Brokeback Propaganda

[quote]forlife wrote:
They just don’t exist because being gay is a very lonely, painful life for most.

What a dismal life we gays lead. The only thing unhappier than a gay man is a gay man pretending like he is straight :wink:

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]

I don’t know what I would say until you told me these things. Just as I don’t know what I would say if you told me how you were brought up, and the childhood experiences that you had.

You are a mystery.

:slight_smile:

If you really mean that, then I’m glad to hear it. So you aren’t opposed to equal rights for gays, including gay marriage, nondiscrimination against gays in the workplace, etc.?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sorry, but it’s the same old argument that I get from those who are PC and liberal.[/quote]

You haven’t noticed that I’m not against you talking about the full truth… instead of partial truths that just support your point?

[quote]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]

If you have no idea, then you maybe you shouldn’t state that either hypothesis must be true or that either must be false? Alternately, perhaps it is too early to base arguments on such conclusions.

Calling people morally wrong can be a form of beration - especially if it not deserved. You are scolding or rebuking those that choose to live the gay lifestyle, even if they are one of those that is monogamous and taking all measures possible to ensure their safety.

Even if they are completely responsible and their partner is completely responsible. Sorry, but I think that is beration.

If there isn’t causation, then you shouldn’t state that living the gay lifestyle causes it. Without the causation, then they would apparently have those issues regardless, so there is no known added risk to living the lifestyle in that regard.

Finally, I scrolled down quickly and saw the last line about telling me off… damn. I didn’t realize you were kidding until I wrote the above.

P.S. Thanks. You certainly aren’t one to back down easily either! :wink:

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hmm…you might be in for the shock of your (after)life!

Better a life of happiness and peace now than a life of misery in exchange for a promise from a religious fundamentalist ;)[/quote]

I know it’s cool to say that stuff now. But you might want to reflect on what you were taught from the Bible.

How long you think you will live?

100? 120? That would be amazing huh?

Well you will be dead forever. That would be trillions of years…

Forlife,

Just become a catholic at the last moment and repent.

Nobody says you can’t change your mind later you know!

[quote]forlife wrote:
I have nothing against any gays, committed relationship or not!

If you really mean that, then I’m glad to hear it. So you aren’t opposed to equal rights for gays, including gay marriage, nondiscrimination against gays in the workplace, etc.?[/quote]

I hate to repeat myself, but I hired openly gay employees. And I rented an apartment house to an openly gay couple.

I also believe in equal rights in the work place.

But, sorry to ultimately disappoint you I do not believe in gay marriage.
Please refer to a thread by the name: “Proof gay marriage is wrong” started by my friend harris.

[HIJACK]

forlife,
Zeb is relying on statistical documentation as evidence to support the idea that the homosexual lifestyle is both risky & dangerous and that sexual orientation can actually be manipulated. I’m the one who introduced the concept (somehow or other by addressing a post involving religious attitudes) of homosexual practices as being immoral and defiling.

I know you currently disagree with my religious tangent, but I want to emphasize that despite anyone’s religious beliefs, all humans deny or repress certain behaviors within themselves.

Lorisco mentioned having an affinity for gambling, thus he avoids gambling (whether he uses tricks like avoiding the casino altogether, going there with only $5, or bringing with him a nagging friend). My acquaintance journeys over to the strip-joint but practices self-discipline and restraint instead of grabbing any of the dancers. A heavy drinker may have an affinity for driving while impaired, so he hopefully stops drinking or discovers other methods of transport.

Perhaps the key to maintaining your spiritual/physical welfare in those 10 years should’ve been that instead of repressing that sexual energy, you could have used it for other endeavors; painting with the kids, weight-lifting, praying, etc. Maybe you did all of that but it still wasn’t enough? Only you know for sure how hard you tried.

I also want to quickly mention the possibility that perhaps your beliefs (though Christian-based) were underscored and riddled by principles of philosophy versus theology. False principles which painted one icon of the Christian life while genuine Christian theology paints another.

I witnessed that you used the term “happy” a few times in your posts. Since most people are under the misleading impression that pleasure is a condition or symptom of being virtuous and saintly, I leave you with this quote from Saint Maximos the Confessor, a 6th century theologian of the Orthodox Christian Church:

Saint Maximos says:
"33. When God the Logos created human nature He did not make the senses susceptible either to pleasure or to pain; instead, He implanted in it a certain noetic capacity through which men could enjoy Him in an inexpressible way. By this capacity I mean the intellect’s natural longing for God.

But on his creation the first man, through an initial movement towards sensible objects, transferred this longing to his senses, and through them began to experience pleasure in a way which is contrary to nature. Whereupon God in His providential care for our salvation implanted pain in us as a kind of chastising force; and so through pain the law of death was wisely rooted in the body, thus setting limits to the intellect’s manic longing, directed, in a manner contrary to nature, towards sensible objects.

  1. Pleasure and pain were not created simultaneously with the flesh. On the contrary, it was the fall that led man to conceive and pursue pleasure in a way that corrupted his power of choice, and that also brought upon him, by way of chastisement, the pain that leads to the dissolution of his nature. Thus because of pleasure, sin became the freely chosen death of the soul; and pain, by means of this dissolution, brought about the disintegration of the material form of the flesh.

For God has providentially given man pain he has not chosen, together with the death that follows from it, in order to chasten him for the pleasure he has chosen."
Phil; v.II; 243-44;

The true Christian life involves suffering and self-denial, not pleasure-seeking and a promotion centered on earthly happiness. Happiness is sometimes a byproduct of being faithful to God, but He wants us to love and follow Him through waves of good fortune and waves of persecution and despair.

The Christian walk is not about evolving into a junky who can enjoy endless pleasure by being awarded an infinite supply of heroin. Pleasure is not the ultimate goal of the Christian Life - it is about loving God & all of His creations, and this is accomplished by abiding in His commandments (even if achieving these feats is incredibly painful).

If you need any further religious support for what I’ve just relayed, feel free to pm me.

Peace be with you.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Hmmm…let’s see here:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I know it’s cool to say that stuff now. But you might want to reflect on what you were taught from the Bible.[/quote]

I have about as much faith in the bible as I do in the quran, the book of mormon, or any other holy text written by men. Which is probably a good thing, because if I still believed in the bible, I would be duly concerned about wearing mixed fibers, eating pork, and ensuring those women don’t uncover their heads in church! :wink:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, sorry to ultimately disappoint you I do not believe in gay marriage.
Please refer to a thread by the name: “Proof gay marriage is wrong” started by my friend harris.[/quote]

Alas, I must disagree with your earlier statement then, to the effect that you have nothing against gays.

[quote]vroom wrote:

If you have no idea, then you maybe you shouldn’t state that either hypothesis must be true or that either must be false? Alternately, perhaps it is too early to base arguments on such conclusions.[/quote]

I’m willing to wait for more evidence. I like good evidence. But, what I don’t like is the PC left telling everyone gays are “born that way.”

Right now the evidence points to the fact that they are not born that way.

But time will tell…if the truth is allowed to be told.

The odds are with me that there is no monogamous relationship. And I have already stated that.

Wrong is wrong. And the gay sex act is wrong as it produces disease.

[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.

If there isn’t causation, then you shouldn’t state that living the gay lifestyle causes it. [/quote]

Um vroom I was being sarcastic. The written word just does not translate well to sarcasm.

Sorry.

[quote]Finally, I scrolled down quickly and saw the last line about telling me off… damn. I didn’t realize you were kidding until I wrote the above.

P.S. Thanks. You certainly aren’t one to back down easily either! ;)[/quote]

Iron sharpens iron.

Stellar, I understand your religious motivation and I don’t really blame you for it. I’ve been there.

I realize that religion doesn’t always value happiness and peace. I think that is unfortunate. It can even be tragic, when people are deeply religious and are unable to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of who they are.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Just become a catholic at the last moment and repent.[/quote]

Good plan! :smiley:

[quote]vroom wrote:
Forlife,

Just become a catholic at the last moment and repent.

Nobody says you can’t change your mind later you know!
[/quote]
Since forlife was a Christian missionary, I’m sure he’s more educated than that. But since you may be unaware vroom, repentance is a life-long struggle & committment to the avoidance of sin and striving to maintain a virtuous life.

The grace of God helps us draw closer to the ritual of genuine wholehearted repentance. If even for a split second you’re relying on this premise for salvation, I pity you!

Fine logic. Ergo, the heterosexual act is wrong as it also can produce disease.

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
If even for a split second you’re relying on this premise for salvation, I pity you!
[/quote]

But what about the thief hanging on the cross next to Jesus, who at the last moment converted and was told that he would go to paradise? :wink:

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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.

Hmmm…let’s see here:

Thirty-five years ago, Kinsey stated that the anal region had erotic significance for about half of the population. In a survey of 100,000 Playboy readers, 47 percent of the men and 61 percent of the women admitted to having tried anal intercourse.

No physical injury from anal stimulation results if both partners refuse to tolerate pain, never use force and avoid the use of drugs.

Despite religious and legal prohibitions to anal sex, many people, regardless of their sexual orientation, regard it as a legitimate form of sexual expression and as one of the fulfilling ways in which people can express their desire and affection for each other.

It is up to each couple to decide what is acceptable and enjoyable for them. If a couple’s attitudes or values make anal sex unacceptable, or if they do not enjoy it, they should feel no pressure to engage in it.

[/quote]

Oh come on…Kinsey? LOL he also said that 10% of the populaton was gay! That (like much of his “research”) was disproven.

2% to 3% are gay at best.

You should really read all about Kinsey sometime…He was so far off base …

Oh and since you are trying to defend this very dangerous act:

“At the lower end of the bowel, there are two distinct circular bands of muscles, sphincters, one is located about an 1 ?” above the other. These clamp down tight to prevent the passage of feces or gas.

The mucous membrane lining of the rectum is not as heavy as the lining of the vagina, so it can tear quite easily and it does not heal as quickly as the vagina. Because feces, loaded with bacteria, are passing by, any tear is vulnerable to infection.

The vigorous thrusting that may occur during anal intercourse can tear the mucous membrane. This can develop into an anal abscess that can become infected - more about that in a moment.

Also, if your partner has any of the sexually transmitted infections (STI’s), then you could get infected through the tear. So we are talking about gonorrhea (treatable); venereal warts (treatable if external, difficult if up in the rectum); syphilis (treatable); herpes (treatment, no cure); yeast infection (treatable); and HIV and AIDS (treatment but no cure.) You do not want any of these STI’s."

You see sticking your penis in someones rectum is not a good idea. The rectum is for evacuation. It’s not meant for intake.

You wouldn’t stick a gas hose in your exhaust pipe would you?

No of course not.

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I know it’s cool to say that stuff now. But you might want to reflect on what you were taught from the Bible.

I have about as much faith in the bible as I do in the quran, the book of mormon, or any other holy text written by men. Which is probably a good thing, because if I still believed in the bible, I would be duly concerned about wearing mixed fibers, eating pork, and ensuring those women don’t uncover their heads in church! ;)[/quote]

You see there is where you are confused.

What you refer to was primarily old testament custom and tradition based upon various health benefits to those times.

And of course prior to the arrival of Christ.

I already talked about a woman covering her head. Reread that section of a previous post.

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But, sorry to ultimately disappoint you I do not believe in gay marriage.
Please refer to a thread by the name: “Proof gay marriage is wrong” started by my friend harris.

Alas, I must disagree with your earlier statement then, to the effect that you have nothing against gays.

[/quote]

I don’t think that polygamists or those involved in incestuous relationships should be allowed matrimony either.

I don’t think marriage should change from one man and one woman to any other combination.

AND NOW THE LINE THAT PUT THE GAY MARRIAGE THREAD ON THE BOOKS

Why change a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% (gays who want to marry) of the population?

(You know I never thought I was going to type that line again…)

[quote]forlife wrote:
are unable to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of who they are.[/quote]

You mean reconcile their beliefs with sin…