Switching Teams

[CCGirl]

It's interesting that so many Christians make allowances for homosexual urges so long as the individual doesn't act on them. This is presumably what passes for reasonableness on the issue.

When the love of your life isn't your wife, it's reasonable to allow divorce (for most Christians).

When you want to eat a whole lot, it's reasonable to do so, notwithstanding proscriptions of gluttony.

When Jesus says wealth makes it difficult to get into heaven or that one cannot serve two masters, this is reasonably construed to mean something other than that one ought not to seek wealth as a Christian.

Everywhere Christians find reasonably ways to satisfy their lusts and their cravings in the face of scriptural admonishion to the contrary. But Homosexuals, no, they must somehow accept what good Christians consistently deny themselves, that the Bible's strictures really do stand in the way of what they want.

Opposition to homosexuality is NOT rooted in scripture. Scripture is used in service of that opposition. No more and no less.

Reps!

 

[Goodchild]

..

 

[Steezie]

go to the library and have someone read it to you.

no surprise that you lack any integrity at all to admit when you are wrong.

I will not be insulted by someone who has borne false witness and refuses to back it up.

Someone has asked for you to provide a link to your source. If you cannot do so then I ask that you not attempt to insult those who call you on your manufacture of evidence and bow out gracefully

 

[MachZer0]

Well I have a question. Could straight people turn gay? I mean if allegedly it works one way, it should work the other.

Well, let's go to the ultimate authority

Romans 1:27

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men,

So apparently, the answer is yes.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

This is from Paul about God being mad, not simply men "abandoning' their 'natural relations'....my husband and I have a best friend who is gay and I know from his statements that having relations with a woman is uncomfortable and UNNATURAL to him, whereas with a man it is normal...

 

[Fantine]

I've known several people who left their spouses when they discovered they were gay and could no longer live a lie.

But I've always believed that they were gay all along and married because they wanted to have a "normal" life and family, until the stress of pretending got to be too much for them.

 

[HaloHope]

Ok, I've seen a lot of talk around here about gays being "turned straight" through Christ.

Well I have a question. Could straight people turn gay? I mean if allegedly it works one way, it should work the other.

So straight people, do you think you could be turned gay?

I personally don't believe God changes people at all.
The people that claim to be turned from gay to straight were either bi-sexual to begin with and just found they were attracted to the opposite gemder due to that, or, they are forcing themselves to live a lie because of the pressures put on them by others and I very much pity them.

Then you get the type of person who claims theyve gone straight but what they mean is they have just gone celibate. If they are happy about that, then it's fine and more power to them, but if they are doing it due to pressures on them, then once again I feel pity.

 

[hernyaccent]

I "switched teams" when I was a teenager. However, I never liked nor cared about the men I dated. They were simply there because I didn't know where to find young woman with the same orientation as me. I don't believe people really switch teams --the desire is always there to be themselves be they gay , bi or straight.

 

[NeTrips]

I will not be insulted by someone who has borne false witness and refuses to back it up.

Someone has asked for you to provide a link to your source. If you cannot do so then I ask that you not attempt to insult those who call you on your manufacture of evidence and bow out gracefully

My post cited the sources of the information. If you doubt the validity of the sources or the accuracy of the information then the burden is upon you to investigate and present your findings. To make repeated claims that something is untrue simply because it goes against your opinion is not a valid argument.

"Nuh-uh" doesn't cut here.

You have the citations right down to the page numbers. I'm sorry if the facts rock your world, but either accept them or continue to deny truth.

 

[selfinflikted]

Im sorry, but every single place I've searched for a definition of "sexual orientation" did not include those paraphilias you listed earlier NETrips. I believe you are incorrect about this. Please link the website you copy/pasted that info from, so that I can see it for myself.

 

[NeTrips]

Im sorry, but every single place I've searched for a definition of "sexual orientation" did not include those paraphilias you listed earlier NETrips. I believe you are incorrect about this. Please link the website you copy/pasted that info from, so that I can see it for myself.

If you copy and paste a portion of any quoted text into Google, sources are very easy to locate on your own without assistance:

here's the googel results page:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Auto...d+as+a+woman.+(p.+574)&num=100&hl=en&filter=0

The results include many Christian sites with this information, but seeing as how many instantly discredit anything coming from a Christian site, here's the same info from an Islamic website:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/in_depth/Doha_conference/Articles/03.shtml

Steezy, is there anything you wanted to say?

 

[Goatboy]

So straight people, do you think you could be turned gay?

Well I don’t think it’d be a great stretch for me to turn gay.

Provided I’d got over the difficult hurdle of turning into a women first, I doubt the whole lesbianism thing would even phase me.

Heck, I’ll go as far as to say I’d probably enjoy it.

“Goatgirl”
Sounds ok to me.

Hurhur hur hurhrrrr!

 

[Goatboy]

From what I can tell, the DSM does indeed seem to be from 2000 and (amazingly) does list hetrosexuality as a universal norm!

However, all my searches for this only came second hand through highly biased forums or websites like the "Traditional Values Coalition"

NeTrips, you clearly copied this from a website. What's the link to that site?

Ryal,

Look again.

That index list says that the page numbers provided refer to entries in the DSM 2000.

However, the first four entries, listing orientation and including homosexuality, are not given page numbers.

So I think it’s a pretty safe bet that those four aren’t listed in the DSM as paraphilias and that the person who put that list together is deliberately trying to create false associations.


Of course it would be easier to tell for certain if the “expert” who put that list together wasn’t so keen on retaining their anonymity whilst citing other peoples work.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ok, NeTrips..

I read through those links you posted, and am well aware of what google searches can and do turn up. Besides the obvious religious slant found in a lot of these articles.. they all seem to indicate basically the same thing. Allow me to paste...

partial list of “sexual orientations” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association, are included in an appendix.22 Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are routinely included in broad legal definitions of “sexual orientation.” A fourth “sexual orientation,” transgenderism, is beginning to be included in such descriptions. Other categories consist of paraphilias,23 which are defined as sexual disorders. Note: Some of the descriptions may be offensive to readers’ sensibilities.

That is taken directly from the second link you posted. Can you explain to me again how the paraphilias you posted before are the same as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality? Clearly, this states that those paraphilias you listed are consider disorders by professionals and are not the same as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality - not considered disorders.

 

[silentreader]

Divorce is regularly allowed in Christian circles, even those who do not allow for homosexual acts. What you think they should do has no bearing on the widespread hypocrisy inherent in the fact that they do NOT follow scripture on this mater while demanding that others do.

all people who say what they believe and yet are imperfect are hypocrits to those who keep what they believe hidden. what Christian circles are you specifically pointing to? My church and others like it do not allow it except in the case of infidelity. The key Biblical text we use to handle all conflict within the church is Matthew 18:15-17:

15"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. "

On Wealth, no. Do not serve two masters does not mean put one above the other, It means do not serve two masters. You are not following the text at all; you are making it bend to your own will.

No i am not. God clearly says that Solomon, David, and many other wealthy people (Job) were his annoited. One cannot be annoited and be serving someone besides God. This proves that it is indeed possible to be wealthy and serve God. Jesus warns us that this is very difficult and to be careful. If you want to debate my exegesis please feel free to explain away my reasoning with the appropriate Biblical quotes and contextual argument.

You don't have a cluse what I think about reasonable. It is very clear, however, that Christians (yourself included) do find ways around uncomfortable scriptures while demanding that others follow the text precisely.

yes i do have no idea what you think is reasonable since you seem to equate it with any reasoning associated with a Christian sinning. That seems to be very convenient. I am still waiting for you to bring me some Scripture that makes me feel uncomfortable.

 

[NeTrips]

Ok, NeTrips..

I read through those links you posted, and am well aware of what google searches can and do turn up. Besides the obvious religious slant found in a lot of these articles.. they all seem to indicate basically the same thing. Allow me to paste...

partial list of “sexual orientations” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association, are included in an appendix.22 Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are routinely included in broad legal definitions of “sexual orientation.” A fourth “sexual orientation,” transgenderism, is beginning to be included in such descriptions. Other categories consist of paraphilias,23 which are defined as sexual disorders. Note: Some of the descriptions may be offensive to readers’ sensibilities.

That is taken directly from the second link you posted. Can you explain to me again how the paraphilias you posted before are the same as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality? Clearly, this states that those paraphilias you listed are consider disorders by professionals and are not the same as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality - not considered disorders.

they are all sexual orientations.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

denial

 

[IzzyPop]

they are all sexual orientations.

So I'm not straight, I'm a podaphile because I have a bit of a foot fetish?

 

[Goatboy]

they are all sexual orientations.

Putting aside this tedious “oh yes they are”, “oh no they aren’t” stalling.

Can you please advise us the name of the person who put together the list, which you introduced as what the “experts” say in post 26?

See, I don’t think that list reflects any experts’ opinion regarding orientation. I think it was put together by a homophobic religious bigot; with the express intention of dishonestly using real expertise to lend credence to the hate they love to wallow in.


But since you introduced that list as giving the expert view I’m sure you’ll be able to show how wrong I am.

"Hi there. My name is Goatboy and my sexual orientation is 'voyeur', what's yours?"

 

[NeTrips]

Putting aside this tedious “oh yes they are”, “oh no they aren’t” stalling.

Can you please advise us the name of the person who put together the list, which you introduced as what the “experts” say in post 26?

See, I don’t think that list reflects any experts’ opinion regarding orientation. I think it was put together by a homophobic religious bigot; with the express intention of dishonestly using real expertise to lend credence to the hate they love to wallow in.


But since you introduced that list as giving the expert view I’m sure you’ll be able to show how wrong I am.

"Hi there. My name is Goatboy and my sexual orientation is 'voyeur', what's yours?"

what's the name of the logical fallacy where the evidence is denied by attacking the source?

You have the links. You have the sources. You have the ability, I assume, to read what is posted on any of the dozens of sites with this info.

Sorry if it rocks your little world.

edit: please note the introduction of hate and phobias. Usually a good way to distract from admitting when one is wrong.