Time to end this.

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,

No, sexual orientation is a sexual attraction...

It's a tendency to sexual attraction, yes, but just because someone is (for example) homosexual, that doesn't mean that they spend their entire lives in a permanent state of attraction or desire for other people of the same gender as themselves. Rather, much as is the case with heterosexuals, they will occasionally meet (or see at a distance) people who they find attractive - people who are "their type", so to speak.

...so it does tell me something about their sex life, it tells me their desires are for the same sex/gender so if that’s something about their sex life.

I can only repeat what I've already said - to most people, the phrase "sex life" implies sexual activity, not merely what gender a person is inclined to be attracted to. In insisting that someone's sexual orientation necessarily tells you about their sex life, you're very much in a minority.

But that’s my point, what the sex life should be is something about the sex life.

Not necessarily. You and I both believe, for example, that a sex life should be restricted to taking place within a marriage. But there are many people who have sex lives outside of a marriage. Therefore, what their sex lives should be (according to us) and what their sex lives are, are two different things.

...if someone tells me they are gay it tells me their sexual desires are towards people of the same sex/gender...

But it doesn't tell you anything about what their sex life is –

...yes it does, it tells me their sex life is going to be same-sex.

Wrong - it doesn't even tell you that they have - or are going to have - a sex life. And it definitely doesn't tell you that "their sex life is going to be same-sex". There are at least two regular contributors to this sub-forum, one of whom is a lesbian who has been married to a man and has a child from that relationship but who is now single and not sexually active, and another of whom is a lesbian who is presently married. The fact that they are homosexual, therefore, does not tell you that "their sex life is going to be same-sex".

The issue is not desires or oreinattion, but sexual desires and sexual orientation. Its the 'sexual' that tells us something sexual.

None of which answers the question - what do you mean when you use the phrase "sexual desires"?

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

It's a tendency to sexual attraction, yes,

No I disagree it is a tendancy to sexual attraction, but it is sexual attraction, and it is sexual the attraction is sexual which was my point.

but just because someone is (for example) homosexual,

you mean has a tendancy to being homosexual?

I can only repeat what I've already said - to most people, the phrase "sex life" implies sexual activity, not merely what gender a person is inclined to be attracted to.

...so it does tell me something about their sex life, it tells me their desires are for the same sex/gender so if that’s something about their sex life.

Not necessarily.

Yes it does, it still tells me something about there sex life [/quote] if someone tells me they are gay I don’t have to ask who they are sexually attracted to or which sex/gender they desire sex with so when they tell me they are gay they tell me something about their sex life.

But it doesn't tell you anything about what their sex life is –

No but it tells me something about what the sex life will be, and that gay tells me something sexual was my point.

Quote:
...yes it does, it tells me their sex life is going to be same-sex.

Wrong - it doesn't even tell you that they have - or are going to have - a sex life.

Wrong, my point has nothing to do with whether they do or not, my point is it still tells me something about their sex life, that their sex life will be same-sex sex if they have one. If they tell me they are straight it will also tell me that their sex life should the have one, is or will be with someone of the opposite sex.

There are at least two regular contributors to this sub-forum, one of whom is a lesbian

So this lesbian, is she sexually attracted to women or men? Does the fact she is lesbian tell me anything sexually?

The issue is not desires or oreinattion, but sexual desires and sexual orientation. Its the 'sexual' that tells us something sexual.

None of which answers the question - what do you mean when you use the phrase "sexual desires"?

What do you mean when you use the phrase ‘what do you mean’?

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

Dear criticalmasskitten,
I acknowledge what you say and I think it is wrong as it still says sex and means sex, so you agree it conveys a sexual characteristic? Either way it says something sexual about the person which was my point..

I might be missing something here, but sex also means gender, and as I pointed out, sex is only mentioned once in the phrase "same-sex attraction." Therefore, it could only mean either same gender attraction, or same-sex(the verb) attraction. The second, however, still tells you nothing about the person, as we are left to assume, same what? All we know is that the action is the same from that phrase, where-as the first phrase is saying that it is an attraction to the same gender, which actually has meaning. I've yet to see something to say otherwise here.

Yes it does that’s the whole point, it tells me the peson ois sexually attracted to another person of the same sex.

They are attracted to the same person, ok. Does that mean nobody should ever hold hands in public? That shows they are attracted to that person. (depending on where you are, of course) All it tells you is who they have a tendency to be attracted to, which shouldn't be offensive or rude in any way, shape, or form. They aren't saying they're interested in you specifically, or how often they have sex, or what exactly they find attractive, simply who they tend to love.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear criticalmasskitten,
I acknowledge what you say and I think it is wrong as it still says sex and means sex, so you agree it conveys a sexual characteristic? Either way it says something sexual about the person which was my point..

I might be missing something here, but sex also means gender, and as I pointed out, sex is only mentioned once in the phrase "same-sex attraction."

But sex is mentioned in the phrase same-sex attration and even if gender was it would according to you be the same. So I cant see what point you are making. Indeed how could love not feature in the statement ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ even though it is only mentioned once.

The second, however, still tells you nothing about the person, as we are left to assume, same what? All we know is that the action is the same from that phrase, where-as the first phrase is saying that it is an attraction to the same gender, which actually has meaning. I've yet to see something to say otherwise here.

Lets just recap, I am sorry to have to say that if a man told me he was gay I wouldn’t ask him whether he was sexually attracted to other men as I already know that from what he has told me. Nor would I expect him to be married to a woman because a woman is of the opposite sex.

They are attracted to the same person, ok.

Correct, thank you, that’s the whole point, it tells me the person is sexually attracted to another person of the same sex and thus gay tells me something sexual about the person. Gay is therefore a sex based identity.

Does that mean nobody should ever hold hands in public?

No. I am attracted to other Christians, its called fellowship and I may hug and embrace another male Christian, that doesn’t mean I am gay, it means I am attracted to a person by sharing the same faith. Gay is a sex based identity.

 

[MercyBurst]

What do you call the threads that scape goat gays for disease and societies' ills?

I kind of wondered why gays are so hateful toward ex-gays, myself.


I've heard the same story so many times from ex-gays:


When they decide to be ex-gay, their former gay friends have nothing to do with them anymore.

So when a gay decides to "come out" should their straight friends disown them too?

 

[davedjy]

I kind of wondered why gays are so hateful toward ex-gays, myself.


I've heard the same story so many times from ex-gays:


When they decide to be ex-gay, their former gay friends have nothing to do with them anymore.

So when a gay decides to "come out" should their straight friends disown them too?

That is yet another untrue generalization that gays are "hateful towards ex-gays". Maybe some are, but that does not mean the majority or all of them are.

 

[MercyBurst]

That is yet another untrue generalization that gays are "hateful towards ex-gays". Maybe some are, but that does not mean the majority or all of them are.

But we just don't see any evidence that ex-gays can be accepted by gays. Rather we hear they are rejected from people they thought were their friends.

Gays don't want anything to do with ex-gays, and gays certainly aren't supportive and understanding of ex-gay decisions, rather they become hostile as you treated DMagoh. I recall you telling him he should be true to his same-sex-desire even though he's married. You know this is true.

He told you he was offended by your intrusion into his personal life and marriage, but I never heard you say you were sorry. I'm sure he remembers it, and I think you could show you aren't hateful toward ex-gays by apologizing to him. That would be a commendable Christlike example by you.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,
I have to tell you that from my experience gays are indeed hateful to ex-gays, not just according to their thinking but in actions they carry out. Of course this will have to be just my opinion like yours is just your opinion as I certainly do not wish to give examples.

Maybe we should have a day of silence for ex-gays.

 

[MercyBurst]

Dear Davedjy,
I have to tell you that from my experience gays are indeed hateful to ex-gays, not just according to their thinking but in actions they carry out. Of course this will have to be just my opinion like yours is just your opinion as I certainly do not wish to give examples.

It's not just an opinion, it's the experience of every ex-gay I've read about or spoken to.

Maybe we should have a day of silence for ex-gays.

Ex-gays experience a day of silence everyday. Sometimes the Lord's path has no friends along the way.

It's like that invitation song that goes "though none go with me, still I will follow."

I wonder if any gay churches have an open invitation to surrender your heart and life to the Lord. Surely they could understand an ex-gay's decision to live for the Lord. Surely, as brothers and sisters in Christ they could support another's decision and their tremendous personal sacrifice for Christ. Let's hear a big hip hip hooray for our ex-gay brothers and sisters.

And all the forum gays said.......

 

[MercyBurst]

another log on the fire:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031002.html

SUDBURY, ON, March 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian Television (CTV) has pulled an ad that claims it is possible to leave the homosexual lifestyle, sponsored by a Christian advocacy group, Life Productions, after the station received numerous complaints from pro-homosexual activists.

The 30-second spot is narrated by John Westcott, the founder of Exchange ministries, an organization that seeks to help practicing homosexuals who wish to leave the lifestyle. Westcott is himself a former homosexual, as is his wife Dena.

"You hear a lot about gay rights, gay marriage and the gay lifestyle being taught in our public schools for children," says Westcott in the ad, "but what many people don't realize, and seldom hear, is that many homosexuals don't want to be homosexual.

What many who are struggling with homosexuality don't realize, and seldom hear, is that they can change. I should know - for 13 years, I used to be one." Wescott then walks off the camera and an announcer says, "This message has been brought to you by Life Productions." (To see the ad, called "Exchanged Life", go to: [URL="http://www.lifeproductions.ca/"]http://www.lifeproductions.ca[/URL])

The ad ran for three days on a local CTV station in Sudbury Ontario, before it was pulled on March 3. Life Productions had intended to run the ad locally for an entire year.

Pro-Homosexual advocates, however, were enraged by the ad, calling it "hate" material....

....Obviously the pro-homosexual advocates don't love ex-gays.....

What about these people who want help, who the commercial was actually for?" he said. "I'm concerned about our freedom of speech as well. But we're not necessarily in the same position that these people who want help, and who are really hurting, and who are struggling with this, and who are reaching out for help. If our freedom of speech is jeopardized, if it's taken away, then who can advocate for these people? According to the pro-gay activists, no one is allowed to advocate for them (people that don't want to be gay). And I think that that's where the real dictatorship and discrimination comes in."

There's nothing like freedom of speech in gay-affirming Canada.

Johns also said that it is ironic that his group is being accused of hatred. "They accuse us of hating, they accuse us of being haters, and discrimination. That's just not true. We retain the e-mails that they do send us, because that's evidence of where the real hatred and where the real discrimination exists," he said. Johns said that Life Productions has received so much hate mail of such a violent nature from homosexual activists that he is unwilling to disclose the physical location of the organization, since he and others involved in the group are concerned for the safety of their families.

So in Canada (where gay marriage is now legal) the ex-gays hide from gay-activists. Maybe my family shouldn't vacation there -- it's just too unfriendly toward conventional families.

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

Dear criticalmasskitten,
I acknowledge what you say and I think it is wrong as it still says sex and means sex, so you agree it conveys a sexual characteristic? Either way it says something sexual about the person which was my point..

Maybe the point I'm missing here is why it matters if something sexual is mentioned. Like I said before, it's not like they're confessing everything about their sex life, just who they're attracted to.

But sex is mentioned in the phrase same-sex attration and even if gender was it would according to you be the same. So I cant see what point you are making. Indeed how could love not feature in the statement ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ even though it is only mentioned once.

I'm not understanding this "even if gender was it would according to you be the same," business. Yes, sex can mean either the act or gender. Gender, however, can not mean the act of sex. So, knowing that, if it means gender in this phrase, it does not also mean sex. And yes, love is mentioned only once in love thy neighbor, but it isn't supposed to be used twice when the meaning is given, like in "same-sex attraction." To assume SSA means someone sexually attracted to the same gender(or sex), it would need to be in the phrase twice, as it is used twice in the definition. To try to drive this home, love can also mean to have sex. (to make love) So, using the same logic applies to SSA, I could say that the phrase means "make love to your neighbor." Does this make sense? Of course not, make isn't mentioned in there, and sex is only mentioned once in SSA.

Lets just recap, I am sorry to have to say that if a man told me he was gay I wouldn’t ask him whether he was sexually attracted to other men as I already know that from what he has told me. Nor would I expect him to be married to a woman because a woman is of the opposite sex.

Yes, but this isn't about someone saying they're gay, it's more about the phrase same-sex attraction. From same-sex attraction we get nothing sexual. Someone saying they are homosexual however, does, though it isn't actually explaining anything other than who a person loves. As we usually assume most to be heterosexual(as in, not necesarilly going after every person of the opposite sex that moves, but if they were to, they would be attracted to the opposite sex) by the normal definitions, we could say that from the moment you meet someone you know something sexual of them, by the logic you're going by here.

Correct, thank you, that’s the whole point, it tells me the person is sexually attracted to another person of the same sex and thus gay tells me something sexual about the person. Gay is therefore a sex based identity.

It's an identity for those who base their lives around it, but the same could be said for both. But using that, I suppose you could consider someone being gay a sexual fact, but the same things would apply that I stated above.

No. I am attracted to other Christians, its called fellowship and I may hug and embrace another male Christian, that doesn’t mean I am gay, it means I am attracted to a person by sharing the same faith. Gay is a sex based identity.

You completely ignored the part in parenthesis there. I mean in a relationship kind of way, as in the two are going out. Do you have any problems with couples holding hands, or does this rule only apply to homosexuals?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear criticalmasskitten,

Maybe the point I'm missing here is why it matters if something sexual is mentioned. Like I said before, it's not like they're confessing everything about their sex life, just who they're attracted to.

I think you are missing the point, the original contention was that a phrase or word with ‘sex’ in didn’t describe anything sexual. … of course it does.

And yes, love is mentioned only once in love thy neighbor, but it isn't supposed to be used twice when the meaning is given, like in "same-sex attraction."

I agree and never said it should be used twice.

To assume SSA means someone sexually attracted to the same gender(or sex), it would need to be in the phrase twice, as it is used twice in the definition.

Same-sex attraction (SSA) means someone sexually attracted to the same sex. I am attracted to fellow Christians by Christ in them and me.

I could say that the phrase means "make love to your neighbor." Does this make sense?

But that would be ‘make love’ not ‘love’ ‘Make love’ means have sex.

Yes, but this isn't about someone saying they're gay, it's more about the phrase same-sex attraction.

No it isnt, rather it is what I said that if a man told me he was gay I wouldn’t ask him whether he was sexually attracted to other men as I already know that from what he has told me.

From same-sex attraction we get nothing sexual.

Yes we do.we get sexual attraction not any other attraction but sexual attraction.

It's an identity for those who base their lives around it, but the same could be said for both. But using that, I suppose you could consider someone being gay a sexual fact, but the same things would apply that I stated above.

I haven’t gto a clue what you mean. The definition of gay is same-sex attraction, it tells me the person is sexually attracted to another person of the same sex and thus gay tells me something sexual about the person. Gay is therefore a sex based identity.

 

[UncleBags]

Well, I don't know if people are scape-goating or not...

If homosexuality is sin, and there are consequences to sin, then I guess some of these theories are legitimate to make. But they are just theories at best.

But if you're saying you're noticing people using it as a hate-tactic, well, what can you say? People are stupid.

I will say that there's no telling why things are the way they are. If you hear people saying that they know that God let the Twin Towers fall because of America's sin, or that they know that homosexuality is to blame for Aids, well, ignore them. They don't know who God is as much as they think they do.

These are subjects that we'll be able to accurately explore in the afterlife, not before.

 

[ReligiousTruth]

I haven’t gto a clue what you mean. The definition of gay is same-sex attraction, it tells me the person is sexually attracted to another person of the same sex and thus gay tells me something sexual about the person. Gay is therefore a sex based identity.

Let me reiterate:
1: Sexuality and Spirituality are both independent from each other.
2: Sexuality and Spirituality do not determine ones whole identity but are part of who we are in total.
3: The Definition of Homosexual is Pertaining to attractions to persons of the same gender/sex.
4: Gender and Sex are, in relationship to physiology, interchangeable terms.
5: The term Gay has several Definitions, but the one your interested in is comparable to Homosexual.
6: Your obviously lack of understanding of what Sexuality really is, or what Spirituality is, scares me. I hope your not teaching this to children.

 

[ReligiousTruth]

There is a fundamental difference between love and sex. Sure one could abstain from sex, or could force themselves to have sex with someone they are not attracted to. I could not, however abstain from love.

 

[CriticalMassKitten]

I agree and never said it should be used twice.
Same-sex attraction (SSA) means someone sexually attracted to the same sex. I am attracted to fellow Christians by Christ in them and me.
But that would be ‘make love’ not ‘love’ ‘Make love’ means have sex.

Complete contradiction within one sentence ftl. You say sex should only be used once in the definition of SSA, yet then go on to say it's someone sexually attracted to the same sex. Again, choose one or the other. And if you can pull words out of nowhere, (like the second sex) I can pull make out of nowhere to make a commandment sound dirty. Word games can work both ways.

Anyway, this is clearly not going anywhere, partly because I'm more talking about SSA, not someone saying they're gay. Also, though, because you can't admit that sex is only mentioned once in "same sex attraction," and logically can only be used once when defined. (Hint: sex is mentioned more then once when you say "someone sexually attracted to the same sex," and last I checked it's only mentioned once in same sex attraction)

 

[BAFRIEND]

What do you call the threads that scape goat gays for disease and societies' ills?

Accurate.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ReligiousTruth,

Let me reiterate:

1: Sexuality and Spirituality are both independent from each other.

I agree.

2: Sexuality and Spirituality do not determine ones whole identity but are part of who we are in total.

Absolutely not for Christians, the identity of Christians is who we are in Christ, not a part of us. This is the point I have been making. There are about 90 instances in the NT which refer to being ‘in Christ’ Jesus describes what this is in John 14-17. To be in Christ is to trust in Him, obey His teaching and do what he says. In Christ there is no male or female which is what God created, so gay doesn’t even get a look in.

3: The Definition of Homosexual is Pertaining to attractions to persons of the same gender/sex.

I agree apart from the pertaining.

4: Gender and Sex are, in relationship to physiology, interchangeable terms.

No. They are still becoming interchangeable, the medial profession still refer biologically to sex of a person.

5: The term Gay has several Definitions, but the one your interested in is comparable to Homosexual.

I have not seen any other definitions.

6: Your obviously lack of understanding of what Sexuality really is, or what Spirituality is, scares me. I hope your not teaching this to children.

Gladly I am. I repeat there are about 90 instances of what it means to be in Christ in the NT.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear CriticalMassKitten,
Originally Posted by Phinehas2
I agree and never said it should be used twice.
Same-sex attraction (SSA) means someone sexually attracted to the same sex. I am attracted to fellow Christians by Christ in them and me.
But that would be ‘make love’ not ‘love’ ‘Make love’ means have sex.

Complete contradiction within one sentence ftl. You say sex should only be used once in the definition of SSA,

Did I? Where did I say that? I though I said I never said it should be used twice. Yet I see your focus is again in the identity in sex rather than in Christ.