[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am waiting to see if any one will challenge you with accusations of relating to pedophilia and lack of morals. Why has Lorisco avoided this post?[/quote]
Humm, telling me how I should feel about a post? That sounds familiar? I wonder who had an issue with this before? Humm, I don’t know maybe it was PROFESSOR X!
Don’t tell me what posts I should have an issue with and I won’t tell you what to be offended at! Deal!
[quote]vroom wrote:
And is that what gay sex is like? You really believe the contrast between gay sex and a hetero family was portrayed in a realistic manner on all sides?
Lorisco,
You went and saw the movie?!?!?[/quote]
Sorry Bro, I took another date because you are just too high-maintenance for me. I need a guy who can get ready quickly and not take forever putting on makeup.
“I did also catch another one of your posts and have to challenge you belief that people can’t change from gay to straight, because there are people who have done it”
I question how many people have truly changed their orientation. For example, I remember reading about John Paulk, an “ex-gay” who was program director for Love Won Out, and along with his wife was the poster child of the ex-gay movement. Paulk was spotted in a Washington, DC gay bar after he supposedly had turned straight.
Also, as noted in the Spitzer study cited earlier, there is an enormous difference between adopting heterosexual behavior and truly changing your orientation. Even Spitzer noted that very few ever managed to change their actual orientation.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that large numbers of gays do manage to fully and permanently change their orientation.
What about those that try for decades to change, but are UNABLE to do so? What is your advice to them?
Would you be willing to live by that same advice, if the shoe were on the other foot?
More importantly, would you be willing to do so according to someone else’s religious belief, when your own belief was that there was nothing wrong with your orientation?
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Vroom, just give up man. Zeb will not agree with reason on this issue until he at least admits the fear or dislike that he has for homosexuals.[/quote]
Bro that is not correct and you know it. Zeb feels the gay lifestyle is very unhealthy and would like to help those people. I know, gays can choose to not engage in risky behavior, but the stats show that they still do,
Do you think it is more “dislike”, to sit by and continue to watch many gays die of their own behavior, or say something about it to try and stop it?
“Do you think it is more “dislike”, to sit by and continue to watch many gays die of their own behavior, or say something about it to try and stop it?”
If this is really your motivation, I am assuming that you have nothing against gays in a committed monogamous relationship?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I told myself that for years. I wasted decades of my life trying to live according to what OTHERS promised would eventually make me happy. “Don’t worry if you are miserable in this life”, they would say. “It will all be made up to you in a future life.”
But then I woke up from the Matrix. I realized that this life may be all that there is. How tragic to throw it away unnecessarily.
[/quote]
Your comments struck me on a profound level because I also apostasized many years ago. You being a former Christian who fought diligently for over 10 years, living faithfully in the blessed union of marriage only to lose heart and to begin doubting in the Lord.
Jesus Christ loves you regardless of whether you accept the Faith or not.
Saint Luke 15:1-7
Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him.
And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
"[i][b]What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?
And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’
I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.[/b][/i]"
Peace be with you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
“I did also catch another one of your posts and have to challenge you belief that people can’t change from gay to straight, because there are people who have done it”
I question how many people have truly changed their orientation. For example, I remember reading about John Paulk, an “ex-gay” who was program director for Love Won Out, and along with his wife was the poster child of the ex-gay movement. Paulk was spotted in a Washington, DC gay bar after he supposedly had turned straight.
[/quote]
I don’t think one example proves anything.
I agree that there is a big difference between changing behavior and changing thoughts and inclination (orientation).
I honestly don’t know how to address that question as I can’t relate to it. So from my perspective, I believe that the idea is to change the behavior, even though the impulses are still there.
.
We all have our own behaviors that we need to fix. Fixing them doesn’t mean the thoughts to do them have gone as well. So for example, I stop gambling, but the impulse to do it remains. It’s just something you live with.
I have in other areas.
[quote]
More importantly, would you be willing to do so according to someone else’s religious belief, when your own belief was that there was nothing wrong with your orientation?[/quote]
Oh, I think it’s more than just religious beliefs. From a Darwin, survival of the fittest perspective, mating with the same sex doesn’t make sense either. I mean, if everyone was gay our species would become extinct.
I know there are times when some animals exhibit this kind of behavior as well, but that is considered an anomaly; something that is against the natural order of things.
[quote]forlife wrote:
“Do you think it is more “dislike”, to sit by and continue to watch many gays die of their own behavior, or say something about it to try and stop it?”
If this is really your motivation, I am assuming that you have nothing against gays in a committed monogamous relationship?[/quote]
That would be a question for Zeb.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,
You went and saw the movie?!?!?
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry Bro, I took another date because you are just too high-maintenance for me. I need a guy who can get ready quickly and not take forever putting on makeup.
[/quote]
That’s way too funny. I almost spat a mouthful of chicken on the keyboard…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It’s interesting but not surprising how the Brokeback discussion has broken down on the usual party lines.
Posters like harris, vroom, bunyan and others who are well noted for their liberal bent defend the movie and lash out with the usual hate lines when the subject matter is questiond (not you vroom you never do that).
Those of us who are more conservative disagree.
There is a culture war going on. It’s not nearly as heated as it will eventually be.
But make no mistake about it…it has begun.
Red states vs Blue states.
I haven’t “defended” this movie. I am defending the right for it to be made. You can disagree with gayness all you want. That’s your right. The issue is acting as if the rest of us are so stupid that we need to be “warned” about the gayness as if it is contagious. I am laughing at some of you…seriously.
[/quote]
What makes you even think that any of us (especially me) are talking to you?
I already mentioned to vroom that I am talking to the young guys out there who read this thread.
I know that guys like you and vroom are not going to change your minds based upon what I state.
You are as locked into your opinion as you accuse me of being.
However there is scant little information on the reality of “being gay” available to those folks by the mainstream media.
Brokeback paints an unrealistic picture, and I do agree most movies by nature are not realistic.
Stellar, I appreciate your good intentions. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. I was a full time missionary for a couple of years, and deeply believed in my religion for most of my life 
While being gay was probably a catalyst for asking some of the hard questions, it wasn’t my only motivation. I wanted more than anything else to know the TRUTH. I can tell you that even if I magically turned straight today, I would still not return to fundamentalist religion.
I don’t know how else to describe it than to say I grew out of religion. That is how it feels. It is like stepping out of the Matrix into a universe that is perhaps a little starker, but in some ways even more meaningful and fulfilling.
A great book you might consider reading is by James Fowler, called “Stages of Faith”. I think I’ve moved from stage 4 to stage 5…only one more stage to go 
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t argue with you because I am liberal or PC motivated, though you often believe that is the case.[/quote]
Sorry, but it’s the same old argument that I get from those who are PC and liberal.
Yes, I do have the answer. And that answer is to stop censoring people!
Liberals are supposed to be for free speech. But the only speech that the PC liberals are for is Politically Correct Speech!
And that sucks vroom!
I’ll go one better: I have no idea!
And neither do you!
And neither does anyone else who runs around claiming that “they” are born that way.
So…who does that help?
Is it the truth? NO!
It’s just one more lie told by the Politically correct to further the gay agenda.
It helps no one!
[quote]1. You keep claiming that IF they take precautions anal sex is fine. However, it seems according to statistics that they DON’T take precautions. Hence, everything is not fine.
Promiscuity often rules the homosexual lifestyle (not with everyone). Hence, homosexuals are often changing partners more often than someone at a country square dance (did you like that one?)
And finally (for the purposes of our discussion at least) placing anything inside the rectum is dangerous! And yes it’s dangerous no matter if the rectum is male or female.
See, you’ve gotten very close to what I’d consider reasonable here.[/quote]
Thank you vroom. You are indeed a reasonable man.
Okay this is tiresome. I have berated no one. I simply put forth the facts. If the facts are not good what can I say?
Show me some facts (not you) that point to being gay as a grand and glorious exhibition of health and happiness, I’ll read the post.
They just don’t exist because being gay is a very lonely, painful life for most.
[quote]Don’t the right proclaim loudly that one person who has not or does not commit an action should not be held responsible for the actions of others? Why do you choose to hold all gay people reasponsible for the actions of some gay people? That doesn’t seem right.
Just this:
Higher risk of AIDS
Higher risk of STD’s
Higher risk of most major disease’s
Strangely, these risks are present for straight sex too.
And…it seems the gay lifestyle also leads to this:
Higher suicide rate.
Higher anxiety levels.
Higher domestic abuse.
Higher levels of depression.
Yea…there’s nothing wrong with any of that that I can see.
Zeb, I am pretty confident that you do know the difference between correlation and causation. I am certainly willing to cede a correlation, as your studies apparently show this, but claiming a causation when this isn’t known, that again, is wrong.[/quote]
I don’t think there is any “causation” at all. I think it’s just dumb luck that gays happen to have the emotional and physical problems that they do.
And as far as two thirds of the new reported AIDS cases being gay men. Well that’s just …um…it’s a coincidence!
Odd huh?
I think you are very adept at Internet debate. I also think you are very bright, and a very deep thinker.
Furthermore, I feel that you put forth your points in a vigorous manner!
There…I told you off.
According to whom? Fixing self-destructive behaviors makes sense. But there is nothing inherently self-destructive in homosexuality. Like heterosexuality, it is not the orientation, but the expression of it which is either healthy or unhealthy.
[quote]Oh, I think it’s more than just religious beliefs. From a Darwin, survival of the fittest perspective, mating with the same sex doesn’t make sense either.
[/quote]
So let’s put you into my perspective for just a moment. Imagine that you lived in an alternate universe, where the majority of people were gay. And let’s say that those people reproduced through cloning. A small minority of people were straight.
What if people from the gay majority told you that according to their belief in the Spaghetti God, YOU needed to become gay just like them? What if they told you that it was NATURAL to reproduce by cloning, and therefore you should become gay?
Would you be able to turn gay by sheer will? How many years would it take? What if you couldn’t turn gay despite trying hard for so long? Would you choose to stay away from women for the rest of your life, because the majority told you that it was NORMAL for you to be gay? Even when the NORMAL thing for you was to like women instead?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If there is a beneficent supernatural being floating up there in the sky, I imagine that he/she/it will reward me for living with integrity and courage.
[/quote]
Hmm…you might be in for the shock of your (after)life!
What a dismal life we gays lead. The only thing unhappier than a gay man is a gay man pretending like he is straight
Seriously though…if I were to tell you that my life is not lonely and painful, how would you respond? If I were to tell you that I am, in fact, much happier, more connected, and deeply at peace than when I was trying to live like a heterosexual, what would you say?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hmm…you might be in for the shock of your (after)life!
[/quote]
Better a life of happiness and peace now than a life of misery in exchange for a promise from a religious fundamentalist
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb,
I’ve had similar discussions with religious fundamentalists on other boards in the past, and I know it is fruitless. I’m not going to change your deeply seated belief that homosexuality is a perversion, and you are not going to convince me that homosexuality is inherently wrong or that it can be changed.[/quote]
I am not the one who is constantly bringing up religion. If you want to move this discussion to that realm I am well prepared.
You do want to get into a religious conversation.
I WANT EVERYONE TO NOTE THAT I DID NOT BRING THIS TOPIC UP
With that said…
I try it live my faith is that is what you are talking about.
I see no difference “sin wise” in a man having sex with another man than say a man cheating on his wife. It’s all sin.
Christ came to cleanse you of that sin. All you have to do is accept Christ and then…well you know the rest.
I believe that they followed the customs of their day. And no where did it state that not covering your head (as a woman) was a sin.
Well YOU just made it one. Up to this point it was not.
You seen it before so therefore it is the same thing now? Sounds a little like sterotyping my friend.
Oh and I don’t “hate” anyone. And I certainly don’t hate any group of people. How stupid that would be.
Try to get over yourself. People can have a debate and believe different things without all the name calling or hating anyone.
Well it seems difficult for the PC to do this…
Yea…I suppose I could go on letting my Aunt eat herself into an early grave.
Isn’t that “live and let live?”
I find that it’s much more difficult, but far more honorable to help those who are in need.
It’s actually an expression of love!
[quote]forlife wrote:
“Do you think it is more “dislike”, to sit by and continue to watch many gays die of their own behavior, or say something about it to try and stop it?”
If this is really your motivation, I am assuming that you have nothing against gays in a committed monogamous relationship?[/quote]
I have nothing against any gays, committed relationship or not!
By the way, what you describe is very rare.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But there is nothing inherently self-destructive in homosexuality. Like heterosexuality, it is not the orientation, but the expression of it which is either healthy or unhealthy.[/quote]
The primary gay sex act is inherently unhealthy. Don’t make me post more facts…Just read a few of my posts to vroom. The rectum is for…well not for sex, sorry.
There’s a reason I pulled the religious card. I’m not surprised to hear that, once again, a person’s anti-gay logic is motivated by his religious rhetoric. I just wanted people to know that is where you are coming from, rather than an objective, scientifically grounded perspective.
I must have missed the part in the new testament where Paul said it was only a “custom” for women not to speak in church or to have their heads uncovered. In fact, it sounded to me like an outright commandment (1 Corinthians 11):
[quote]4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
[/quote]
So you see, the bible states very clearly that a) women were created to glorify men, and b) women should not pray or prophesy with their heads covered.
Do you choose not to believe that part of the bible any longer? If that was just a “custom” as you claim, how can you prove that Paul’s words about homosexuality were not also a reflection of the “custom” at that time?