country," Obama said. "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as president of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

The statement did not say whether McClurkin will still perform on the tour.

This should have been thought you before the tour was planned. Can you say catch 22?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Frankly I don't see the big deal.

I disagree that sexuality is a choice, however, this singer isn't trying to support the removal of their rights, and that's all that matters.

Plenty of people involved in the Pro-Choice movement are personally morally against having an abortion but support the right to have one in general- these people are generally embraced with open arms. Regardless of personal opinion, people who share the same political opinion as you are hardly a threat and attacking them is petty.

[Latrinsorm]

McClurkin said he does not believe in discriminating against homosexuals.Truth Wins Out is 100% in the wrong for trying to knock this guy off. Next!

[Methais]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A gay rights group has urged Barack Obama to cut ties with a gospel singer who it says spreads false information about homosexuality being a choice.

Homosexuality is a choice. If you wake up one day and discover you're gay and don't kill yourself, you're making the choice to live as a pudding pounder.

[Latrinsorm]

If only being a bigot could be genetically de-enginereed. :(

[Caiylania]

Frankly I don't see the big deal.

I disagree that sexuality is a choice, however, this singer isn't trying to support the removal of their rights, and that's all that matters.

Plenty of people involved in the Pro-Choice movement are personally morally against having an abortion but support the right to have one in general- these people are generally embraced with open arms. Regardless of personal opinion, people who share the same political opinion as you are hardly a threat and attacking them is petty.

I'm one of those pro-choice yet against abortion people. However I'm fully for gay people and gay rights but as long as this singer is supporting a pro-gay runner, they should be happy... She is supporting him- he is supporting them. Can you say amen sister???

[chillmonster]

Homosexuality is a choice. If you wake up one day and discover you're gay and don't kill yourself, you're making the choice to live as a pudding pounder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBAYGeSJfX0

[Methais]

:rofl:

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm one of those pro-choice yet against abortion people. However I'm fully for gay people and gay rights but as long as this singer is supporting a pro-gay runner, they should be happy... She is supporting him- he is supporting them. Can you say amen sister???

Amen sister!

[DeV]

McClurkin is an ex-gay so for him it was a choice apparently. I consider homosexuality the same as most heterosexual people consider their sexual preference; natural. I wouldn't change my preferece for anything and I imagine that line of thinking is definitely in the majority.

It's not a big deal. I don't know which gay rights group is protesting this, but they are very fucking retarded for doing so.

[Caiylania]

McClurkin is an ex-gay so for him it was a choice apparently. I consider homosexuality the same as most heterosexual people consider their sexual preference; natural. I wouldn't change my preferece for anything and I imagine that line of thinking is definitely in the majority.

It's not a big deal. I don't know which gay rights group is protesting this, but they are very fucking retarded for doing so.

Hi, DeV!

:D

[DeV]

Hi, DeV!

:D
Sup cutie! :tumble:

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Chill, how do YOU feel about this?

[chillmonster]

I think this is a similar mistake to the Rudy mistake, though I believe Giuliani's was a calculated decision while deciding to tour with McClurkin was simply an oversight. This, however, has far less potential for blowing up (even if McClurkin is caught playing footsie in a Hartsfield bathroom).

They will have to grit and bear the controversy, though. There's no way Obama can get rid of this guy. In doing to he'd alienate MANY black voters in SC, and basically tank his campaign. The fact is Donnie McClurkin isn't the only gospel singer with a huge following, and they easily could have (and should have) gotten someone else. It was a political gaff that should have been avoided and more reason for Democratic Party higher-ups to lose faith in Obama's ability to be elected to the presidency against a guy like Rudy who plays for keeps.

[Clove]

McClurkin is an ex-gay so for him it was a choice apparently. I consider homosexuality the same as most heterosexual people consider their sexual preference; natural. I wouldn't change my preferece for anything and I imagine that line of thinking is definitely in the majority.

It's not a big deal. I don't know which gay rights group is protesting this, but they are very fucking retarded for doing so.

Amen sister and PTL.

[Snapp]

It's not a big deal. I don't know which gay rights group is protesting this, but they are very fucking retarded for doing so.

That sums up my thoughts on this too.

Also, "ex-gays" make me lol. It definitely wasn't a choice for me.

[Daniel]

You choose to eat penis.

If you wanted you could become an emotional wreck by suppressing your urges and then one day you can just let it boil over in subversive perverted manner.

Duh.

[Snapp]

You choose to eat penis.

If you wanted you could become an emotional wreck by suppressing your urges and then one day you can just let it boil over in subversive perverted manner.

Duh.

Catholic priests ftw

[875000]

Catholic priests ftw


Yeah, I love it when someone tries to tie Catholicism to homosexual pedophelia. It ranks right up there with tying gays and lesbian lifestyles to pedophelia.

Bigotry -- alive and well on both sides of the politcal sprectrum.

[Necromancer]

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I'm actually really critical of the mainstream LGBT groups and LGBT Studies in genearl for pushing so hard to 'prove' that homosexuality isn't a choice. I think it very well can be a choice; just as I think heterosexuality very well can be a choice. (ask the 'ex-gays') But more importantly, it frames the entire debate in an unproductive way. They're missing the point entirely. It's not an issue of whether or not one can/should 'choose' an orientation- that entire premise assumes that some choices are better than others or at least more justifiable- it's an issue of how sexuality as a concept is constructed.

When we adamently insist that all of gender object choice is beyond the sphere of control while simultaneously insisting that the only component of 'sexual orientation' IS gender object choice, then we miss our opportunity to demonstrate the ways in which ALL orientations are social entities and the ways in which those labels fundamentally change how we perceive ourselves and our desires, in addition to constructing those very desires.

If you look across history, I mean really look carefully, it becomes abundently clear that this whole notion of homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, etc. is specific to a time and place. That's not to say that there weren't, and aren't, tons of examples of what you might call same-sex or same-gendered sexual behaviors, but lumping them all together is like lumping every recipe that ever required eggs together and saying they're the same thing.

It seems like a minor point, but it's really significant. For LGBT groups, it's an ever-losing battle. As long as we content that heterosexuality and homosexuality are entirely biological in nature, then we have to contend with the mythologies that credit heterosexuality with the creation of society, the continuation of our species, etc. i.e. yon fags, dykes, and undecided will always be the second-best choice. For everyone in society, it also means a continued subjection to the multiple choice test format for something as determinative as sexual play and sexually intimate relationships.

It astounds me that you can go to Dillard's and find thousands of totally differrent clothing items, all in a substantial range of sizes, but when it comes to your sex life, it's only one step above 'one size fits all'.

[Snapp]

Yeah, I love it when someone tries to tie Catholicism to homosexual pedophelia. It ranks right up there with tying gays and lesbian lifestyles to pedophelia.

Bigotry -- alive and well on both sides of the politcal sprectrum.

It was a joke. Perhaps I should have typed it in italics for those with a stick up their ass.

[Tsa`ah]

Meh ... no sense in explaining it. He's got "mixed" feelings on the whole "choice" in sexuality "thing".

If he's not gay, I challenge him to choose to enjoy some gay sex.

[Necromancer]

Wait...I'm not gay?

(this is the problem with the mainstream LGBT framing of the issue. "Homophobe = choice and gay rights = inborn)

[Tsa`ah]

Wait...I'm not gay?

(this is the problem with the mainstream LGBT framing of the issue. "Homophobe = choice and gay rights = inborn)

So you're gay? Go enjoy some straight sex and come back to tell us it's a choice.

(This is the problem with people today ... lack of basic reading comrehension.)

I don't see how anyone could question whether it was a choice or not. Using "born again" christians gone straight as an example of choice is very piss poor logic. They're chosing to suppress, they're still gay ... just chosing to live their lives out as productive christian heteros.

I doubt they find sex with opposite sex very appealing. I doubt their sex lives are that great ... and I'm willing to bet it's pretty infrequent. I'm also willing to bet that if their chosen partners were to be honest, they'd say it sucked or was non-existent. I'm willing to bet it's a life of attempted celibacy more than a life as a active heterosexual.

Since these brainwashed idiots are so focused on choice, neither them or their partners will be honest about the quality or frequency of their sex lives.

[Necromancer]

You should try reading some autobiographical information from self-identified homosexuals/homophiles from the 40s, 50's, and 60's. People would often talk about satisfying heterosexual encounters even while they vehemently argued that they were predominantly homosexual/homophile.

The same continues today, of course, and occurs with great frequency in other cultures and different times. On the flip side of that, we're all familiar with the popular prison inmate scenario. Do you really think these men find same-sex sexual activity devoid of pleasure? Why do they continue to engage in such behavior? If it's barely better than nothing, given the stigma and disease risks involved, would it be so endemic? Are there other desires (the desire to construct one's own masculinity through penetrative acts perhaps?) that manifest as sexual pleasure involved? Are these all simply 'latent' homosexuals (to borrow an old 50's phrase) who needed the right environment to 'let loose'?

The way we construct sexual identity in the US is very specific. If you adopt a homosexual or heterosexual label, then it must be understood as inate sexual desire that stems from purely biological origins, and it must foreclose any possible enjoyment of a sexual act that in any way, shape, or form involves a person of a particular gender. And, not surprisingly, that's how we learn to understand our own desires. We fetishize the act to the extent that, in an ideal situation, we have completely foreclosed all possible enjoyment of particular sexual activities/partners. We utilize shame, we utilize pride, we utilize the law; religion; education; etc. The fact that revulsion is considered to be a 'normal' response to the idea of sexual acts that definitionally fall outside of our self-identified (but not self-produced) sexual labels is case and point. A lot of energy goes into producing this reaction.

Just look at the 'coming out' narrative. The format is very telling. One generally identifies oneself as gay now and *then* backtracks through their life to trace the signs and indicators that they were often not aware of at the time but now realize pointed to their inherent sexual identity. Try using the following coming out story to someone: "Well, I dated women up until I was 18. I was completely heterosexual; I loved it really. Then one day I wanted to date men. I met one guy who was just gorgeous, and since then we've been together. Nope, I was never attracted to men before that. Yup,I'm definitely gay now. I have no desire to date or have sex with women; I am no longer attracted to them." It'll be good for entertainment value.

People will immediately try to rationalize a story like that. "oh, so you're bisexual". "Oh, you were just so repressed before that you couldn't come to terms with your same-sex desire, so you threw youreslf into heterosexual sex and convinced yourself you liked it". "Oh you're just confused" Imagine having had that experience, and then imagine how you would reconcile it to yourself. It would probably be in one of those ways. Though I know a few people who've had exactly this experience who've done a good job to simply sticking to the facts.

There's no 'reading comprehension' problem here. Just a problem of working our way out of a particular socially mediated way of understanding ourselves and our desires. It's not as simple as we describe it to ourselves and to others. Though the power of those explanations to shape our desires is undeniable.

[Nieninque]

Who mentioned the "H" word and pulled Jesse out from under his rock?

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I'm not buying applying social science to what is, in essence, a "hard" science issue. If you want research...what about the recent studies suggesting that bisexuality didn't exist in male arousal patterns? When presented with stimuli, men either segued straight or gay.

[Necromancer]

I haven't read any such studies, but remember that any studies that try to study a sexual group runs into the problem of selectively creating its own object of study in the very process of setting up the study. In many ways, you end up with circular reasoning.

And to claim that sexual identity is a matter of 'hard science' as opposed to social science is akin to saying that the study of cuisine is a matter of the physical sciences and not social sciences. Yes, there's certainly a lot physical sciences could tell you about the chemical composition of the materials used to create cuisine, but it couldn't much tell you how cuisine evolved, what it means to the individuals who create and/or consume it, and why certain ingredients and creations are valued over others.

The entire notion that there is anything fundamentally, specifically biologically, different about homosexuals/bisexuals/heterosexuals/etc. is an entirely new one. And it was something advanced by early homosexual groups like the Mattachine Foundation/Society and the One Insitute- and with no small amount of contention both from within the 'group' (whoever that group was) and outside of it. It's a direct result of the times. People who practiced exclusive or near exclusive same-sex sexual acts in this country never thought of themselves as belonging to any kind of 'group' until the Kinsey report came out in the late 40's (maybe early 50s?- I forget) and identified a large number of people who belonged in this category. The fact that this awareness came out of a scientific study that was at least somewhat grounded in biology was a huge factor in the way in which the early homosexual groups began to understand themselves (and consequently the way they told others to understand themselves). This was also the time of Darwinism catching on rapidly (and the new use of animal behavior as an analogy to human behavior), continued decline of religion as an explanatory force for human behavior, and at a time when the topic of homosexuality was almost exclusively owned by psychoanalysis- the psychiatric profession. In an effort to break away from the image of emotionally and pathologically disturbed due to maladjustment in early childhood (i.e. the disease model), homosexual/homophile groups latched on fervently to biological explanations for their desires. (Interestingly enough, about 70 years prior to this, the prevailing idea was that homosexuals were born as they were, but that was held largely in sexology circles- the only people with any license to speak of homosexuals. No one else really even bothered to wonder about it, scientist or layman. That rapidly changed with the introduction of Freud, however)

Homosexuals and heterosexuals (who were a discursive product of the creation of homosexuals- the term and concept of homosexual predates heterosexual) alike found the idea ridiculous, of course. Not because they were 'backwards' and 'ignorant' of biological 'realities', but because they understood sexuality through a psychoanalytic lens and were also in a period of sexual revolution post-WWII- there was a reluctance to view sexuality as fixed in any sense. It was actually, in large part, the homosexual rights groups and the social scientists they worked with who helped usher in a new period where sexuality began to be understood as inate again. Only this time, instead of using religion or psychology as an explanatory framework, they used this new field of genetics (which wasn't actually what it was called at the time) and the booming fields of biology and chemistry that housed it as an explanatory framework.

So is the point that all these past periods were just largely ignorant and trying to come to the truth that we know now? It's the conceit of every generation to think that, but it's simply not the case. It's that every period has its studies and its ways of understanding itself and its members, and those ways of 'knowing' have dramatic effects on the people who know or who are known. They don't simply alter individuals, they *produce* them.

And so we have our own ways of 'knowing' ourselves, and we have our own scientific studies and political/medicinal/juridical discourses that produce volumes of knowledge about the nature of people and their desires. And, the direct result is that we produce individuals who know themselves in these ways and who understand themselves through these terms. That's just how it works, and god bless that process and the human body for being so able to adapt in such fundamental ways to our social surroundings. But let's not kid ourselves by indulging in that age-old rhetoric: "The way we are today is how we have always been or always would have been given 'freedom' from social forces. We see the truth whereas in the past they only saw what they wanted to see."

We should know better by now.

J- who really needs to pull himself out of his research long enough to think about something besides homos and marriage and history.

[Drew2]

I GOT YOUR GAY UPROAR RIGHT HERE OK.

AND I'M DRUNK SO IT'S EXPEXIALLY GAY AN ESPECIALY ROAR.

[Necromancer]

I see where you're going with this, but I'm getting some eight inch dick tomorrow evening from a generous and built-like-a-truck man so there's no need. Thank you for the thought, however.

[Drew2]

god that's hot

[Necromancer]

Yeah...I shouldn't post when I've been drinking

[TheEschaton]

On the flip side of that, we're all familiar with the popular prison inmate scenario. Do you really think these men find same-sex sexual activity devoid of pleasure? Why do they continue to engage in such behavior?

But that's not about consentual sex, it's about power. It's rape, and some prisoners use rape and the threat of rape to control people, and some people offer themselves up for such rape so as to ggain favors.

I don't think you can use born again Christian ex-gays or prison populations to argue sexuality is a choice.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

I don't see how anyone could question whether it was a choice or not.The one thing that makes me hesitate is how sexuality has a peculiar susceptibility to brainwashing (peculiar among other genetic predispositions, that is). To elaborate, I'm sure everyone's familiar with (at least the idea of) someone who initially thought he or she was heterosexual, then realized bisexuality, then realized homosexuality. This all makes sense from the standpoint of an overwhelming societal bias towards heterosexuality, people are becoming more and more aware of what they really are.

However, there are people who've gone through that process only to later realize that they were really bisexual after all. I'm not disinclined to the notion that they always really were bisexual and were just mistaken at times, but the sticking point is that while (for instance) they were homosexual, they honestly believed and acted as if they were. If it's true that we're completely powerless to identify even our own "true" or "inborn" sexuality, doesn't it become harmful to try and designate any particular orientation as the "correct" one?
I'm not buying applying social science to what is, in essence, a "hard" science issue.Ah, but we are more than our biological responses in so many ways. Why would sexuality be any different?
So is the point that all these past periods were just largely ignorant and trying to come to the truth that we know now? It's the conceit of every generation to think that, but it's simply not the case.Well, it's not a matter of debate that we know things now that those in the past did not. The rest of it is more interesting, but the very first part is just a fact.

[Necromancer]

>>However, there are people who've gone through that process only to later realize that they were really bisexual after all. I'm not disinclined to the notion that they always really were bisexual and were just mistaken at times, but the sticking point is that while (for instance) they were homosexual, they honestly believed and acted as if they were. If it's true that we're completely powerless to identify even our own "true" or "inborn" sexuality, doesn't it become harmful to try and designate any particular orientation as the "correct" one?>>

I like where you go with this one, but your question/reasoning's own internal logic still dooms any answer to circular repetition. Nowhere in that analysis is there room for the person to have been bisexual one moment, to have been homosexual another moment, and to have been something else in a third moment. It's always rooted to some inner essence of who the person is.

Foucault said it best when he commented that one of the features of the post-modern world was that people's souls went from being prisoners of their bodies (ala Christian theology) to their bodies being prisoners of their souls. What he meant by that was simply that using these sexual labels (heterosexual, homosexual, automonosexualist, etc) we effectively told people what their bodies were for and desires were (and, of course, in adopting the labels they told themselves the same thing, citing it as an act of 'self-discovery' as opposed to 'self-production').

Again, the concepts of sexual identity we have as well as the linguistic resources available to communicate our sexual nature to ourselves and those around us severely hamper our ability to explain attraction to groups or individuals that change through time. The only way we can effectively understand that kind of phenomenon is to backtrack and say "Oh, I must have REALLY been this [thing that I am right in this moment] the entire time but was confused". If a heterosexual man finds himself attracted to another man for three months of his life, he is suddenly flung into a whirlwind of self-evaluation and 'self-discovery' that risks altering his entire fundamental self-concept because he hasn't the vocabulary to integrate that knowledge into his existing heterosexual self. Is he bi? Is he gay? People will have oddly different interpretations of what he 'must be'. Oddest of all, he can't simply be heterosexual any longer. At best, he can be heterosexual with a disclaimer. Is this biological fact rearing its ugly head and challenging our social understanding of the 'realities of nature'? I'm highly skeptical. I think it's more our social categories and understandings accidentally knocking each other on the head because conflicting social forces, and even social forces that seem to be in synch, can and do produce antagonistic lived realities that expose the limitations of those forces. (Hence why everyone hates a fag)

>>Well, it's not a matter of debate that we know things now that those in the past did not. The rest of it is more interesting, but the very first part is just a fact.>>

No, it's not. But that question's simplicity misses the mark entirely. It's not so much an issue of knowing more (though certainly we do know more about things like DNA than we did in say the 40's before we discovered it), but it's largely an issue of knowing differently.

If anyone thinks for a moment that the great debates we're having today over the origins of same-sex desire (interestingly enough we almost never inquire as to the origins of opposite-sex desire) are in any substantial way different than the ones we were having in the early 50's, they're in for a let down.

The hormonal difference at birth and through childhood argument, the genetic predisposition towards 'one or the other' argument, the compounding environmental factors that play on such predispositions or not argument, the 'everyone is bisexual, and society pushes us in one direction or the other' argument, the 'there is no bisexual, you are one or the other, bisexuality is actually the neuroses not homosexuality or heterosexuality' argument, etc all found their origins in the post-WWII [and in some cases during WWII] scholarship and political discourses in the US and Western Europe. A look back through popular homosexual/homophile magazines in the early 50s yields nearly every popular argument/understanding of sexuality that we have going on today. It's almost frightening how far we *haven't* come.

What did change? As I mentioned before, psychoanalysis began to fall out of fashion in exchange for the concept of a biological minority that could be quantified and never extinguished (therefore, any efforts to try were simply cruel, the reasoning went...and goes). Gay rights groups slowly came to a general consensus, purely for political and strategic purposes, on this new understanding of the homosexual, and since that understanding permeated the publications, it rapidly became the discourse adopted by its readers and those around them. Meanwhile, scientific inquiry into the 'problem' of homosexuality exploded, and that inquiry nearly always took for granted some specific and identifiable group to be studied (else it could have no studies), which began to push the notion in academic circles.

In the 50s magazines like the Mattachine Review and One Magazine were full of discussions about whether or not homosexuals should think of themselves as a distinct minority, about whether as individuals they believed they were the product of environment or the product of heredity, whether they were a part of larger society, or if they were fundamentally different, etc. By the 80's, gay rights groups had clearly demarcated a universal line: 'it's a choice' belonging to 'homophobes' and 'it's not a choice but a natural biological variation' belonging to 'not-the-bigots'. Lost were the intercommunity discussions involving surprisingly sophisticated (even by today's terms) analyses of whether it was as simple as one or the other, or whether or not the more posing of that question was side-stepping the real issues: why should it matter?

And so, the homosexual/homophile of the 50's was not the same creature as the gay, lesbian, or bisexual of the 80's. The latter had formed a very different understanding of itself collectively.

What changed? Did we have a surplus of studies that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was an identifiable biological component to sexual desire that had programming predating social forces? No, not really. Even the famed studies we saw in the mid-90's and early 2000 had such embarrassing methodological grounds that none of them have been reproduced successfully with the possible exception of the twin studies. In fact, versions of these studies had been done as far back as the 40's (by the 60's you already had tons of studies looking into fraternal versus identical twins, children from the same parents raised in different environments, endocrinological studies, sexual stimulation studies, etc). Talk about shakey methodological grounds; they would have made you scream. And yet, their findings were often quite similar, and often quite identical, to those of more 'modern' studies.

The only thing that changed were the specifics of the explanations. The twin study in the 40's 'proved' that while homosexuality was clearly a result of childhood environment, there were some individuals who were born somewhat defective and were more suceptible. The one done 50 years later 'proved' that homosexuality had a very distinct genetic basis to it that expressed itself regardless of social forces; even if human consciousness could hide symptomic behaviors (like going down on your girlfriend).

Meanwhile, none of these studies or explanations can actually give any justice to an explanation of other cultures and time periods where those who did practice same-sex sexual activities in no way resembled the modern LGB American of 2007 without using the ever-popular disclaimer, "Oh, they were just too repressed to be what we are. We are the biological truth, and they are just socially compromised versions thereof".

[Shalla]

I might get flamed for what I'm about to say but;

I think, It's a CHOICE to engage in homosexual acts, It's a SIN to act against your feelings and self expression.

I love you Jess. <3 haha

[Alfster]

This thread is beyond gay

[Shalla]

You have the choice to do, or not do what you think is right for you; It does not change what you truthfully feel about yourself.

You could be a virgin all your life, or marry a straight person; never relenting on engaging on your homosexual desires - It would not change what you are; nevermind what other people thinks, because all that matters in the end is that you've been living a lie, and you know it.

I hope those people find solace and consolation with the notion that they're going to heaven. I assure you, if or when you do; God will ask what you've done in your life, and although you can say that you have lived a life of sacrifice, you nevertheless never lived up to, nor were you happy with the life God has given you. It is not God's intention for you to live a life of sacrifice. God wants you to be happy, be yourself, and do good to those people around you.

[Alfster]

Your God is dead and no one cares

[Shalla]

How could God be dead, if God never lived? Unless you mean't Jesus, then he is.

[TheEschaton]

If something is natural to who you are, and you CHOOSE not to act on it, aren't you committing the same sin you just outlined, of not being true to who you are?

Namely, if you don't want to SIN by your definition, you would CHOOSE to engage in your natural sexuality, given to you by your God, and if it happened to be homosexuality, you would engage in homosexual acts.

Apparently they don't teach consistent logic in the Phillipines, eh?

-TheE-

[Alfster]

How could God live, if God never lived? Unless you mean't Jesus, then he is.

Heresy --> NIN

[Shalla]

If something is natural to who you are, and you CHOOSE not to act on it, aren't you committing the same sin you just outlined, of not being true to who you are?

Namely, if you don't want to SIN by your definition, you would CHOOSE to engage in your natural sexuality, given to you by your God, and if it happened to be homosexuality, you would engage in homosexual acts.

Apparently they don't teach consistent logic in the Phillipines, eh?

-TheE-


I said it's a choice to engage in homosexual acts . I did not say it's a sin.




Apparently they don't teach consistent logic in the Phillipines, eh?

-TheE-

Did they include the fallacy regarding "Hasty Generalizations" in your studies?

[TheEschaton]

But then it's equally a choice to do heterosexual acts, and thus the fact that it's a choice is irrelevant.

-TheE-

[Shalla]

But then it's equally a choice to do heterosexual acts, and thus the fact that it's a choice is irrelevant.

-TheE-

I said it's a choice to do, or not do homosexual acts. Doing heterosexual act does not make a gay man straight.

Once again. I said, ENGAGING in homosexual act IS a CHOICE. Homosexuality to me is not a sin, but someone who would repress their sexuality is.

[Sean of the Thread]

I said it's a choice to do, or not do homosexual acts. Doing heterosexual act does not make a gay man straight.

Once again. I said, ENGAGING in homosexual acts IS a CHOICE. Homosexuality to me is not a sin, but someone who would repress their sexuality is.

Wow ..



This may be off topic but I'm curious did you ever obtain a GED?

[Sean of the Thread]

A person can be exposed to homosexual advantages; they have the choice whether to engage in that oppurtunity, or not. Is it a sin for doing so? "I" think not. It is up to them to judge that based on the decision they make. It is NOT homosexual behaviour to be turned on by being being stimulated mentally, or physically; It is human nature.

I think you should be sterilized.

[Shalla]

A person can be exposed to homosexual advantages; they have the choice whether to engage in that oppurtunity, or not. Is it a sin for doing so? "I" think not. It is up to them to judge that based on the decision they make, and what they believe in.

Bleh!


Re=phrasing it.

If you are homosexually stimulated physically, or mentally, therefore you are gay, but it is not a sin. It's human nature. You can delude yourself in the notion that you're "STRAIGHT" all you want, and deny yourself the opportunity of exploring your humanity, it will not change the fact that you had these emotions, and or feelings.

[Shalla]

Wow ..



This may be off topic but I'm curious did you ever obtain a GED?


Does it matter? You already think I'm stupid.

[Sean of the Thread]

Does it matter? You already think I'm stupid.

No I don't. I was just curious.

[Shalla]

Like I said in my u2u, it's irrelevant. If I say yes, you would only use it to belittle me, but all I have to say is, "Let others think of me what they would."

I don't even care what you think of me really. All I care about is not giving the wrong impression to the people I care about, that I have anything against homosexuals; hopefully, Jess and the others, would find the wisdom, and find consolation in knowing what's in my heart, rather than the stupid things I say in this forum.

[Necromancer]

I missed what Shalla said that was so wrong.

She outlined a distinction between action and desire. We could debate the merits of that distinction, but I certainly don't see anything glaringly illogical about that (though I don't necesariily agree with parts of her point).

hi Shalla!

[Sean of the Thread]

Homosexuals UNITE!