Yes that is exactly what I am saying. I am then forced to ask you, are you saying that people who are celibate are asexual I don't think so. In fact I know they aren't. For the majority, I am absolutley positive they are celibate hetrosexuals. People whose sexual desires if fufilled would be fufilled with the opposite sex. It is not the sex act that creates a person's sexual orientation.
Pardon, but I need to interject something here that I was not quite clear on. I am not arguing what the definition of homosexuality
is. I am arguing that the definition should not
be what it is. Because, you will note, since the definition of homosexuality is based on desire, and not action, then there is no other term to use that describes someone who engages in homosexual sex. I was simply pointing out that this is contradictory to most of our language, that I can think of. It seems to me, that for most behaviors, or actions, we have words that describe the people who engage in them. Why isn't this so with homosexuality?
No it isn't and yes the law must react to actions, you can't be arrested for thinking about committing a crime. Like in the movie with Tom Cruise which the name escapes.
The Bible however, you are wrong on that point. Jesus said if you have lusted after a woman in your heart you have committed adultery. He also said he who believes (faith, desire) in me will have eternal life
Forgive me. I didn't specify that I was referring to the OT again. Sorry, I typed that up at an odd hour of the day for me. I wasn't quite awake.
That's flat out ridiculous and not true in any way.
Of course it is true. Not only are we attacked by the gay activists, but we are also heavily attacked by the gay Christians out there whom our very testimony offends. On top of that, when it comes to the extremist militant anti-gay Christians, they continue to attack us due to their own perverse interpretation of scripture. They try and say that Romans tells us that God has given us over to our passions, and that there is nothing that we can do. This is false.
I don't see people here advocating that ex-homosexuals be executed, but I do see people say that here about homosexuals. I don't see people here calling ex-homosexuals disgusting names, but I do see people say those things here on a regular basis about homosexuals.
That is because this is not a gay-advocating message board. Why don't you try and find forums that are affiliated with the Metropolitan Community Church, then tell me what you see. Heck, that is one of the reasons I left the gay-advocating church I used to attend. They were not receptive at the effects that counciling had on me.
Oh, and by the way, I DO see people here who claim that everything I believe, and have lived through, is me lying to myself, and "repressing" myself. I happen to take offence to that. That is like me saying that homosexuals don't really have a same-gender attraction.
Supposed ex-homosexual institutions and therapies get criticized because they have no scientific basis, are often harmful, and are akin to brainwashing.
You have no knowledge of what organizations like NARTH and Exodus do. You rely on biased, outdated articles that say that they use "drug therapy" and shock therapy to get the desired results. This is a crock of lies. Do some real research. Go ask some real psychologists how they treat people for sexual deviancies. Seriously, your deliberate bias is really becoming annoying. You don't see me making the assertion that all homosexuals are promiscouos just because some outdated study says so. Why do you do the same to me?
Time and again, scientific studies of such therapies never reveal a success rate greater than or equal to 1% and often the number is 0%.
Actually, time and again, studies show that the success rate is about 30-50%. Please use support with your arguments.
http://www.newdirection.ca/a_change.htm
That's how they pad their "success" rates in their own self-evaluations. Of course that doesn't make a person an ex-homosexual and it doesn't illustrate any sort of change at all. It only illustrates that the "therapy" is an attempt at repression. This is why it lacks any credibility at all.
Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
It's a terrible arguement in a debate. It's nothing more than personal testimony. Not evidence. Not proof. Not facts. I don't know, and have no way of varifying whether or not he's actually telling the truth, or giving us a load in order to try and discredit homosexuality. I don't even know, and have no way of positively verifying if he was ever even gay.
So his personal testimony means squat in a debate.
Who said anything about a debate? I was talking about witnessing to others. When witnessing, no one can deny, or disprove your testimony. Like the blind man when asked if Jesus was God, he replied, "I once was blind, now I see." That is all that matters.
Well, how do we know you're not.
Murder by definition requires that you kill someone to be a murderer. If you have never killed anyone, you can not be a murderer. Same with theivery.
That was my point...
Remind me never to post something in the morning without my first cup of joe...
i'm sure that a person would know what sex he is attracted to. besides, I said it's a good argument, not substantial evidence. A man with experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
