Sweat scent study suggests gay men's brains differ

[Sam Gamgee]

who says you have to marry?

didn't paul say it was better if you didn't?

you're under the presupposition that at some point you must have sex....sinfull or not.......mmmmmn flesh...

I thought the whole point was to live like Jesus........?

It is. Was Jesus a virgin?
Does the Bible say he died a virgin? (honest question... I don't know the answer)

 

[Sam Gamgee]

IF their brains were different...then explain all the ex-gays out there?

I can do that!

I really believe that there are levels of gay... I think some men are, maybe 60% gay and 40% straight... and maybe they've been living a gay lifestyle for a while, but they are able to go straight and still be happy.

Personally, I'm about 85% gay and 15% straight. I couldn't be happy living a heterosexual lifestyle. I'd be miserable... and I don't believe God put me on this earth to be miserable.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

what harm sam?

When I was gay and in the closet and going to church multiple times a week and praying every night for God to make me straight, I was depressed because it wasn't working. I began to hate myself.

Also, every time I had a thought about a man, I'd turn to food, so I topped out at about 260 lbs (I'm 5'10"). I was obese because I was trying to stuff my face with food to satiate my desires.

And I became suicidal. I had the knife in my hand and was screaming to God to take away my desires for other men. And I cannot explain it, but I felt an inner peace (I believe this to be one of my two moments that I felt the prescence of God - the other was at a Gospel Concert). At that moment, I literally felt a touch on the back of my neck and I felt calm immediately.

Over the next year, I became more comfortable in my body. Over the next year, my weight dropped to 180 pounds and I began to love myself for who I was, not who I was trying to be. Over the next couple of years after that, I came out to my friends and family and church family. Being a member of a UCC church, I was embraced by my church family and friends. My blood family had a hard time with it.

If I go back into the closet now (15 years later) and try to be someone I am not, I will go back to the state I was in before. That would cause mental and physical harm to my body and my soul.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Homosexual activity is seriously disease-ridden and often physically dangerous.

I agree, if you don't practice safe sex.

I've had a healthy sex life and am disease free, becuase I'm smart and I didn't practice risky sex.

For the past seven years, I have been in a monogomous relationship with my beloved. My life-span is not shortened by my sexuality

 

[porcupine]

I agree, if you don't practice safe sex.

I've had a healthy sex life and am disease free, becuase I'm smart and I didn't practice risky sex.

For the past seven years, I have been in a monogomous relationship with my beloved. My life-span is not shortened by my sexuality

So, you can't have sex in anything resembling a natural way or it is "risky"? That's not true of those who obey God -- one man, one woman, no spares. The fact that you have to "practice safe sex" tells you that what you practice is not safe -- or natural.

 

[invisible trousers]

IF their brains were different...then explain all the ex-gays out there?

The ex-gay movement is a complete joke. It sure worked wonders for John Evans, Michael Busse, Gary Cooper, Jack McIntyre (who committed suicide), Colin Cook, and John Paulk.

Have you ever wondered what reputable mental health organizations (ie not NARTH) have to say about reparative therapy?

Let's start with the American Psychological Association.

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

Next we can check out the American Academy of Pediatrics who say...

Confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Counseling may be helpful for young people who are uncertain about their sexual orientation or for those who are uncertain about how to express their sexuality and might profit from an attempt at clarification through a counseling or psychotherapeutic initiative. Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.

Then we swing by the American Psychiatric Association who think

The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed

The National Association of Social Workers chimes in, stating

endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so.13

Finally, we have a statement developed and endorsed by the following organizations:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

which states

The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.

I think it's fairly obvious that the ex-gay movement doesn't care about patients but instead furthering their misguided and harmful religious beliefs.

Faulty methodology includes too few subjects. Also, the conclusions trumpeted by the media are not warranted. As I pointed out before, we don't know if the resposes are 1) universal, 2) a cause, or 3) a result.

Homie I already addressed those points. I'm willing to bet you think the methodology is faulty because you don't like the results of the study.

thank you porcupine
and umm
everything we do is a choice......to sin or not to sin.

No you guys didn't prove it, you said "Because I say so!"

There is actually much more evidence that alcoholism is genetic than for homosexuality being genetic.

I do agree with the first part; my father saw the devistation first hand from living on indian reservations in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas for the first 18 years of his life.

Clever straw man, but nobody is arguing homosexuality is genetic. What we're arguing is that there may be factors that we are unable to change which determine sexual preference.

words about health risks in post #33

Maybe those are a result of people like you denying homosexuals marriage benefits.

Some types of love are bad. A man that 'loves' a child to the point of wanting to have sex with that child and truly believes they have some sort of 'relationship'...we wouldn't say was alright simply because the man 'loved' the child, would we? Not all love is ok.

A consentual adult relationship is the same as pedophilia? Please.

The fact that you have to "practice safe sex" tells you that what you practice is not safe -- or natural.

Safe sex has nothing to do with naturality, it has to do with things like (for example) having sex with a bunch of people and not using a condom. Safe sex has nothing to do with gender.

 

[beechy]

So, you can't have sex in anything resembling a natural way or it is "risky"? That's not true of those who obey God -- one man, one woman, no spares. The fact that you have to "practice safe sex" tells you that what you practice is not safe -- or natural.

One man, one man, no spares. If both guys are disease free, they won't transmit diseases they don't have. What does it mean to be "natural" anyway?

 

[whitestar]

beechy]Yes, I'm serious. Having multiple partners and unprotected sex is dangerous whether you're gay or straight. Straight people engaging in unprotected sex are also at risk for AIDS and HIV, with the most common mode of HIV transmission between young women between the ages of 13-24 being unprotected heterosexual sex. I think blood tests and condom usage are a good idea for everybody about to enter into a sexual relationship. And monogamy helps too. But that doesn't mean people should stop having sex.

Actually IF people followed God's plan and ONLY had sex with the own spouse after marriage we would NEVER have had to deal with ANY STD to start with. The outbreak goes through the gay communities fasters because of the way they have sex is unnatural...the skin linning inside is thin and the blood vessels close to the skin which breaks much easier...causing disease to enter the body much easier. There is a deadlier strain of AIDS now out that does stay in the HIV stage for years like it used too and guess where the new outbreak is? In the gay community. :

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/nyregion/13aids.html

AIDS Report Brings Alarm, Not Surprise
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and MARC SANTORA

Published: February 13, 2005


As word spread yesterday of a rare and potentially more aggressive form of H.I.V., first reported publicly in New York on Friday, communities already hit hard by the disease, professionals who combat it, and people who are infected reacted with fear and skepticism. But few were surprised, given that the sense of urgency about the disease has waned.

Michael Justiniano, 37, who lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn, said he watched his father die of AIDS in 1993. "I have spoken to young kids, sometimes here, who say, 'If I get it, it's no big deal, I can just take a pill,' " he said. "I'm like, 'Are you stupid?' It is so disgusting, I find it really disturbing."

City health officials announced on Friday that they had detected the rare strain of H.I.V. in one man whose case they described as particularly worrisome because it merged two unusual features: resistance to nearly all anti-retroviral drugs used to treat the infection, and stunningly swift progression from infection to full-fledged AIDS.

That combination, the officials said, could signal a new, more menacing kind of infection, and its discovery set in motion an anxious search by city workers to find the man's sexual partners and have them tested.

The infected man, g*ay and in his 40's, tested negative for H.I.V. in 2003, then tested positive last December, health officials said. Investigators believe he may have contracted the virus in October when he engaged in unprotected an*al s*ex with mul*tiple partners while using crystal methamphetamine. By last month, it was clear that three of the four classes of anti-retroviral drugs used against H.I.V. were not working in this case, and the man showed signs of AIDS, including rapid weight loss, a high level of the virus in his bloodstream, and a depleted supply of crucial immune system cells.

Even though the anti-retroviral "cocktail" has extended many lives, some infected people still deteriorate and end up with AIDS, but that process usually takes many years. Doctors say that for a patient to reach that stage in a matter of months is extremely troubling.

AIDS experts and public health officials have long maintained that since the development of anti-retroviral drugs in the 1990's, people have developed a false sense that A.I.D.S. no longer poses a significant threat, leading to a rise in unprotected s*x. Clear evidence of the trend has been seen in the growing number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, chlamydia, and lymphogranuloma.

In 2003, a survey by New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene found that more than half of city residents with multiple, recent s*x*ual par*tners had not been tested for H.I.V. in the previous 18 months, and 40 percent said that they had not used condoms the last time they had s*x. At the time, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city health commissioner, attributed the results to "H.I.V. precaution burnout."

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday described the failure to take precautions against H.I.V. in harsh terms. "It's just a sin in our society, where we know how it's transmitted from one person to another, and we should be able to get people to conduct themselves such that they don't catch it themselves, and certainly that they don't infect anybody else," he said.

Unsafe s*x practices combined with growing drug resistance among people with H.I.V., has had officials warning for years about a possible resurgence of A.I.D.S., a fear voiced yesterday by many people across the country as they struggled to make sense of the news out of New York.

Oliver Palan, 19, a g*ay student at Baruch College, says that he has slept with 10 men recently, none of whom wanted to use a condom. "So many people are like, 'It is so much more fun without the condom,' so they prefer to take the risk," he said, noting that he insists on using condoms. Often, he said, partners will try to dissuade him by saying, "I trust you, you should trust me."

Edsel Gonzalez, 30, a business owner in South Beach, the Miami Beach neighborhood filled with nightclubs and restaurants that is popular among gays, said he was "absolutely worried about this."

Now I happen to care a great deal about gay people and am deeply concerned they believe they have no choice but to live this way and expose themselves to these deadly diseases. When speaking on a monogamy relationship the thing is people can have MANY relationships before 'finding that one person' to be monogamist with...each relationship may be mongamist...while it last! That is part of the problem! My gay friend had three different monogamist last forever relationship while I knew her! That doesn't really fall under being together forever and nobody esle, does it?

What about the painful and potentially very dangerous urinary tract infections that women can get from having heterosexual sex? (UTIs are not necessarily sexually transmitted, but the chance of developing a UTI increases dramatically if you are sexually active because of the transfer of bacteria during sex between the vagina, rectum, and urethra . . . Damage to the kidneys and the urinary tract, as well as serious, possibly life-threatening problems may occur if a UTI is left untreated.)

Little girls can get UTI from taking bubbles baths...in fact...even little boys can get that from bubbles baths!

Please cite those passages you contend support the proposition that a loving, intimate relationship between people of the same-sex is "not ok".

You don't know the verses against gay relationships? I image you do but what you want is a verse that plainly say God does not approve of two same gender people loving each other....is that right? Let me see you love each other without having sexual relationship...THEN maybe you can slip by...

The fact IS I have never heard of a gay couple NOT engaging in any sexual relationship....and just loving each other and living together like that. If you could do that...THEN maybe you could argue against scriptures...but the fact is as long as a sexual relationship is happening...the bible does not does approve of it.

Its not that God is wanting to hurt you....can you not see that? God puts these rules in place so we do not GET hurt or hurt ourselves. He says no to this because He knew diseases would happen and make you sick and even kill you and other terrible things would happen...He didn't want you to get hurt by these things. He only wants you happy and healthy and for Him to love you and heal you. He doesn't enjoy seeing people suffer the conquenses of their own actions. But He did give us a choice. He won't stop you from living this way....but it grieves His heart deeply.

God bless
Whitestar

 

[beechy]

Actually IF people followed God's plan and ONLY had sex with the own spouse after marriage we would NEVER have had to deal with ANY STD to start with.

Yes, I agree, gay or straight, if you're monogamous you're not at risk for STD's.

The outbreak goes through the gay communities fasters because of the way they have sex is unnatural...the skin linning inside is thin and the blood vessels close to the skin which breaks much easier...causing disease to enter the body much easier.

Yes, I agree that studies have shown that anal sex seems to carry a higher risk of transmission of HIV in particular. So it's important to practice safe sex (i.e., with a condom) if you're going to have anal sex (or any kind of sex) with a partner that may put you at risk for the disease -- whether you're gay or straight. I don't, however, understand what you mean when you conclude that "the way they have sex is unnatural". What do you mean, "unnatural"?

Now I happen to care a great deal about gay people and am deeply concerned they believe they have no choice but to live this way and expose themselves to these deadly diseases. When speaking on a monogamy relationship the thing is people can have MANY relationships before 'finding that one person' to be monogamist with...each relationship may be mongamist...while it last! That is part of the problem! My gay friend had three different monogamist last forever relationship while I knew her! That doesn't really fall under being together forever and nobody esle, does it?

How is the fact of being in different relationships before settling down different than what is experienced in the straight community? I know very few straight couples for whom their husband/wife was their first partner. Plus, (see the link in my earlier post), there is relatively little known HIV in the lesbian community -- what does this do to the gay=bad because gay sex is more dangerous argument?

Maybe if these women avoid sodmony they wouldn't have this problem to begin with, 'eh? I would also like to see a source to this...as I have never heard of women having this problem due to having straight sex. Little girls can get UTI from taking bubbles baths...in fact...even little boys can get that from bubbles baths!

I'm not talking about anal sex here: "Sexual intercourse is a common cause of urinary tract infections because the female anatomy can make women more prone to urinary tract infections. During sexual intercourse bacteria in the vaginal area is sometimes massaged into the urethra by the motion of the penis." And yes, little girls can get UTI's from bubble baths, but this is no more relevant than me saying that a person can also get HIV from a blood transfusion. So what?

You don't know the verses against gay relationships? I image you do but what you want is a verse that plainly say God does not approve of two same gender people loving each other....is that right? Let me see you love each other without having sexual relationship...THEN maybe you can slip by...

I am well aware of the passages commonly cited as condemning homosexuality. I am happy to address any of them that you'd like. Just let me know which you find most compelling . . . don't want to go through them one at a time in this post because it will get too long . . .

 

[whitestar]

Oh yeah, and I'm not necessarily saying that the risks are lower, but rather that the potential benefits outweight the risks for gay people who desire a loving, caring, committed relationship with someone of the same sex. I submit that the cost-benefit analysis would be much like you would engage in in deciding whether to enter into a heterosexual relationship.

What are the benefits alcoholic drinking (avoidance of withdrawal, perhaps?), and how do they outweigh the risks?

Actually I wouldn't enter any type of sexual relationship unless I was marriaged. THEN the benefits would be great with NO risk involved. Would have been better if I had done it the right way to start with....but nooooooo I had to be stupid and fall for the world's lies of living with men that I thought I 'loved' and would be together forever....gee how many of those did I have? Too many!!

If I had remained a virgin...and married a virgin....and we had stayed together and followed God's plan it would have saved me MANY years of pain of grief when things went bad. The so called 'benefits' of not following God's plan were ....well...hell. The few 'good times' never outweighted the wrongs....the conquenses only lead to grief, pain, guilt and alot of regrets.

So here I am now...divorced from the one time I actually did get married...raising my child alone. I no longer even date...its not worth it.

God bless

 

[whitestar]

I can do that!

I really believe that there are levels of gay... I think some men are, maybe 60% gay and 40% straight... and maybe they've been living a gay lifestyle for a while, but they are able to go straight and still be happy.

Personally, I'm about 85% gay and 15% straight. I couldn't be happy living a heterosexual lifestyle. I'd be miserable... and I don't believe God put me on this earth to be miserable.

Um, I wouldn't call that proof by any means. The testimonies of those ex-gays are from people who were always gay...always considered themselves gay, never had a straight relationship...

Possibly God healed them!! So they COULD be happy and not be in a lifestyle that would hurt them....you think?

God bless

 

[beechy]

Actually I wouldn't enter any type of sexual relationship unless I was marriaged. THEN the benefits would be great with NO risk involved. Would have been better if I had done it the right way to start with....but nooooooo I had to be stupid and fall for the world's lies of living with men that I thought I 'loved' and would be together forever....gee how many of those did I have? Too many!!

If I had remained a virgin...and married a virgin....and we had stayed together and followed God's plan it would have saved me MANY years of pain of grief when things went bad. The so called 'benefits' of not following God's plan were ....well...hell. The few 'good times' never outweighted the wrongs....the conquenses only lead to grief, pain, guilt and alot of regrets.

So here I am now...divorced from the one time I actually did get married...raising my child alone. I no longer even date...its not worth it.

God bless

I'm genuinely sorry your romantic history has been so painful. I think many of us have difficult stories to tell of broken hearts and lost loves! I hope you'll find another man to love someday, if that's what you desire

The fact that you're divorced, however, does seem to work against your conclusion that a marriage relationship is foolproof. You seem to hold a belief that if both you and your husband had been virgins when you married, the risk of "things going bad" would have been erased. If it makes you feel any better, I know people (indeed, I think there are people who've posted as much in this forum) that married when both parties were virgins and have since divorced. I don't think virginity at marriage necessarily provides security against future troubles ...

And I'm not sure how any of this speaks against long term, committed relationships between people of the same sex.

 

[whitestar]

It is. Was Jesus a virgin?
Does the Bible say he died a virgin? (honest question... I don't know the answer)

I wonder how Jesus sexuality got dragged into this? Is this some sort of attempt to justify your own behavior? Jesus was never with a woman...He had to remain totally pure inorder to take on our sins. So of course He was a virgin. The bible does not say otherwise. He had no need or time to marry either...He was here for a short period of time and knew it and had work to do. He wasn't here to live as a regular person by any means.

 

[whitestar]

When I was gay and in the closet and going to church multiple times a week and praying every night for God to make me straight, I was depressed because it wasn't working. I began to hate myself.

Also, every time I had a thought about a man, I'd turn to food, so I topped out at about 260 lbs (I'm 5'10"). I was obese because I was trying to stuff my face with food to satiate my desires.

And I became suicidal. I had the knife in my hand and was screaming to God to take away my desires for other men. And I cannot explain it, but I felt an inner peace (I believe this to be one of my two moments that I felt the prescence of God - the other was at a Gospel Concert). At that moment, I literally felt a touch on the back of my neck and I felt calm immediately.

Over the next year, I became more comfortable in my body. Over the next year, my weight dropped to 180 pounds and I began to love myself for who I was, not who I was trying to be. Over the next couple of years after that, I came out to my friends and family and church family. Being a member of a UCC church, I was embraced by my church family and friends. My blood family had a hard time with it.

If I go back into the closet now (15 years later) and try to be someone I am not, I will go back to the state I was in before. That would cause mental and physical harm to my body and my soul.

No one is suggesting you go back into a closet by any means or pretend you don't have the feelings you do..not at all.

All the testimonies I have listened to from ex-gays were due to their upbring that caused them to desire the same sex to begin with. This healing that can take place...its not easy ...few are just healed in a second by God..instead, the Lord walks them through what happened to them that caused this in the first place...I am afraid I do a poor job in explaining myself here.

Just look at this...listen to if you can:

When Love Wins a Heart

Mike Haley shares the story of how he came out of homosexuality.

Mike Haley manages the Homosexuality and Gender department for Focus on the Family's Public Policy division and also serves as Chairman of the Board of Exodus International, North America. He is actively involved in public speaking, writing and educating Focus constituents on homosexuality. He and his wife, Angie, have two sons.

When Love Wins a HeartMonday, May 02, 2005
For Mike Haley’s dad, being a jock was the definition of masculinity. And Mike’s failure to meet his father’s expectations — and the resulting criticism — was a first step toward same-s*x attraction. Mike shares from his heart about his struggle with homosexuality — and the love of God that ultimately set him free.

Listen online...he is great! http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Default.asp

Related Articles
• Now That's a Family Those who promote ga*y marriage base their campaign on the claim that homosexuality is an unchangeable genetic trait. That's why they don't want you to know about Mike Haley and his family.

• New Book Demystifies ga*y Issues
Focus on the Family's Mike Haley hopes to shed light on the political, social and personal confusion surrounding homosexuality with 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality.

• Love Won Out
It is possible to come out of the hom*se*ual lifestyle. Focus on the Family's Love Won Out seminars tell the stories of those who have done so.

• Coming Home: An Invitation to Join God's Family
Nothing is more valuable than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If your heart longs for something or someone that will give meaning to your existence, this article can help
http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/a0036137.cfm

When you click on the link to listen to him speak online..to find it you have to scroll about half way down the page of live listening programs but its there.

Now I realize this is just ONE person's viewpoint and this does not apply to everyone of course...he is just explaining what happened to him and how it affected him and how he went from being a gay man to an happily married with children ex-gay man. I would like to hear your thoughts on his testimony if that is ok..

God bless

 

[whitestar]

I'm genuinely sorry your romantic history has been so painful. I think many of us have difficult stories to tell of broken hearts and lost loves! I hope you'll find another man to love someday, if that's what you desire

The fact that you're divorced, however, does seem to work against your conclusion that a marriage relationship is foolproof. You seem to hold a belief that if both you and your husband had been virgins when you married, the risk of "things going bad" would have been erased. If it makes you feel any better, I know people (indeed, I think there are people who've posted as much in this forum) that married when both parties were virgins and have since divorced. I don't think virginity at marriage necessarily provides security against future troubles ...

And I'm not sure how any of this speaks against long term, committed relationships between people of the same sex.

You had brought up hexosexual relationship...now I forget what it was about...but I was just giving an example of how not following God's law only causes us all pain and grief. And I never said that being virgins was a cure for all marriage problems by any means...or that it would have saved my marriage.

My marriage was bad because I didn't listen to God and ask Him if this was the man I should married....I just 'assumed' he was my answered prayers. I was wrong. He was more like sent from the devil actually!!! He was very abusive and committed adultery and was a drug user....and it was basically my own fault for not going to God before I made this desions.

I am content in being alone...I really am. I have found peace with it...I prayed for that if there was no one for me to marry that God give me peace with being single and I am. Being single as I am, also means I do not have sex with anyone at all. God helps me deal with that too! So if a hextosexual person can survive without sex....why can't a gay person do that? And not have it bother them...just wondering.

Of course I realize one day the Lord may put a 'the' man in my life...of course that man would have to come with a personal letter of recommendation from God, Himself first of all.... before I would consider anything!!!!

lol. If that happens it does, if it doesn't it doesn't and I am content in simply following God's plan for my life.

God bless

 

[beechy]

He was very abusive and committed adultery and was a drug user....and it was basically my own fault for not going to God before I made this desions.

I'm sooo sorry you had to endure this

I am content in being alone...I really am. I have found peace with it...I prayed for that if there was no one for me to marry that God give me peace with being single and I am. Being single as I am, also means I do not have sex with anyone at all. God helps me deal with that too!

I'm glad you've found some measure of peace

So if a hextosexual person can survive without sex....why can't a gay person do that? And not have it bother them...just wondering.

Maybe some can (take gay priests, for example) . . . but I don't think abstinence is everyone's calling.

Of course I realize one day the Lord may put a 'the' man in my life...of course that man would have to come with a personal letter of recommendation from God, Himself first of all.... before I would consider anything!!!!

lol. If that happens it does, if it doesn't it doesn't and I am content in simply following God's plan for my life.

God bless

Good for you!

 

[morant]

I don't, however, understand what you mean when you conclude that "the way they have sex is unnatural". What do you mean, "unnatural"?

Do we have to do the old 'in through the out door' lecture again?

beechy....I've read so dang many of your posts.....I just don't get you. You seem to be rather intelegent(if not incredibly hardheaded)......what I'm saying is that you don't come off like a moron but.............

...c'mon,
Forget about God for a minute.
Just look at nature and anatomy alone....If you can't figure out how nature intended sex, you're not as smart as I give you credit for. Anything other than male/female would fall under the category of 'unnatural'.....look at the world around you, there is plenty of plainly obvious evidence of how things should and do work. If you can't get or at least phathom this concept than your posts are misleading and you are indeed (can't think of a nice way to say) stupid.

I't one thing to defend somthing at every angle it's another to be completely obtuse in doing so. Use your head...you obviously have one.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

So, you can't have sex in anything resembling a natural way or it is "risky"? That's not true of those who obey God -- one man, one woman, no spares. The fact that you have to "practice safe sex" tells you that what you practice is not safe -- or natural.

not safe =! unnatural.

Try again

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Um, I wouldn't call that proof by any means. The testimonies of those ex-gays are from people who were always gay...always considered themselves gay, never had a straight relationship...

Possibly God healed them!! So they COULD be happy and not be in a lifestyle that would hurt them....you think?

God bless

I'm willing to recognize that possibility.

I think some gay men have the potential to lead heterosexual lifestyles.
Just like a meat-lover can become a vegetarian if his girlfriend is a vegetarian and he loves her enough to be a vegetarian for her...

But, I'll guarantee you that, sooner or later, that vegetarian will be sitting in his car at 1:00 in the morning, in a McDonald's parking lot, with Whopper-juice dripping off his chin.

 

[beechy]

beechy....I've read so dang many of your posts.....I just don't get you. You seem to be rather intelegent(if not incredibly hardheaded)......what I'm saying is that you don't come off like a moron but.............

Uh, thanks . . . I think. If not being convinced by unconvincing arguments is hardheaded, then yeah, I guess I'm guilty. And what makes you think I'm smart, if not that what I'm saying makes sense??

Just look at nature and anatomy alone....If you can't figure out how nature intended sex, you're not as smart as I give you credit for. Anything other than male/female would fall under the category of 'unnatural'.....look at the world around you, there is plenty of plainly obvious evidence of how things should and do work. If you can't get or at least phathom this concept than your posts are misleading and you are indeed (can't think of a nice way to say) stupid.

I'm going to start by saying that I have no retort to your conclusion that I must "indeed be stupid". And I think we've been through the "natural" discussion before. But here, again, is my take:

I agree that traditional heterosexual intercourse is something that "makes sense" as a procreative and pleasurable activity for a lot of reasons. You like to describe it as "natural" activity, and hold it up in contradistinction to the allegedly "unnatural" anal sex. I think it is dangerous to toss around "laws of nature" as a basis for acceptable social structures and physical activities, because it is not readily definable, and easily subject to abuse.

In 1896, for example, the United States Supreme Court appealed to the "nature of things" as a justification for maintaining segregation in schools. This made sense, according to the court, because human laws couldn't abolish natural distinctions "based on color":

The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 544 (1896).

I think the lesson that we should take from a case like Plessy, is that before we go around making public policy and pontificating on "what's right" or moral based on what is "natural", we'd better be prepared to 1) Define what natural means, and 2) Explain why that definition of "naturalness" matters for morality.

So this brings us back to the question: what is "natural"?

Is something "natural" if it is observable in "nature", i.e., outside "artificial" or "unnatural" human society??? Homosexual animal behavior is readily observable throughout the animal kingdom. That might close the book right there -- but there are a lot of things in the animal kingdom that we probably wouldn't want to promote in human society, like cannibalism and infanticide. Maybe observability shouldn't be our barometer.

How about defining "naturalness" by what "makes sense" in terms of purpose? Maybe what is "natural" should be about trying to understand purpose. Like observing that heterosexual vaginal sex "makes sense" as a procreative method. The problem with this, however, is that it seems illogical to conclude that one thing "making sense" (like heterosexual vaginal sex as a procreative method) gives it an exclusive status in terms of acceptability. That is, if someone wants to have anal sex because, I don't know, they love their partner and like how that feels (that's their "purpose"), why should (s)he be forbidden from doing it because heterosexual vaginal sex "makes sense" in a procreative way? Just because something has a “purpose” in “nature” doesn’t mean that it is “wrong” to use that something in a different way, does it? If what you're trying to accomplish through anal sex is pleasure, and you get it, hasn't a "purpose" been fulfilled?

I'll reiterate the examples I used in another thread: My feet are for walking (the purpose of feet?), but I also use them to kick (which can result in injury if I’m not careful), and to tap along to music. Trees are for (what?) shade for forest animals, but little kids also use them for tree houses (which can be dangerous if you fall out of them), and companies cut them down to make paper with (which, if not controlled could result in disruption of an ecosystem).

But just because something CAN be used in one way doesn't mean it SHOULD be . . . Anal sex carries serious health risks, so just because our bodies are technically capable of doing it doesn't mean we should be. Using things in the way they're meant to be used, i.e., according to their correct purpose would avoid these unecessary harms. Right? Well, with respect to the argument that heterosexual vaginal sex is "natural" as evidenced by it not carrying a risk of resulting health problems, I'll go ahead and refer you back to that UTI example you love (see our earlier posts on this subject). Just because you're annoyed by it doesn't make it any less true. Again, "Sexual intercourse is a common cause of urinary tract infections because the female anatomy can make women more prone to urinary tract infections. During sexual intercourse bacteria in the vaginal area is sometimes massaged into the urethra by the motion of the penis." Also, what about lesbian sex? Is that ok? What are the risks of lesbian sex that make it "unnatural"?

There are many physical activities we engage in that are at least potentially harmful to our bodies, like rock climbing, or ballet dancing (have you seen what ballerina feet look like?!?), that aren't objected to as being "unnatural" in a moral sense just because you can die from them or end up with lifelong foot problems. I submit that whether or not we care about potential harm and gleaning purpose is often more a sociocultural judgment than a "scientific" reality.

I't one thing to defend somthing at every angle it's another to be completely obtuse in doing so. Use your head...you obviously have one.

And now we reach our conclusion. As I've laid out in this post, I honestly don't see why the fact of heterosexual vaginal sex makes anal or other kinds of sexual activity between consenting adults "unnatural". Why do these behaviors have to be mutually exclusive? If you like heterosexual vaginal sex, do it, but why should that have a negative moral impact on what what two other consenting adults are doing in their own bedroom?