If someone is inclined to be a heterosexual, are they one in fact?
If you accept your delusion that people are born as homosexals then I guess this would be difficult to answer. Luckily your baseless assertions are a crock and people are created hetrosexual so I can answer this with a "Yes" even if it doesn't exactly fit with the series of questions I asked. You might as well have asked, "If a person is inclined to be human is he one in fact?"
And again, I notice, you seem singularly incapable of answering even one of the series of questions I give....
If a young teenager starts feeling the pull of their hormones, but has decided to remain chaste until marriage, are they in fact neuter until they consummate their heterosexuality?
Clearly not. All you are pointing out is that people are capable of controlling that which requires controlling.
Is a priest who decides to remain celibate for all of his life and deny his urges towards the fair sex not a heterosexual in your opinion?
You answered your own question. Congratulations.
If you think that they are you are flying in the face of the actual definition of the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual".
In your mind only.
Sexual orientation is not a crime that is commited, an occupation, or a language. It is a classification. You can't change the meaning of commonplace words to suit your religious and political agenda. :nono:
How are people classified as homosexual, PB? And given the lack of any means for classification which do you think would be the status quo?
Why- because YOU find it hard to believe? That's tough, but not all gay people have gay sex, and yet they still consider themselves to be homosexuals... :think: Maybe you should get the word out and explain how everyone has been misusing "your" words, eh?
I find it hard to believe that a man who has no sexual history could call himself a homosexual. What would he base that classification on? If he were basing it upon his feelings then I would be surprised if he were to then go on to act in contradiction to those feelings. I know it has happened and other things come into play, but the point is that, in every case, a homosexual act is the only thing that can be used to delineate a person as being homosexual. That you are prepared to accept a person's word on the matter in spite of the facts just reveals your ignorance and gullibility.
I was invoking His name in hopes that He would grant me the paitence to endure your willful ignorance.
I see. So you have no patience.
Which is not the way the word is defined.
I tell you what, PB. You find us a guy who calls himself homosexual who has never had a homosexual encounter and you might have a point ... for that one instance...
As it stands I might well be out of line with the popular or even dictionary definition of the word, but then words are malleable things. Perhaps one day "homosexual" will refer to a perversion from the norm again.
Because your acussations have nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with the breakdown in personal identity that accompanies extreme pyschosis. Like I said, it's like trying to stigmatize heterosexuals because most rapists are straight. It doesn't work because the pathology that leads to someone wanting to force sex on others is not so much a normal sexual desire but an extension of other problems. Same with people who kill and mutilate multiple victims, they no more represent homosexuals than any other crazy person represents the normal majority of our population.
I don't think you've quite understood the problem, PB. Your problem is not that homosexuality is being stygmatised by association with serial killers. Your problem is that homosexuality is stigmatised and the abundance of evil that sprouts from them is a big, "I told you so" from God. I understand that Bob feels comfortable expressing that sentiment from God. Hence the radio show and thread.
This can be easily seen in that it is not only you that defers from defending white males as being over-represented in the sample of serial killers. People automatically defer from that defence because nobody in their right mind believes that being a white male is a perversion. If that factor can then be eliminated then it must be something else that causes men to act at the extremes of violent behaviour. If it is not homosexuality that might be largely responsible then, what, do you believe mass murderers are born such and have a natural inclination?
Because no one is suggesting that being white in some way CAUSES them to be serial killers; and when someone is listed as white there isn't some ulterior motivation to "adjust" their race to fit with one's bigoted notions.
:BRAVO:
If someone were saying, "well- he's not really caucasion, but he can't dance- I guess that's pretty white. List him as white," you can be sure I'd object.
So you think that listing people as homosexuals because they engage in homosexual relationships is wrong. You believe this because you think homosexuals are defined by their DNA rather than the choices they make. Yet you can find no other act based group (truck drivers, murderers or Chinese speakers) that also fall into this category of being defined by DNA.
PB, even if you are right (
you're not, but let's just pretend for a second) the only means by which it would be appropriate to conduct a statistical study on the link between homosexuality and mass murder would be to define homosexuality through the sexual history of the perp.