Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

Do you really think nobody is paying attention?

Oh, spare us the huff and puff.

True enough that if one forces themselves to engage in unwanted sexual contact, it's not really rape, but I'm setting that nicety aside because of your advocacy that homosexuals should seek unpleasant sexual contact in order to satisfy their needs.

After all, you apparently did need a recap of the conversation.

Here, let's look at your latest defense of your position:

Well, let's see. When you were asked why a lesbian should be required to take a dick when it's just not her thing, you responded with masculine and feminine attributes of men and women.

Add in that, having missed the whole point about chorizo, you went on to talk about forcing yourself to like certain foods.

And then, when asked specifically, "Do you really think that gay men should be 'required' to have sex with women, despite what they do or do not want to do?" you responded by saying that your anatomy should be a non-issue.

Peppering your posts with the occasional statement that people should not be required to do anything is fine. But that contradicts the deeper implications of your broader philosophy. That is, when cornered on the specific issue, you say what sounds proper. But when the issue is more diffuse, the trend is actually fairly clear.

For instance, I could—and have—acknowledged the proposition that hetero- and homosexuals alike can choose celibacy, but apparently we both agree that this is unhealthy. I would suggest you learn a bit about the fundamentals of psychology; that way, when someone asks you why it isn't logical for a grown man to be celibate, you might be able to at least propose an answer.

(1) Celibacy is unhealthy. (Do you know why?)
(2) Homosexuality is bigotry.
(3) You can force yourself to like things.
(4) Whether or not someone likes vaginas should be a non-issue.
(5) But you don't think people should be forced to do anything.​

How magnanimous of you. And your vagina. It seems that you would argue that homosexuals, in order to be both healthy and open-minded, should engage in sexual intercourse they do not want.

And it's pretty clear what's going on. (Indeed, one need not much more than the fundamentals of psychology to figure it out.) To your credit, though, I will note that you managed to string people along for a while. But today you've made it pretty clear.

It's a nice, convenient package. After all, you love your lesbian friend very much despite treating her as a lower order of being. What's that? How so?

Well ....

(1) Celibacy is illogical.
(2) Penis + vagina = sex. That's it.
(3) Marriage and sex are the same thing.​

It's a convenient argument against gay marriage, I'll grant you that. Well, except that I already predicted it:

I get it: Vanilla is your favorite flavor when it comes to coupling. But you really need to get over this penis-vagina obsession. What it sounds like, honestly, is bitterness. We can't fire the faggots for being faggots. We can't deny them housing or basic civil rights. They're even getting married! Oh, hey, I know! It's really pointless for gays to get married since they can never consummate. I mean, they can't actually have sex, you know ....​

I mean, sure I can just go and cherry-pick if I want to build the case, but you're handing it to me.

Your subconscious seems to be somewhat in conflict. The slow return of the repressed becomes even more apparent. I've seen this with all sorts of bigotry over the years, and the only reasons your bigotry stands out so clearly are that it's right in front of me, and it's revealing itself at a remarkable rate. That latter might be predictable, though; you have the appearance of running ad hoc for about a week now.

Stop. Breathe. Think. There's what, three threads now? Go back and read through them. You're tacking up bright posters everywhere announcing your neurosis on this issue. And as an artistic review, I'd have to say the sublimation is pretty shallow.

In the EM&J thread, you ducked the most obvious implications of your formulation. In AtM, you clearly dodged. In this thread, I admit I'm a bit surprised: I didn't expect you to come out and wave those flags so blatantly. You're driving the nails for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it doesn't (except for the "getting into bed with someone" bit).

I suggest that it was possibly YOUR primary focus if you felt that, rather than theirs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh shit....

the political issue is over benefits (MONEY) (oh my, you funny)

i am gay for you thou

i submit; it aint natural

bottom line

flying pigs aint natural, nor is flying human beings; sure it occurs, still aint natural

dogs don't believe in god

the ideology of god being some separate entity is unnatural (man created)

so is suggesting that same sex is normal (man created belief)

i often look at the big picture instead of little thing

most everything i do or say is with our future (the children) in mind

if you don't know that yet, then you just getting started

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, having sex. i don't use birth control, i equate it with marriage, and it's not something i consider to be a casual way to pass the time or have some fun.

i suggest that sex is the primary driving focus of most human beings, unless their lives are in danger, then survival takes over. and as soon as their lives aren't in danger anymore, sex takes back over.

 

Regardless, sex is the only "part" of relationships that's out of the picture if you're celibate.

Yes and no. It may be the primary driver but it isn't visible as such ALL the time unless you yourself are obsessed with it.
How much of buying a newspaper, doing the washing, socialising with friends is ABOUT sex?

 

it should be a non-issue tiassa! penises, vagina, arms, legs, what the fuck is not to like? it's silly.

now, i will reiterate that i don't give a shit what people do, and i wouldn't advocate forcing anyone to do anything for any reason. but when my lesbian friend responds to any sexual reference to a man with disgust, i would like to know why. when the truth is, there is nothing inherently disgusting about men, just like there's nothing inherently disgusting about women. imo, the only thing inherently disgusting about humans is their sin, and we're all in the same boat.

no tiassa, i'm saying what i actually think. i'm sorry it doesn't jive with your armchair psychology. the point that you seem to be missing is that i'm talking about what's going on in people's heads and perceptions that drive behavior, and you're reducing it down to behavior alone.

for purposes of what, intellectual masturbation? i gave him an answer. the answer is out there. i see no need to regurgitate it just to fill up space on a forum.

i just know that it is. i didn't memorize the reasons so i could later impress someone with my useless knowledge base.

so is heterosexuality.

no, i said that i forced myself to try something and became acclimated to it.

yeah. what's not to like or dislike? it's a fucking body part for christ sake.

exactly. that takes all the fun out of it.

nope. i doubt that it would be healthy if they didn't want it. i would imagine that would be fairly stressful. what i'm suggesting is that their perception regarding the opposite sex (and heterosexuals regarding the same sex) is not healthy or open-minded.

i do not consider nor do i treat my lesbian friend to be a lower order of being. that's ridiculous. everybody has hangups tiassa, even you and me, i'm simply suggesting that sexual orientation is one of the many.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again, not that you're listening...i think marriage is great, i don't care if you're gay or straight. i know plenty of gay couples (my lesbian friend included) that have healthier marriages than i did, and that many heterosexual couples do.

first of all, why in the hell are you so interested in driving nails? secondly, bigotry is what i'm questioning here. and thirdly, questioning is not neurotic. i just happened to question the oh so taboo basis of sexual orientation.

 

Jesus is supposed to have lived a life free from sin. A perfect life. Practicing homosexuality is a sin. So clearly, whatever his inclinations, Jesus was not a practicing homosexual. Furthermore, Jesus said

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart."​

No mention of looking at a man lustfully. One would think that if he himself were homosexual he would have made some mention of lust of that sort as well.

Finally, for the avatar of God to be homosexual makes about as much sense as him being a dwarf. I'd expect the son of God would be the model of human perfection. Not bald, or fat, or myopic, or gay.

 

it's a huge part. when sex is a consideration to be made, you see and treat people very differently, as they do you.

it's systemic.

 

So you can't have a relationship without sex?

That's YOUR perception.

 

of course you can. what i'm saying though, is when you remove the consideration of sex from your life altogether, it makes a big difference.

how much of your adult like have you spent intentionally celibate vs sexually active? yes, it's my perception.

 

Nah.

More than twice as long as you claim to have done.

Yup, so it's YOU that was obsessed with sex, not them.

 

i don't think you're paying attention.

 

On the contrary, since as I noted above that my experience is greater than yours in this are (and I certainly didn't have that "problem", i.e. seeing everything as sex-related) then I suggest, once again, that it was simply YOUR obsession.
It was a non-issue for me.
Simple really.

 

Keep telling us one thing while doing another

What's not to like? The appearance, the smell, the feel. As I said, once upon a time:

Everybody has their reasons for liking something or not. Some of those reasons will actually make sense.​

If you are unable to empathize with other people, that is your own problem best kept to yourself.

Okay, note the highlighted words. There are two primary issues here:

(1) When your lesbian friend responds with disgust to any sexual reference it has to do with having sex with men.

(2) This is a far different question than whether or not there is something inherently disgusting about men (or women).​

The leap from sex appeal to judgments of individual worth is entirely your own, a pure invention. Doubtless, you'll find plenty of people who, for one reason or another, make the same leap. But at their core, those outcomes have specific etiologies removed from the basic question of sexual orientation.

Yes. We're aware that you think denigrating homosexuals is all right and proper. That's what certain people in this discussion are questioning.

Psychology helps explain a phenomenon, but is not a prerequisite to observing it.

So set the psychology aside for a moment.

On the one hand, we have:

• People should not be forced to do things.
• You love your lesbian friend very much and don't treat her poorly.​

To the other, we have:

• Denigration of gay sex lives.
• The proposition that what someone is comfortable with should be a non-issue in sexual consent.
• Dodging direct and simple questions about rape.
• Forcing yourself to like certain foods.
• Exclusivity of sex and marriage to heterosexuals.
• Homosexuality is just "a mindset ... a perception".​

One need not be a psychologist to perceive the conflict.

No, m'lady. Say it all you want, but your foundation is clearly erroneous, and thus the error manifests itself in each iteration of the outcome.

Well, you might wish to establish that you have a clue what you're talking about.

You might wish to demonstrate that you're not just posting lazy regurgitations of bigotry.

You might—might—actually wish to learn a thing or two about the subjects upon which you opine.

Can the hostility, Lori. You want to run away from your own posts, that's fine. But for heaven's sakes, at least be honest about it.

I think that compared to racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, the denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or even international soccer hooliganism, the fact of hetero- and homosexuals is so far down the list it's not even on the list.

Quit lying.

"so i started forcing myself to eat them, like on pizza and as an ingredient in cooked foods to acclimate myself to the taste. then on salads. now i can eat them raw and by themselves and i love em." (#2411097/83, boldface accent added)​

Let's compare:

• "... and i love em."

• "... became acclimated to it."​

And before you make the obvious point, yes, I see the word "acclimate" in the former version. I also see the phrase, "and I love 'em". The implication, of course, that if one forces oneself to do what one does not want to do, they can become acclimated to it, and eventually love it.

So quit lying. If you're not willing to stand behind your words, why should anyone else take you seriously?

The appearance, the smell, the feel. As I said, once upon a time:

Everybody has their reasons for liking something or not. Some of those reasons will actually make sense.​

Fine. So what is your problem with homosexuals that you feel the need to denigrate them as you have, and insist on continuing to do?

See, here's where your argument spirals in on itself. Taken individually, any given statement you've put up on this subject is entirely its own. But humans don't live in that kind of vacuum.

What you've done here is closed off two parts of your argument, and what will help you communicate your point is if you reconcile them. Celibacy is unhealthy, but gay sex is bad and stupid and bigoted. The result, then, is that if gays don't wish to suffer neurosis, they have to be bad and stupid and bigoted. If, on the other hand, they don't want to be bad and stupid and bigoted, they have to be neurotic.

This is a basic conflict that you have constructed. And running from one while pushing the other without ever reconciling the fundamental conflicts between their implications is simply not going to help you communicate anything save your own neuroses.

Your explicit declaration vs. your longer-term conduct. Hmmm ....

And what solution do you propose?

Myself, I would propose that you get over the fact that some people simply don't find your pussy attractive because they are more comfortable and attracted to other kinds of sexual anatomy.

I hear what you say. I just think it rings false. You think marriage is great? You don't care if they're gay or straight? Wonderful. Now, what about those standards that make gay marriage impossible? You know:

• penis + vagina = sex. that's it.
• Marriage and sex are the same thing.​

There is no such thing as gay marriage according to that construction; gays don't have sex.

So I'm sorry if I don't find your explicit declarations of nobility honest, but compared to everything else they just don't measure up.

I have resisted the temptation to make the point that the gay marriages I have known have a better success rate than the heterosexual unions I've known. Three major factors complicate such a claim: small sample size, short sample duration, and disparate circumstances describing both forms of union.

First of all, I would very much like to see as much bigotry eliminated from society as possible. Secondly, bigotry is what you're promoting. Thirdly, no, questioning is not in and of itself neurotic; your construction of issues, however, very much appears to be.

And as to the oh-so-taboo basis of sexual orientation, stuff the melodrama. The taboo of sexual orientation comes from the homophobes. The "taboo" in this discussion is found in your clearly uneducated presuppositions about the nature of homosexuality.

In other words, it's not sexual orientation that's problematic in this discussion, but rather your bigotry.

Let's start with something basic: Explain, please, the leap from evaluating the appeal of one's sex organs to judging the whole worth of a person.

 

It's irrelevant. There is no support from the canonical Gospels or any third-person source, like Josephus and Tacitus, to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala were married or had children. There's no evidence for it.

 

it says in one of the gospels, maybe of thomas (?) that he kissed her on the mouth a lot. and she was with his mom when he rose from the tomb. that screams daughter in law to me.

 

exactly. And none for homosexuality either, right?

 

Yeah. I don't see Hay-zoos being a gay man. . . and living long, for that matter. (being closet case is another matter, one left only to wild speculation)

~String

 

Okay Lori, I did a little googling and found that genetics influence homosexuality.

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.
One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did.

 

and some of them don't.

i have no problem empathizing. i told you already that i spent the better part of my life identifying myself as a heterosexual.

well gee tiassa, if there's nothing disgusting about them, and there's nothing disgusting about sex, then why would it be disgusting to have sex with them?

well obviously some people are worth having sex with and some aren't, and in regards to orientation, that worth is decided by their gender.

oh stop with the dramatics won't you? if i'm denigrating anyone, then i'm denigrating the vast majority of people in the world and on this forum. i'm not playing favorites like you are. i'm not singling out homosexuals. i'm saying that sexual orientation itself doesn't make sense to me.

why do you keep focusing on homosexuals vs heterosexuals? because i'm not making that distinction.

i'm not lying. why are you overreacting and assigning conclusions and intent to my words when it's not there. i chose to do that to myself for a reason of my own. i in no way suggested that anyone else do what i did. the point was, AGAIN, that taste is not inherent.

and like i said, some of them don't.

you're the one who insists on singling out homosexuals, not me.

no tiassa, i am not singling out gay sex as bigoted. i am saying that sexual orientation is bigoted.

people are comfortable and attracted to all kinds of things. and that comfort and attraction or repulsion, whichever it might be, doesn't have to have anything to do with logic or truth.

not many people define marriage the way i do, so how is that relevant? people don't have to define marriage the way i do...that's for me.

sexual orientation is based in bigotry. and homophobes?! oh please! it's not the homophobes that are jumping down my throat now is it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!