Pro-gay letter fell flat

  • Follow Letters

The letter “Gays merely want rights” by John Cashin (Feb. 22) was the lamest attempt to be cool and progressive that I have ever seen.

When did unnatural sex become a civil right? Funk & Wagnalls defines unnatural as “contrary to the laws of nature.” Homosexuality rarely occurs in the natural world because snakes know better, monkeys know better, and birds, fish, lizards and even insects know better.

Mr. Cashin states that gays have no agenda. That is the second-most preposterous statement in his letter. His most ridiculous statement is that no laws have been broken. A Georgia law criminalizes sodomy. Sheriffs’ deputies have a legal obligation to arrest any person they witness engaged in any act of sodomy.

He asks why we don’t write letters protesting rape, murder or incest. The answer? We don’t have to. Society has the good sense to arrest and jail those people.

He says “They just want their rights.” I guess he means civil rights, which are described by Funk & Wagnalls as private and nonpolitical. Do us all a favor and keep your sexual preferences private and nonpolitical.

By one reliable estimate, more than 97 percent of U.S. citizens are heterosexual. Why do we have to cater to the 3 percent? After years of research and billions of dollars spent, geneticists are unable to find a gene that causes people to be homosexual. Until we know that a person can be genetically predisposed to be homosexual, it remains a matter of choice.

Today’s gay rights movement may be the first time in history that such a small group of people have been so vocal, so adamant and so public to promote a sexual activity. The 97 percent have much more important things to attend to, such as God, family, jobs, food, clothes and shelter.

Comments (195) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/27/13 - 02:22 pm
3
1
duffstuff....I've asked MANY
Unpublished

duffstuff....I've asked MANY times why the government feels that they should be involved in ANY marriage.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 02/27/13 - 02:47 pm
2
1
I agree

I agree humble agenda, marriage should be about a personal commitment between two people. That's it!! If I had my choice I'd say neither gay nor strait marriage should be recognized by the government but only recognized between the two parties engaged in the union. If this were the case gay marriage would be an irrelevant topic amongst politics.

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/27/13 - 03:07 pm
1
1
"Since you apparently stand

"Since you apparently stand by this statement, I suppose you think the church is quite the flip-flopper for reversing its statements on slavery and race-based civil rights? Perhaps you think the church never should have reversed its stance on women being allowed to vote, and are happy that women are not allowed to preach?"

On the contrary Walter, I just think there are a lot of misguided young Christians who do not study the Word of God deeply enough to understand what His Word actually says therefore "the church" has been misguided on some things. Just for clarification, I believe and have always believed that slavery was wrong. As for women preachers, I believe the Word doesn't disqualify women being teachers of women but the man is suppose to be the head and Godly leaders in the church. If a woman feels called by God to be a Pastor, it is not my place to judge whether she is wrong or right. I have my opinion but her decision is between her and God. As for homosexual behavior or any sexually immoral conduct I believe God has been pretty self explanatory that it is a sin and against His will. No way to misinterpret 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; " or 1 Corinthians 6:18 is pretty clear "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

Since God ordained what marriage should be in Genesis (although some will argue this isn't what scripture means) and because throughout scripture when a union is mentioned it is always a husband (male) and his wife (female) and because scripture clearly states that sex outside the bonds of marriage is a sin, it is only natural to conclude that homosexual sin which is outside the definition of marriage and sex outsdie the bond of marriage, is also a sin and sexually immoral which is against the will of God.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/27/13 - 04:06 pm
1
2
I can find scripture to

I can find scripture to support a great many things, in both the old and new testaments. I cannot find any statement directly related to the actions of Jesus that says anything about homosexuality. 1 Thessalonians is thought to be penned by Paul of Tarsus. He was converted to Christianity after hearing unseen voices on the road to Damascus, and was temporally blinded thereafter. There are medical diagnoses for hearing voices and temporary blindness, but any way you look at it, those are at best the words of Paul and not of Jesus. Like you and me, Paul was a fallible sinner. Worse, Paul did his best to deliver appropriate Christian doctrine in the first century AD, not the 21st. And, worse yet, Paul had no direct interaction with Jesus before the crucifixion while Jesus was preaching, and thus had no direct instruction on the gospel.

Appropriate Christian doctrine changes with the world. It is no longer relevant to avoid clothes woven with both linen and wool. It is not blasphemous to say the earth revolves around the sun. It is sinful to enslave other humans. But all of these activities were held in opposite viewpoint at different times in history by Christians of different cultures. We, also, have a different culture, and a different degree of scientific knowledge, and it behooves us to be guided by the teachings of Christ, our scientific knowledge, and our moral intuition as to what is sinful.

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/27/13 - 04:17 pm
1
1
Well after reading the first

Well after reading the first couple of sentences I determined you don't really care to have a valid conversation. It appears you rather poke fun (Paul didn't have a medical condition from hearing voices, he heard the voice of God) and he may not have had any direct physical interaction with Jesus but he sure had direct spiritual interaction with His Father.

I believe Willow Baily made a valued statement the other day. There is no way a believe and a non-believer can have a productive discussion. Since you do not view God's Word as Truth and since you do not believe scripture which says the Word is inspired by God, then there is really no need for further discussion.

carcraft
25082
Points
carcraft 02/27/13 - 04:24 pm
2
1
The first chapter of the book

The first chapter of the book of Romans is a good condemnation of homosexuality. In the books of Acts gentiles that become Christians are commanded to avoid food offered to idols and sexual immorality. See Acts 15:29. Now I wonder what they were talking about when they mentioned sexual immorality? Homosexuals were stoned during Jesus time so it is not strange that Jesus did not mention homosexuality since they were either very deep in the closet or dead.

myfather15
53349
Points
myfather15 02/27/13 - 04:31 pm
0
1
@Walter

There is a huge difference in someone committing a sin (As we all do) and someone intentionally and willfully continuing to LIVE in that sin, every day, without repentence. We all do wrongful things, as I have as well; but when I know I've done wrong, I repent, ask for forgiveness and HONESTLY make EVERY effort not to do it again.

Forgiveness actually, isn't just given; it requires repentence and ASKING for that forgiveness. It also requires a change of heart. For example; if a person is a thief, but asks or forgiveness, knowing in their heart they will do it again, the next chance they get, is that true repentence, deserving of forgiveness? Remember, you may con MEN and the "Church" but you CAN NOT con God.

Also, through your posts, you've done nothing but reaffirm exactly what I've said many times; DO NOT place your trust in the CHURCHES, place your trust in God. I don't believe our money says "In Church we trust" and we don't pledge allegiance "One nation under Church".

For the perfect example, Churches like the Episcopal which actually marry gays, in contradiction to God's word. I wouldn't even refer to that as a Church.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/27/13 - 05:25 pm
1
3
InChristLove, you assume that

InChristLove, you assume that a collection of books, all written by men, not Christ or God, filtered through a multiple collections of men over two thousand years is the infallible word of God. It contains multiple contradictions with both itself and common sense, and is outdated by two millenia. You last cited the word of Paul of Tarsus, a man who never saw or heard Jesus preaching, as the authority on what Jesus intended. The Bible is a guide, it is not the infallible word of God. The proof of this is the dramatically varied interpretation by different churches. In the Southern Baptist Church, a wife must be a submissive servant of her husband, but in the Episcopalian Church, they can be equals. Generally, the feminist movement coincided with the transition of our culture from a labor based culture to an intellectually based culture (industrial revolution). Women are the intellectual equals of men, but they are not the equals of men in hard labor. It seems appropriate for women to assume a much more equal role with men in today's world, even if it was perfectly appropriate for wives to be submissive servants 2000 years ago. Refusal to update the application of the word of God to the current day and age is planned obsolescence.

Similarly, 2000 years ago pagan religions in the Middle East practiced cult sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, and anything constituting a long, loving, homosexual relationship is not well described. It is certain that references to "men lying with men" in the bible are at least intentional in referring to these groups. I know many gays who are living as lovingly and happily as any heterosexual married couple, which was not a culturally accepted norm 2000 years ago, but is unproblematic today in the dealings of people with each other on a day to day basis.

It is impossible to apply literal translations of 2000 year old doctrine to our day and age. We need to analyze the day and age in which it was most appropriate, and use its teachings as our guide to be relevant in the current day and age. Otherwise we may end up preaching that God believes negros should be enslaved to Caucasians (as Southern Baptists did 170 years ago) or that separation of races was a desirable goal (as Southern Baptists did 50 years ago) or that wives should attain no loftier goals in life than being the silent, submissive servants of their husbands (as Southern Baptists do today). In all three of these cases the Southern Baptists were, or are, flat-out wrong.

The case for gay marriage will rapidly follow suit, if its current momentum is any indication, and once again the Southern Baptist Convention will be viewed as the discriminatory bigoted organization it has been since its origins.

carcraft
25082
Points
carcraft 02/27/13 - 05:46 pm
2
1
WalterBradfordCannon- Let’s

WalterBradfordCannon- Let’s see about applying the teachings of Scripture from thousands of years ago to today. King David was walking on the roof of his palace and saw Bathsheba bathing. President Bill Clinton saw Monica Lewinski's skirt lift up Ah yes the Bible is completely irrelevant today..Lust adultery, lying, trying to hide our sins, nah, couldn't possibly apply today could it?

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/27/13 - 06:06 pm
1
2
I did not state the Bible was

I did not state the Bible was irrelevant. I did state that it was a guide, and that by studying its text and the culture in which it was written, one could use it as a guide for use today. I do feel that selective literal use of some subtexts of the Bible in today's world is fraught with potential difficulty. I feel that is the type of error made by the Southern Baptist church when it defended slavery 170 years ago, and when it opposed women's suffrage 90 years ago, and when it opposed repealing Jim Crow laws 50 years ago, and when it supports submissive silent servant wives and denial of civil rights to gay people today.

carcraft
25082
Points
carcraft 02/27/13 - 06:22 pm
1
1
WalterBradfordCannon- It was

WalterBradfordCannon- It was Christians and because of Christian sentiment that Slavery was abolished in Western society, so pick on one sect...taring with a rather broad brush aren't we? Didn't Wilberforce and John Newton (author of Amazing Grace)have a hand in ending Slavery BECAUSE of their Christian belief? Didn't Dedrick Bonhoffer die a martyrs death because his Christian principles brought him to confront the evil of Hitler to his very end? Wasn't Marin Luther King a Christian and didn't Christian freedom riders die because they felt their faith called them to confront the evil of segragation? If you are going to condemn southern Baptists on their failings as Christians then you also need to recognize those who dedicated and in many cases gave their lives to promote equality and justice because of their Christian beliefs!

carcraft
25082
Points
carcraft 02/27/13 - 06:27 pm
2
1
WalterBradfordCannon, where

WalterBradfordCannon, where do you get the idea that Christian wives are silent submissive wives, was it the scripture Wives obey your husbands? Well lets finish that and continue because it also follows, "husbands love your wife as Christ loved the Church, LAYING DOWN YOUR LIFE FOR HER" hummm pretty tough calling for a bigoted husband of a submisssive wife huh?

carcraft
25082
Points
carcraft 02/27/13 - 06:38 pm
2
1
Now exactly what right are

Now exactly what right are Christians denying gay people? Because our religion defines marriage as between a man and a women and we want to keep it that way we are bigots? Because we understand, in our world view that marriage is for the rearing of children and that the foundation of society in western culture is marriage are we wrong to defend that? Look what has happened to families since government has become the provider. We have had an increase in poverty, increase in father less families that has lead to an increase in crime and low achievement to children in fatherless famlies etc, etc, etc. So we simple don't want further destruction of the institutions and structure that make society work. you read what the judges view from the bench was, "Superior Court Judge Danny Craig offers an even more ominous metaphor: that intact, highly functional, law-abiding, get-the-kids-to-school-and-soccer-practice families are on a melting glacier." Once marriage is redined in society the jennie will not go back into the bottle and we are done!

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/27/13 - 07:00 pm
1
1
"you assume that a collection

"you assume that a collection of books, all written by men, not Christ or God, filtered through a multiple collections of men over two thousand years is the infallible word of God"

"How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies."

"With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% (5) of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad). Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. "

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

So tell us again how inaccurrate the Word of God is. Just because different churches and donominations interpret scripture differently does not mean the text itself is invalid. And if you believe that God's Word states negros should be enslaved then you really do not understand God's Word and scriptures relating to slaves.

This scripture says it all "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)."

You don't believe it that is up to you but just because you don't believe it doesn't mean you are right. As I've said many times unless you have the Holy Spirit indwelling in your spirit can not begin to understand the Word of God. “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13).

dahreese
4703
Points
dahreese 02/27/13 - 09:39 pm
1
1
"No dahreese, you are
Unpublished

"No dahreese, you are correct....guess that would make them bisexual, so I guess technically, someone who claims to be straight and has a homosexual affair would also be considered bisexual."

No. You still don't have it.

A 'straight' is sexually attracted to a "straight."

A "homosexual is sexually attracted to a 'homosexual."

If either one has a sexual experience outside of his/her natural sexual orientation, that does not automatically "change" their orientation.

You and I have the ability to have a sexual event outside of our natural orientation, but when that is over with, our orientation has not changed. We are still who we are.

A bi-sexual has the orientation to have sex with a male or a female. And no matter which one they have sex with, when it is over with they are still bi-sexual.

(And for those of you who are thumping the "bible says" about this, need to keep in mind that the "Bible" did not exist until the fourth century, and that the first half of it is Jewish, not Christian.

Jesus quoted from the old testament, but he did not have the new testament to use for backing up his viewpoints as some of you keep trying to do.

A 'bi-sexual'

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/27/13 - 10:16 pm
1
1
dahreese, the Bible per se

dahreese, the Bible per se may not have existed until the 4th century but the Word of God has existed since before time. In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Doesn't matter if the first half was Jewish and the second half was Christian, it is still the Word of God. Jesus quoted from the Old Testament but He is the New Testament. And for those of us who are children of God understand that the Word of God written in the book called the Bible is the inspired written Word of God given to men of God to record for His people.

As for orientation....if orientation is determine by what gender they are attracted to, then I would reason if a person who says they are straight and is attacted to a person of the opposite sex has a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex (whom I would assume they are attacked to, why else have sex with them), then that would mean they are attacked to both sexual genders making them bi-sexual. Same for a homosexual who is attacked to someone of the same gender. If they have a sexual encounter with someone of the opposite sex (whom I am also assuming they are attacked to, why else have sex) then that would mean they are attacked to both sexual genders, making them bi-sexual.

I seriously would like for you to explain "You and I have the ability to have a sexual event outside of our natural orientation," ..... maybe you can but I'm all female and seriously all into men....women do not float my boat one bit and I could not have a "sexual event" with one.

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/27/13 - 10:21 pm
1
1
By the way dahreese, the

By the way dahreese, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God"(Exodus 31:18) were actually the earliest writings in the Bible and were set down around 1400 BC. So techically the written Word of God began long before the 4th century.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/28/13 - 06:57 am
2
1
InChristLove, you can also

InChristLove, you can also take a scientific approach. The best evidence indicates that no one who met Christ prior to his crucifixion ever penned a book in the bible. The gospels were all penned 100+ years after his ascendance. Acts and 1 Thessalonians were penned by Paul of Tarsus, who met Jesus only after crucifixion, and only in voice, and without observation of his teachings. So with what confidence are we to ascribe them as the words of God? They are not. They are the words of men who are doing their level best to convey the teachings of Jesus that were tailored to the culture of 2000 years ago.

The Old Testament is no different. Leviticus was penned by generations of Judaistic priests, none of whom were prophets or spoke to God. Deuteronomy has a similar history. The point here is not to blaspheme the word of God. The point is that you should not take the bible as the literal word of God. It is a guide to God, and to Jesus, that was written by religious men who were trying their best to apply the word of God to the day and age in which they lived.

We should do the same.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/28/13 - 07:00 am
1
1
"WalterBradfordCannon, where

"WalterBradfordCannon, where do you get the idea that Christian wives are silent submissive wives, was it the scripture Wives obey your husbands?"

No less a man than Jimmy Carter denounced and left the Southern Baptist church after they made statements that wives are to be submissive servants to their husbands, and are forbidden from preaching in church. Silent, and submissive. The Southern Baptist church defends this stance using literal interpretations of the Bible.

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/28/13 - 07:07 am
1
1
Well Walter, I guess that's

Well Walter, I guess that's just your opinion and you are entitled to have it......not all have the same.

"It is a guide to God, and to Jesus," Sorry Walter, My God does not need a guide. The confindence I ascribe that the Bible is the Word of God is because scripture tells us it is and through my faith in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Enough said......

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/28/13 - 07:39 am
1
1
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/fa

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#9

What Jimmy Carter's reasons were that he left the SB faith is his but according to the fact sheet on the Southern Baptist they only restrict women from being ordained ministers but if scripture is studied more than just the surface we learn that women can be leaders/teachers over women, children, they can worship in song and praise, so just maybe upon the surface is appears scripture is saying women should be silent but dig deeper in other parts of scripture, examine the culture and understand the context by which Paul is speaking to the church at Corinth. Like I said, dig deeper.

9. Can women be pastors or deacons in the SBC?

Southern Baptists have long valued the priceless contribution of women as they have ministered to advance God's Kingdom. The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) affirms the vital role of women serving in the church. Yet it recognizes the biblical restriction concerning the office of pastor, saying: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." The passages that restrict the office of pastor to men do not negate the essential equality of men and women before God, but rather focus on the assignment of roles.

The Southern Baptist Convention also passed a resolution in the early 1980s recognizing that offices requiring ordination are restricted to men. However the BF&M and resolutions are not binding upon local churches. Each church is responsible to prayerfully search the Scriptures and establish its own policy.

The Southern Baptist Convention has not addressed the issue of all the available avenues through which a woman may serve, only the biblical restrictions concerning pastoral ministry and ministry requiring ordination. The potential opportunities for women to serve in vocational ministry within the SBC are indeed vast.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/28/13 - 08:34 am
2
1
"The confindence I ascribe

"The confindence I ascribe that the Bible is the Word of God is because scripture tells us it is and through my faith in the Lord."

In debate class that is called circular reasoning, and it is a well described logical fallacy.

myfather15
53349
Points
myfather15 02/28/13 - 09:36 am
2
1
@Walter

What about "Negros" owning "Negros", or American Indians owning "Negros"??? It is FACT that blacks owned slaves, American Indians owned slaves. Want to address this, or just keep bashing those evil white men?

And again, your bashing of the "Church" doesn't impress me in the slightest. THE CHURCH IS NOT GOD. Churche's are ran by MEN and we see exactly how MEN run things, look at our government. "Churches" are probably 2nd on the list of the most corrupt organizations in America, right behind the federal government. They've got further and further from TEACHING GOD'S WORD. Most just concern themselves with activities that bring in more congregation, hence more tithes.

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/28/13 - 10:02 am
0
1
Myfather, please be careful

Myfather, please be careful with painting "the church" with a wide brush. There are many congregations that still teach the Word of God and follow those teachings and are not so concerned with how much money is brought in. There is nothing wrong with activities if they bring the people into the fellowship with Christian believers. How else are we to reach them for the glory of God. Did not the disciples go out and bring the people into the fellowship? How soon we forget that the "church" is God's people and although none of us are perfect and we have a few who have been led astray, I find it harmful to say they are the second on the list of most corrupt organizations. The church is the body of Christ and to say it is corrupt appears to be saying Christ is corrupt.

There are congregations who are being led by false prophets, those who are not following the correct teachings of Christ....my question is, are they truly the church or just another religious group?

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 02/28/13 - 10:09 am
0
2
Walter, I see no circular

Walter, I see no circular reasoning at all. You asked how I could be confident and my confidence comes from the knowledge that Christ is alive, He is my Lord and Savior, His Word is Truth because I see it's workings every day, I see His direction in my life and through my families life. Just because you do not share the same reasoning does not mean my reasonings are no valid. You can call it circular if it makes you feel better, I call it Redemption. I'm truly sorry you do not share the same.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 02/28/13 - 10:51 am
2
0
The first response hit the

The first response hit the nail on the head. The only reason not to allow homosexual marriage is bigotry. That bigotry is wrapped up in a hard shell of religion but it is still at its core bigotry.
Two men getting married has zero effect on my marriage or your marriage.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/28/13 - 11:19 am
1
0
@myfather, thank you for so

@myfather, thank you for so eloquently making my point for me.

"And again, your bashing of the "Church" doesn't impress me in the slightest. THE CHURCH IS NOT GOD. Churche's [sic] are ran[sic] by MEN and we see exactly how MEN run things,..."

And further, my point on the Southern Baptist Convention opposing the ending of slavery was not intended to insinuate they believe that today - in fact the SBC has actively denounced its previous stances on slavery, and on Jim Crow laws. The point of that discussion was that the Southern Baptist Convention has taken stances that at the time appeared to be perfectly appropriate literal readings of the Bible, and are today held in high contempt. Their stances on women and homosexuals will be subjected to the same scrutiny in the future.

And the point of that discussion was that things that YOU believe to be literal applications of the Bible today can be held to be contemptous blasphemy in the future. Did God really create women to be as intelligent as men and intend for wives to be only submissive servants of men? Did God really create biologically determined homosexuals with all the capabilities of contributing to making a more God-like earth (outside of sexual orientation), and intend for those who were made, by God, with a different sexual orientation to hold them as inferior in rights? That doesn't sound like anything taught in Sunday school at any church's denomination.

OJP
6215
Points
OJP 02/28/13 - 11:19 am
2
0
@ICL

No, having sex with someone of the same sex does not make you a homosexual. Being attracted to, mentally, emotionally, and physically is what makes someone a homosexual.

Everything's not about sex.

dahreese
4703
Points
dahreese 02/28/13 - 11:24 am
2
1
"I seriously would like for
Unpublished

"I seriously would like for you to explain "You and I have the ability to have a sexual event outside of our natural orientation," ..... maybe you can but I'm all female and seriously all into men....women do not float my boat one bit and I could not have a "sexual event" with one."

(Men do not float my boat, either).

Ok, I'll 'explain.'

A mule is the result of mating a female horse with a male donkey.

But when that mating is over, the female horse is still a female horse and the male donkey is still a male donkey.

A person's natural sexuality, whether 'straight' or 'homosexual' is not changed because of sexual relations outside of that/their natural sexuality.

And if you want to argue the point that it is, then you have to explain why you haven't been changed into a male and your male partner changed into a female once you have had relations. Or the same for me.

And a further word about this; "A person's natural sexuality is not changed because of sexual relations outside of that/their natural sexuality."

Rape does occur between homosexual males and straight males, and a homosexual females and straight females. (And it's not necessarily the homosexual doing the rape, either).

But when that's over with, the natural sexuality of the raped male, or the natural sexuality of the raped female has not changed.

They are still who and what they were, and are, before the rape occured.

dahreese
4703
Points
dahreese 02/28/13 - 11:29 am
1
0
@OJP
Unpublished

Hard to get these folks to consider anything but the physical part.

The emotional and mental part just doesn't fit into their equation of homosexuality any more than it fits into their personal sexuality.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Do Georgia colleges need so many sports?

ATLANTA -- The Board of Regents auditing staff is looking at athletic programs at the 30 Georgia schools that offer intercollegiate sports.
Search Augusta jobs