**Female here: I've liked girls since I was 7!!**

[SDSoccerChick32]

It is a sexual orientation, because to those who are truly asexual, they just are, and there's no way to change it.

Myself included, as well as most of the asexuals that I've talked to don't lack libdo or anything. I've even like been tested, and it's fine. But there are no signs of abnormalities.

I live a normal life, just without any sexual attraction or want of sexual relationship. Some asexuals are completly against physical contact altogether, but I'm not and plenty of others aren't either. I love cuddling!

I'm trying to get to a point where I dont wish that I was sexual of any kind. And I know there's a reason that I lack sexual attraction...I just haven't found out why that is. But it's a struggle.

Aaahhh...gotacha'! Well, be proud of who you are. Everyone is different...that's what makes the wold go 'round. Thanks for sharing!

 

[mpok1519]

Double standard? Hypocrisy?

Covering all angles, really. =P

How could something perfect and God breathed not cover all angles?

 

[imluvd]

Should one shun a homosexual who seeks to worship God, and not the gluttonous person? Shouldn't the fat person be told that there are living in sin, and to turn from their sinful lifestyle?

Actually I don't think any nonbeliever should ever be shun from seeking. But as a believer yes, I think both should be brought up. I will admit right now I have the sin of gluttony and overweight. I won't say obesely overweight, but still overweight just the same. And yes, I do find it a sin now and trying to do better. I try to watch portion size, walk, and resistance train now. I think the problem why some christians don't realize this is sin is because preachers don't preach it is. I mean after all how many overweight preachers have you seen? I only realized it was because I read the bible, so I have asked forgiveness for it and now trying to do better.

And I am not saying this is all a preachers responsibility to tell us what sin is. As long as a christian has a bible, then they should be reading it themselves.

 

[Tenka]

Actually I don't think any nonbeliever should ever be shun from seeking. But as a believer yes, I think both should be brought up. I will admit right now I have the sin of gluttony and overweight. I won't say obesely overweight, but still overweight just the same. And yes, I do find it a sin now and trying to do better. I try to watch portion size, walk, and resistance train now. I think the problem why some christians don't realize this is sin is because preachers don't preach it is. I mean after all how many overweight preachers have you seen? I only realized it was because I read the bible, so I have asked forgiveness for it and now trying to do better.

And I am not saying this is all a preachers responsibility to tell us what sin is. As long as a christian has a bible, then they should be reading it themselves.

Being fat isn't the sin, deliberate overindulgence is.
So will you be trying to ban all-you-can-eat buffets? Peppering competitive eating forums with Bible quotes and scorn? Why is it you people are so willing to make choices for gays but baulk when it comes to sins that you enjoy?
Did you ever tell anyone that Supersizing was a sin?
Christians decided to boycott Ford motor Co. because they supported gays in some way and yet I didn't hear a whisper of criticism when they announced a 500bhp, 3MPG Mustang. I imagine a great many of them were thrilled.

"Traditional marriage" vocalists should either force everyone to obey every Biblical idea they have (as opposed to just the ones they can do without) or let the land of the free be that and allow the citizens to live as they wish if they aren't hurting anyone.

 

[mpok1519]

the difference between being fat and one's attraction to the same sex: usually, one has control over their weight, but not over who theyre attracted to.

 

[mpok1519]

yeah; theres lots of overweight preechers, but no ones trying to excommunicate them from the church.

Do you see the problem now, Imluvd? how people are actually TRYING to push away homosexuals UNTIL they become heterosexual; yet, a church will stick by through thick and thin with any other person struggling with sin, which is hypocritical, and deserving of scrutiny if the church is so scrutinous of peoples' love lives; the church will excommunicate divorcees, but not people who eat mcd's or hotpockets. The church will reject drug addicts, but its perfectly okay for you to drive 3MPG hummers everyday and harm the earth.

the thing is, if the church rejected as many people as the Bible says to reject, the church would be empty.

 

[Guid]

Being fat isn't the sin, deliberate overindulgence is.
So will you be trying to ban all-you-can-eat buffets? Peppering competitive eating forums with Bible quotes and scorn? Why is it you people are so willing to make choices for gays but baulk when it comes to sins that you enjoy?

Um, you seem to be upset. I do not know if you are Christian, but I will communicate so though:

If one is serious about one's walk with the Lord one will shun all sin - fornication - gluttony - slander - violence - over-bearing pride and so on. God didn't ask us to cherry pick. Do you understand that?

Should Christians be telling people how to live? Well, when God puts it upon us to point out that 24 carat gold sin is leading a person to the lake of fire, well, yes. We cannot force anyone to live any particular way for the most part. God gave everyone free will.

On the other hand though, as a Christian I feel it is my right perhaps duty at times to point out that sin is sin. God will anoint people to spread the Gospel. To tell the truth flat out. And if that bothers you - good - your conscience is probably convicting you of something.

Many here think that they should approve of sin .. 'mustn't upset the sinner, you know; it is better to offend God than offend Satan .. yes you get those here. But for a serious Christian, when one shares the Gospel one isn't behooved to candy-coat how much God hates sin and the consequences of it - don't you think? Surely you are not suggesting Christians approve of sin?

But if your answer is yes, I'm not shocked. It wouldn't surprised me as many on this forum are suggesting just that! However, I am saddened, because you would be outside the one Kingdom that counts.

Because God surely does hate sin and he hates the wickedness of the heart. Yes, He loves sinners in a "one off" sense i.e. He has provided a way - Jesus - for them to reconcile themselves with God. But if they do not repent, then they are not reconcilled with Him and they will end up rejected outright.

If a Christian candy-coats sin and accepts it, then one is getting in the way of God's will: that the sinner convicts her or himself of their wicked nature and the need to repent and put on the new, sanctified nature. Be transformed and renewed in your mind!

What's the point of putting stumbling blocks in the way? God doesn't want us doing so. God hates sin and loves the sinner [and gave His only Son for the sinner so that the sinner might be reconcilled]. To tell them sin is "OK and good" is to lie to them. It is bearing false witness [which is a sin in itself]. I prefer to tell the truth.

I'm not in any way suggesting that a Christian shouldn't treat non-believers decently and well, within reason. No oppression. No unfairness. And as a Christian, I am to love them as circumstances allow and Spirit leads. The Lord does want us to be good to both our friends and our enemies. But when there's something to say about sin, well, let the truth be spoken.

Jesus said He is a sword that divides. A sword that divides. A sword that divides.

Christians are to be spearate from the world, it's wickedness and sin.

We are hated for our disdain for filth. For not participating in the debaucheries. Do you understand the implications here? We will not be loved for rejecting sin. Christians are hated for it.

You can see that even here on CF. Those who speak out against sin are despised. Yet speaking out against sin is an act of love .. perhaps a bit like a spoon of cod liver oil from Mom .. doesn't sit well with the sinner .. makes them uncomfortable .. but good in the end should they turn to God.

Guid

 

[mpok1519]

well, its hard to be a well-rounded and functional member of society if all we are concentrating is SIN SIN SIN! Everyones a sinner! You must hate the sin and hate it with all your avaliable hate! Hate the sin! hate the sin!

do you honestly think life owuld be good if that was in the forefront of our minds ALL DAY, everyday, talking to people?

no, life would suck, and if the majority of people DID operate that way, life might not even exist if alls we concentrated on was peoples' sin, and how to get rid of that sin.

we should concentrate on love, and how to expand that love, and concentrating on sin as the 'enemy' isn't a good way to make progress as humanity; once you start concentrating on peoples' sin moreso than the person, you're objectifying the person as a 'thing that sins' rather than a person.

It offends God when we as a single world can't get over our little insecurites about 'sin' and slow down progression and success; I think God's offended that we havn't found something better with our time in two-thousand years other than judge folks over their so called "flaws".

People; life wouldn't even be here if we had this radical view of sinners as nothing but Satan's lapdogs offending God left and right.

forgiveness I think is what Jesus was talking about.

sigh.....ive argued this sooooo many times with sooooo many people, its starting to make me feel I'm just wasting my time.

I should be out selling blenders door to door or something banal like that.....

 

[Beanieboy]

Jesus said He is a sword that divides. A sword that divides. A sword that divides.

Christians are to be spearate from the world, it's wickedness and sin.

We are hated for our disdain for filth. For not participating in the debaucheries. Do you understand the implications here? We will not be loved for rejecting sin. Christians are hated for it.

You can see that even here on CF. Those who speak out against sin are despised. Yet speaking out against sin is an act of love .. perhaps a bit like a spoon of cod liver oil from Mom .. doesn't sit well with the sinner .. makes them uncomfortable .. but good in the end should they turn to God.

Guid

Who exactly are you hated by?
75% of the US is Christian.
So, you are hated by the other 25%?
The Jews?
The Muslims?
The Buddhsits?
That leaves about 4% as None, and 12% as Nonaffiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States


A Christian once told me: If I am hated by the world, then I must be doing a good job, because the world hated Christ as well.

That's an easy out. Rather than wonder why people are repulsed by you, you rejoice by the fact, and claim it's because you are so holy. However, that is rarely the truth. Even the sinners were drawn to Jesus.

And who hated Christ? The Pharisees. They had power over others, and Christ was a threat to that. They were seen as holy and of high status, because they were leaders in the Temple, and Christ humbled them, even called them vipers brood, and children of the devil. It wasn't the tax collectors and prostitutes that were trying to entrap Jesus at every turn, but the Pharisees, exposed for the "white washed tombs" that they were.

I'm unclear, then, how a Christian can look at that, and take "world" to mean "sinners" or "nonChristians", when Christ had the most difficulty and resistance from those within the Temple that tought the Scriptures, and thought themselves better than others.

 

[mpok1519]

trust me; no one hates you because you 'disdain filth'; people might hate you, however, if you try to push that agenda on those that disagree with you.

Remember, live and let live.

You don't get anywhere if you're always thinking "sin sin sin and how to wash my hands clean of it"; you get places by thinking "love love love, and how to spread that love."

Its as if people think love for all peoples is some kind of disease....

 

[Braunwyn]

We are hated for our disdain for filth. For not participating in the debaucheries. Do you understand the implications here? We will not be loved for rejecting sin. Christians are hated for it.

I'm sorry, but this is just so full of dishonest drama. Christians rule the Americas and have plauged the planet with consumerism. You and your religion endorse the sacrafice of innocents. You recklessly kill and torture animals as no other culture and yet you find it fitting to step up to the podium to declare your narcissm in full grandeur. It truly baffles me.

Why not, instead, attempt to not kill in your life time. Heck, I could stomach the self-importance 10x better if you just refrained from killing. Otherwise the dramatic self-proclamations simply ring hollow.

 

[SDSoccerChick32]

well, its hard to be a well-rounded and functional member of society if all we are concentrating is SIN SIN SIN!

.....

sigh.....ive argued this sooooo many times with sooooo many people, its starting to make me feel I'm just wasting my time.

I should be out selling blenders door to door or something banal like that.....

I'll take one! I'm hoping it'll come w/ Patron and margarita mix?? The hypocrisy of so many Christians is astounding; it is starting to give me a headache...a margarita will do the trick jk

 

[4ng3l0fd34th]

I should be out selling blenders door to door or something banal like that.....

I could really go for a smoothie right now. How much are you selling them for? >.>

 

[mpok1519]

i need to come up with better comedy material....

 

[Tenka]

Um, you seem to be upset. I do not know if you are Christian, but I will communicate so though:words words words...

Apparantly you didn't read a drat thing I wrote, so here it is in simple.

Your brand of Christian are not "speaking out against sin" they certainly are tolerating and indulging in many, except the gays.

Frivolous hetero marriage and easy divorce? Tolerated and indulged in.
Consumption of obscene amounts of resources? Tolerated and indulged in.
Lies and slander celebrated for advancing the cause of creationism.
Overbearing pride hailed as patriotism and as having doctrinal integrity. Or, possibly worst of all, The hailing of self as a martyr for being disagreed with on online forums.

<staff edit>

 

[Maren]

Apparantly you didn't read a drat thing I wrote, so here it is in simple.

Your brand of Christian are not "speaking out against sin" they certainly are tolerating and indulging in many, except the gays.

Frivolous hetero marriage and easy divorce? Tolerated and indulged in.
Consuption of obscene amounts of resources? Tolerated and indulged in.
Lies and slander celebrated for advancing the cause of creationism.
Overbearing pride hailed as patriotism and as having doctrinal integrity. Or, possibly worst of all, The hailing of self as a martyr for being disagreed with on online forums.


Get off your cross, you look ridiculous.

Not to mention, Christians have no problem tolerating sin against what Christ called the greatest commandment, to love God. In fact, not only did Christ call it the greatest commandment but it is also the first of the 10 Commandments. Instead, Christans have no problem with freedom of religion; there is no push for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. Christians routinely welcome people of differing religions into their communities and neighborhoods. They have no problem with hate crime laws to protect people of other religions, or civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination against people of other religions in housing and employment. So, it is strange when Christians have such tolerance and provide protection for people who openly and proudly break the greatest commandment that Christians feel a need to deny those same protections and be intolerant of homosexuals.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

At least, that is your interpretation of the word.

Its an obvious statement. Unless your twist the words dishonestly like you seem to do. When Jesus said whoever 'divorces his wife and marrys another commits adultry' you don't really have any other option that what the sentence means. Grammar dosen't allow you

Except the Bible doesn't "say" anything. It is a book that has been translated from other languages and then people interpret the Bible based on their beliefs/predispositions. There is a reason that the Bible has been used to support beliefs such as slavery, polygamy, segregation, etc. There is a reason there are over 12,000 different Christian denominations that largely all claim to believe what the Bible "says". Why should I believe your claims of what the Bible "says" over Biblical scholars?

Biblical Scholars support my position. Name one early church father or famous theologian who supports gaymarriage or homosexuality. And not some bozo who speaks from no authority. Give me a real theologian like Augustine or Aquinas who have authority behind their interperatation.

I don't ever remember claiming it was. I was simply pointing out what happened in Biblical times based on what the Bible "says".

No you were trying to make a reference to polygamy. Many of the prophets like King Solomon eventually looked down on their polygamy. Just because some of the prophets were polygamous dosen't justify homosexuality is any way.

As well he should have for his sins but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Oh yes you were, you were trying to use polygamy in the bible to justify gay marriage






And this is the danger of cutting and pasting from bibliographies rather than actually doing the research yourself, this study actually claims there is no real difference between the parenting of gay couples vs. straight couples.

Though when you do cut and paste like this, it is considered dishonest to post the information without giving credit to the people who actually compiled this list, in this case the American College of Pediatricians.

Please, you wanted evidence references. And like usual you attack the referances saying to give my opinion. Otherwise quit asking people for "evidence" that you yourself won't accept to begin with.

Forgive me if I discount the value of a book (not any type of study) published by the Marriage Law Project, a legal group (not any type of medical or psychological organization) that sole purpose is to fight for the one man/one woman definition of marriage based out of a Catholic University.

that is where your problem is. This sentence reeks denial

This is a legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court of Vermont -- not any type of study or evidence. More to the point, it was submitted to the court by NARTH, an anti-homosexual organization.

Anything that is pro-family is anti-homosexual to you. So any organization that fights for childrens rights and family won't register ..

Sorry, we're talking about gay couples, not single parents.

Single parents have relation to gay couples because the child is missing a parent of the opposite sex, and thus they are deprived of that parent figure, which affects their growth, which affects society.

This study merely states that lesbian relationships didn't have less violence than heterosexual relationships; so I'm not sure what the point is. Are you saying we should make both heterosexual and lesbian relationships illegal because of the violence?

uh no it dosen't. Good job misrepresenting the article. Do you know what percentage of womens prisons are lesbian or bi sexual? Do you know how many men and women are victims of rape because of homosexuality in prison?

Again, do we outlaw heterosexual relationships since violence rates are similar? Or do we perhaps accept that domestic violence has nothing to do with sexual orientation?

when a certain group has an extremely high per capita rate of disease and violence people are gonna notice. Based on the population of the gay community they should not even be on the list of people with high AIDS rates. And the only reason why heterosexuals have more AIDS cases is because your outnumbered by a FEW BILLION people. However if you count the population percentage with the disease rate(the per capita) homosexuals have the highest rate of AIDS more so than any other person in the world

I think I went through enough to show that you really didn't do any work, have no idea what these references refer to or say, but you did not show any real evidence. If you wish to find the studies (and please make sure they are actually studies and not just opinion papers) and comment on what you believe they show, rather than just cut and past from another site, then we can talk.

No, real evidence to you is something supporting your position. Secondly there have been no official declarations or studies showing homosexuality is a born trait.

Sorry, that isn't what they are finding in Africa where AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Further, should we state that Blacks are "dangerous to society" since they "have a much greater mortality rate than the average person"? You do realize that Washington, D.C. has replaced San Francisco as the AIDS capital of the US, with one in twenty residents infected by AIDS or HIV -- again largely because of Blacks. But some of us see AIDS as a disease caused by sexual permissiveness, which is what it is, and that it isn't caused by race or sexual orientation.

Im starting to wonder if you know what per captia means.

Further, homosexual marriage would lower the rate of AIDS and other STDs, so should you not be wholeheartedly supporting gay marriage on the basis of public health?

homosexual marriage would be a disaster on society. It would weaken the moral stability of society. But worst of all, children would be deprived of the needed parental figures they need. SHame on someone who would bring an unknowing child into such an awkward position. Self centered and selfish. They have absolutely no buisness to even deem that their lifestyle is right for a child. ANd considering how brief gay unions are it would be a disaster for the child to go through such a thing

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/


Among the Vermont findings, the overwhelming majority of women -- both lesbians and married heterosexuals -- felt it was not acceptable to have sex outside of their primary relationship. However, 79 percent of married men felt sex outside marriage was not OK, compared to 34 percent of homosexual men in committed relationships and 50 percent of homosexual men in civil unions.

Sorry, there is no real evidence that proves this. In fact, there are studies that show heterosexuals have more sexual partners than homosexuals.

where is this?


Male Homosexual Relationships

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02#edn18

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP​

Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing:
Married couples
· A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[9]
· A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[10]
· A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[11]
Male Homosexuals
Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]
· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]
· In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]
· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]
"Commitment" in Male Homosexual Couples
Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."[16]
· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."[17]
· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
As the following chart shows, the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.

Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170.​

According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.
In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[19]
Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage:
.

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for staff review.

Mod Hat Off​