Don't ya love it when people say they don't "flaunt" their heterosexual lifestyle in anyone's face and/or it's not a big part of who they are and yet they wear a wedding ring, talk about their spouses and children, have pictures of their spouse and children sitting on their desks, and share affection with their spouse in public. How could their sexuality NOT be a HUGE part of who they are when they have a family? It makes no ****ing sense. I mean sure, for a celibate monk living in a monastery, his sexuality probably isn't a huge part of who he is. But for people who have sexual relationships, have a partner, have children... it most certainly is a huge part of their lives. Massive. It's a fundamental part of who they are.

But I'm sure for FS, choosing to go live in a secluded male-only place where he can't see women much less touch them, can't see his wife or his kids would be just like... choosing to eat cake.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

Introducing Squeaky the turtle (OK technically he's a tortoise).


This sort of deviant behavior among some of the chelonian species is well documented with much YouTube evidence.

Can it be rehabilitated, or is it a biological necessity written into the DNA.

At this point we do not know. It requires further study.

Is this even relevant.

I don't know. All I know is every time this subject comes up I find myself thinking of Squeaky the turtle...er, I mean tortoise.

Sure. No problem there. I've never said I consider having pride in something a pejorative. I just consider it sad that people would take pride in something so mundane as sexual orientation.

That's fine, but it's sort of like taking an out-dated mindset of the problem and harping on it rather than what the issue is more of these days. It's clear to me that some of you here have no idea what the movement PFOX and other groups defend even consists of these days. The fact you are still approaching it from the standpoint of someone transforming from one orientation to another shows you really don't get it. For me, it pretty much goes without saying that someone can't change their attractions or whatever. But that is so outside the realm of what most Christian circles focus on that I don't see much point in even spending time on it. Spitzer's "renouncement" might have been much more relevant 10-20 years ago when actual reparative therapy was much more common issue. Now it's more simply about Christians who desire to live the Christian life they choose, and getting no support from the gay community when their choices are different from what the gay pride movement prescribes for them. In the end, it really doesn't matter whether you think anything is mutually exclusive or not. There is nothing more powerful in shaping someone's understanding of life than what they themselves experience, and therefore for you to tell them their own experiences aren't valid is awfully insulting and presumptuous. If someone EXPERIENCES a change in their life, that is going to say volumes more than any outside study you throw in their faces. So ultimately, as far as they're concerned, you've failed in winning them over. Sorry.

Well there's no one supporting this segment of gays (that don't accept your prescribed choices). Particularly when there's a powerful segment of the media and a lobbying movement that constantly berates their choices with words like 'offensive'. Or trying to make them feel guilty for the choices they've made. It's the culture you're creating that is a false-tolerance, or at least a very hypocritical one. At least PFOX is willing to support them. That's more than you're doing, for sure.

When have you EVER put ANY effort to defend people of that decision? Let alone anywhere near a similar level of effort. Don't be silly--your movement doesn't tolerate that decision at all. You frown upon it.

Show some examples of that. I have NEVER seen any organizations from you movement that do that except ones you make into enemies afterwards. When they DO, (as in the example of PFOX) you attack those organizations and target them.

See, that's what I'm talking about. You're doing the very thing I'm saying you're doing. You just called other choices (outside the gay pride prescribed ones) as 'harmful.'

So you're basically focusing on the Christian movement as it was years ago as opposed to the way it more goes about things NOW? That's your choice, but only makes your study irrelevant for the most part even if true.
Either way, you say we've discussed this before, so you SHOULD know I've said numerous times that I don't agree a person can change from one orientation to another or at least I don't agree there's enough evidence to say it's possible. So given that you already know my view on this, if you are arguing with me knowing I don't disagree with this study, you're being intentionally disingenuous. My beef is more with the RELEVANCE of the study. As I've said, you're behind the times on the way many Christian groups approach gays. That's your prerogative of course, but don't say 'ya haven't been told it.

Sure. Call him what you want. The REAL point is that sexual orientation isn't the be-all and end-all of his life.

Just did.

All those examples of someone whining about PFOX simply giving facts that you don't like (the higher suicide rates and so forth of gays), or responses from biased lobby groups about PFOX. That has ALSO been told to you before. You rehashing the same old tripe makes the tripe no more less propaganda than it was before. Try something actually mainstream, and you might have a start. (And no, Southern Poverty Law Center is NOT mainstream at ALL. It's well known now as being biased.)

Maybe. I'm reminded of how ex-Klan members sometimes make the most ardent opposers of racism and the Klan. If someone who HAS been in the gay pride culture says it's bad, why should we listen to them less than you? Just because you don't like what they say? The fact they are less tolerant of your movement when they came out of it speaks MORE.

"Flaunting your homosexuality," "gay agenda," "it's a choice," and "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve," are among those anti-gay clliches that are now so archaic you can pretty much establish the age and/or religious fundamentalist level of those who are out of touch with real life enough to still use them.

Other candidates for the homophobic graveyard: "They're just 'acting out,'" "The APA was pressured into removing it from the DSM," "A square peg isn't meant to go in a round hole," "If everyone was gay the human race would become extinct," "It's caused by an absent father and dominant mother," "If you only tried having sex with a woman...", "The sin of Sodom was that all the men in it were gay...", "It's not natural!"

I'm so pleased I've lived long enough to see this BS consigned--or doomed to be consigned--to the scrap heap.

To those who continue hold onto these relics, I can only say: "You have no power here. Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you!"

__________________
My kharma just ran over your dogma.

"If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.”
― Woody Allen, Hannah and Her Sisters

I'm sure your wife would love to know you think your relationship with her is "mundane" or that sex with her is "mundane".

People take pride in who they are. One's sexual orientation is a fundamental part of who they are. It helps to determine your personal relationships, your intimate relationships, your lifelong partnerships, your friends, your family, your children. Pretty much every facet of your life is affected in some way by your sexual orientation.

But of course... it's "mundane". IMO, if you think sex is mundane, yer doin it wrong.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

Oh, yeah, I forgot one:

The semantic ploy that "pride" as it pertains to "gay pride," means "I'm proud of the fact that I shtup my own sex" -- not "I'm not ashamed that I'm attracted romantically and physically to those of my own sex."

__________________
My kharma just ran over your dogma.

"If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.”
― Woody Allen, Hannah and Her Sisters

No.
I’m focusing on the Christian movement AS IT IS.


“my” study irrelevant?
What you fail to recognize is what is really going on here.

Anti-gay people keep MISREPRESENTING Spitzer’s study to claim something that you say isn’t even happening…
Spitzer, recognizing how often it is happening, took the approach as discussed in the original article.

THAT is reality.
You keep approaching this as “It’s not like the evidence shows. Trust me” while refusing to show any evidence…


Did I claim otherwise?


It’s funny how you precede that with “If you are arguing with …”
My arguments aren’t hypothetical. They’re actually happening.

But instead of addressing what I AM saying, you keep on posing these false scenarios to try to pretend I’m doing something wrong.

Can you point to what I actually said on the issue?
No. Of course you won’t.



I just spent a post showing MULTIPLE WAYS the ex-gay / PFOX people ARE NOT behaving as you claim.

You cowardly dodge it.
You have been REPEATEDLY shown how these ex-gay / PFOX / Christian groups are NOT behaving as you claim, and you refuse to address it.


No.
This isn’t about what I would call him cause I would still call him “straight”. A celibate straight person is still straight.
I’m talking about people in general, and the reality is WE DO NOT refer to celibate straight people as “ex-straight”.
People just don’t do that.

The term “ex-gay” comes in because the “ex-gay” crowd try to claim the person has become straight.


Great!
So your whining about intolerance towards PFOX is just us giving facts you don’t like…


(Isn’t it interesting how you try to make up an excuse standard for PFOX, but then you refuse to apply that standard to gays…)

And as for “facts that I don’t like”, we’ve been over that.
I pointed out REPEATEDLY how Greg Q was LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH throughout that interview.


And considering PFOX is ALSO a biased lobby group, I get to ignore any inconvenient responses from them!


I just wanted you to get your standard on record so I could use it against you…
Thanks for the blind assist.


Likewise, for you, you need to give proof of PFOX’s purpose from “mainstream” groups since PFOX is obviously a lobby group that dwells on propaganda.


There is no “maybe” about it.
I have used Greg Q’s own interview to prove that point.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civ...dent-pfox.html


Maybe because I have proven Greg Q to be a liar.
You’re welcome to jump back into that thread and maybe TRY to address the observations you refused to broach.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

His wife could have a mutual feeling.


Sometimes I listen to these people and wonder if their sex life and relationships are so bad that they can't comprehend what we're talking about.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Doh! I saw that ... you switched the issue of sexual orientation to "relationship". Tricky, tricky ... (As if sexual orientation didn't exist regardless of presence of a relationship.) Nah, my wife would be pretty sad if she though I made physical attraction the number one thing in my life. So would I.

Well, that's where we disagree. Sexual orientation is not 'fundamental' to me. In this I agree with Faithful Servant and I get EXACTLY what he's trying to say. And the implication that it should be is no less offensive that when people imply to you that it shouldn't be.